Do they mean the Project 2025 that I heard about in a main story in a Last Week Tonight episode?
The headline is a little misleading. The actual article is talking about why, given that Project 2025 is the culmination of 40 years of far-right thought, the media has only begun sounding the alarm bells since the publication of the book, and why the focus is on the most sensational aspects instead of on explaining the pernicious, foundational, fascist ideas it’s built upon.
Seriously. I’ve been hearing early warning alrms about Project 2025 from media articles for at leat 6+ months now. Same with the election poll rigging shit that I’ve been seeing “MSM isn’t telling you about this MAGA poll rigging!”
Maybe it’s because I pay attention? Nah, that can’t be it, I have ADHD.
In reality, it’s because there’s a ton of shit going on and in various stages of completion. Shit that’s dire/urgent today gets fed to the top of reporting with the stuff that sucks but doesn’t have impact now gets depruotized for later.
Generally speaking , I don’t think of npr when people complain about mainstream media.
Also, a couple reports aren’t enough of a warning for the general population. The media does not do a good job of covering problems with the right-wing.
“The Big Lie” is one of the few examples of them actually taking a right-wing issue seriously. And that’s because it was a direct attack on themselves. Otherwise it feels like they sanitize reporting as much as possible to appear unbiased.
Good point, but it brings up the question of whose responsibility is it to actually disseminate such information after a point?
Is it up to the media to non-stop crow about it so everyone is aware, or are a handful of articles from a source that isn’t widely used?
NPR is sadly not even in the top 10 news sources used by Americans. The Daily Mail, a fucking right wing shitrag from the UK is in the top ten.
So, is it up to citizens who have been informed to spread the word, or is it up to the news media to not let up on serious issues and stop sanewashing a specific candidate.
Arguably, CNN has written about Project 2025 a lot, and it’s in the top 10, but has also used a lot of passive voice that has allowed Trump to avoid connection with Project 2025.
So, it’s not so straightforward. It can easily be argued major news sources are sanewashing Trump, spending time critiquing Harris for small things while not dedicating as much time to serious issues from the Trump campaign.
It can also be easily argued that Project 2025 has been covered a great deal, but that a lot of people still don’t know what it is or understand it or its importance to the election.
I think that’s the question: What are our actual expectations for our news media? Is writing about it once enough? Is it their responsibility to hammer the issues or is it the responsibility of the citizens?
I think we need different incentives than profit when it comes to information sharing. Maybe a profit motive isn’t the best thing for a “news” source to have. Especially when ratings seem to be tied to ragebait and hate.
Journalists and editors need to eat. And the problem is if the government gets involved and funds it, well let’s just say that ends badly. Not even the post office is allowed to run without being fucked with by republicans, and then they are somehow forced to turn a profit, when they are also forced to run in a way that is antithetical to making profit based decisions. And now you have the government deciding for the news, what is biased. And no more reporting on government officials that aren’t just puff pieces.
I just get kind of triggered whenever any media in today’s fractured media landscape uses “Main Stream Media” especially in a headline as loaded as this.
I think people forget that Alex Jones was one of the original people pushing the phrase “mainstream media” back in the Bush years…
…back then nobody thought anything of it because we had evidence that the NYT was sitting on damaging stories for the Bush admin (like the warrantless NSA spying) for years to protect them.
But the attitude and name for it was a bad way to present it then, and it’s a bad way to present it now, because it amounts to: You know that those big media companies that are mostly trustworthy lie to you sometimes or speak on issues in a way that aren’t entirely truthful, but you know what’s better these no-name media groups that are funded by foreign governments that are definitely lying to you!
Who owns the mainstream media?
Because they don’t want truth, they want the drama that brings engagement and clicks.
It’s a Goddamned Mystery
