I appreciate you calling what Stephen Miller said about Talarico a lie. Few mainstream outlets did, including your link to The Hill’s story. “False claims” is a passive description that obscures intent. The sooner the news media calls the intentional “false claims” what they truly are, the better.
I did like that MS Now repeated Talarico’s response to flap about God’s gender by quoting St. Paul writing “ In Christ, there is ‘male nor female’”. Too bad more of the media didn’t bother doing that.
On the face of it, firing someone for that sounds like the rational and high-minded thing to do, but I'm afraid it counters two of my perspectives. First, as much as I love Michelle Obama, when she said, "When they go low, we go high," she was wrong. Going low clearly works for the fascists. It will work for those countering the fascists.
Second, harken to this. “The madman shouted in the marketplace and no-one stopped to answer him. Thus it was confirmed that his thesis was incontrovertible,” Dag Hammarskjöld in 1957, “Markings” (1963).
To me, there is nothing more important than truth. I was a young Senate staffer in Washington during the Watergate hearings, and I’ve just written a personal piece that I’ll publish on Thursday about the line from Watergate to Trump.
Watergate showed what could happen when truth still had somewhere to go: into testimony, newspapers, courts, Congress, and the public conscience. Trumpism shows what happens when a movement decides those truth-bearing institutions are the enemy…when there is no accountability for his lies.
Thank you for naming so clearly why truth is not simply a journalistic value, but a democratic necessity.
Since Trump dumped us into a Post-Truth Era in his first presidency—and along with Fox “News” and other Right Wing outlets keep a chunk of our population there—those Americans don’t know a fact when they see one. They have bought into misinformation so long—with Trump hammering the nails into these factless coffins—I’m not sure how we get these people back to understanding truth in reporting. Their brains have literally been changed not to mention their consciousness. And these Right Wing outlets keep hammering the misinformation into them.
Beth, I admire your observation and language pointing out "what could happen when truth still had somewhere to go ... ." But the attack on the evidence-based and fact-checked truth-telling media began way before Trumpism. We are at our peril not realizing how far back some of this started. The most vivid in my mind was Rush Limbaugh's unrelenting attacks on the "lamestream media." The planning for this propaganda war, of course, began much earlier.
Yes, but Trump has never accepted any accountability for all his lies. And, in fact, he hasn’t been held accountable. Limbaugh didn’t have to be accountable to anyone. He could spread his lies with ease. The mainstream media lied about before the war in Iraq. They lied about France, because France didn’t support the wrong war. We could go on and on. But Trump is still in a different category.
I think you and I are looking at this a little differently. First, I agree with you that a variety of media outlets have failed us. Some do so as a result of humanity — that is, people make honest mistakes. And good people will do their best to correct those mistakes. Other media errors are more sinister. I despair the lack of media literacy leading to the success of the propaganda.
That said, I want to address this question of accountability. My view is the media isn’t responsible for making anyone accountable. We do the best we can to present the facts; i.e., “truth.” It’s up to others to hold accountable those exposed by the facts. But something has changed since Watergate. Exposure led to shame and to a system reacting to the facts. So, for example, the Watergate episode resulted in the proper outcome because those in the position to hold people accountable took action. They did so because they, and we, accepted what the Washington Post and others reported as facts. Further, the authorities knew they would be shamed for not acting on our behalf.
However, at the same time that Watergate “worked out right,” forces were in play to change how accountability worked. In 1962, James McGill Buchanan and Glenn Turlock published “The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. (Please go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Buchanan.) This set the stage for, eventually, Buchanan to team up with the Koch brothers develop a long-term strategy to return our nation to the 1850 world of John C. Calhoun. The tactics included, but weren’t limited to, reshaping the judiciary to their wants, gutting the public schools, making post high school education available only for the already-wealthy elites and destroying the credibility of the respected legacy media. There is so much more to this, of course.
Trump, and others like him, haven’t been held accountable because the political ecosystem has provided them protection and because the oligarchy behind all this doesn’t care about “shame” anymore. My view, having studied this since 2021, is that whatever media does an excellent job exposing these oligarchs (for example, ProPublica, the Texas Tribune) no longer matter. Trump and the entire Koch-founded ecosystem are now immune to any legally acceptable accountability.
Circling back to your criticism of the media on Iraq and France, my view of the media’s most egregious failure is not covering this stealth takeover of our government. They could have figured it out long before Nancy MacLean’s “Democracy in Chains” was published in 2017. The bottom-line now? The only thing the oligarchy reacts to is money and power. My truth is that the media doesn’t matter any more and the fate of our nation will eventually rest in the hands of those in the Pentagon more loyal to the Constitution than the oligarchs.
Hey, George, you’re talking about a lot more here than truth and media. I’m not going to get into all of that. I agree with you about the dangers of the Broligarchy. But this kind of battle between the ultra-rich and the common man repeats over and over again, although this cycle may be the worst ever. It’s revolting. But I have to disagree with you about the media. It matters.
On the Scott Pelley/60 Minutes blowup, I worked “across town” from Scott (and his wife) in the DFW market before CBS came calling for him. The accusation that he was “rude” in the meeting rings totally false. He was one of the most polite, careful and kind people in the business.
Interesting that none of the new bosses even tried to say he was wrong.
CBS is now run by opinion writers. They start from a known position then search for anecdotes and facts that support them. Pelley and the 60 Minutes crew search out facts, compile narrative stories and trust viewers to understand what they mean. Sadly, the new honchos don’t seem to grasp the difference in the two fields.
Finland has an impressive media literacy program that is integrated into the school curriculum at all levels. The youngest kids learn through play and through stories such as “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, “The Boy Who Cried Wolf, folktales about tricksters, etc. Scientific and critical thinking are emphasized. There are also programs to help adults improve their media literacy skills.
“ Media Literacy in Finland: A Model for Raising an Informed Society”
This approach clearly works. The Finns regularly score highest on an Open Society survey of 35 European countries’ citizens ability to spot to fake news.
This program is adjusted as fake news tactics evolve. Today the Finns are teaching even the youngest children to spot AI generated content.
“Finnish Children Are Learning How To Spot AI-Generated Content From the Age of Three”
Your comment about Graham Platner sexting caught my eye. We're going to see many smear campaigns from Republican PACs and superPACS. One Nation has been sending out weekly mailings to voters all over Maine boasting about her funding various projects in Maine. While, most of these may be accurate almost all of them were funded with bills passed under Biden.
Margaret, your work has become a massive influence in my life, a life which has involved seeking the truth and bringing that truth to my readers, just as you do. Now, I have said this before and will repeat it like a warped 75rpm record that I left on my central heating. We, the media are still taking Trump seriously. This is our major mistake. Never take a person like that seriously. I know it's difficult and probably too late but ... ignoring him is the only answer. He hates that. Does he have ANY IDEA of what will happen on the day he dies? Billions of people around the globe will take to the streets in celebration. It will be like the end of World War Two, but on steroids. For once, he'll be right. It'll be the biggest and most glorious event mankind has ever seen. Shame he won't get to see it. God bless, Margaret.
Here you accept the accuracy of the Platner story, but what exactly are the facts of that story? Do we have a shared definition of "sexting"? Do texts that meet that definition need to refer to sexual acts? Body parts? Or are they merely expressions of physical attraction? Mere flirtation?
As far as I know we don't know how many of such texts exist and how many women to whom they were sent.
So while Platner clearly did SOMETHING that most of us (but apparently not the tens of millions who support Trump) find objectionable, we don't really know the details. Yet the media, including neutral or left leaning people like you, casually repeat the word "sexting" without providing any of the facts that back up the story. This could be a story of really bad behavior or simply stupid behavior. There's a difference.
This is another example of how the mainstream media does the bidding of Republicans, running with their narrative because it is simple and attracts eyeballs.
I will give a pass to moral failings a lot more easily than violations of law and ethics. And in the age of Trump, it is pretty amusing to watch commentators on both the right and the left surround Platner and go in for the kill before the people of Maine have had a chance to weigh in.
As David Sirota has pointed out, Susan Collins has a marriage problem. She’s married to a corporate executive who has businesses that regularly go to the Senate for funding. So why is the media only discussing one of these marriages? I think we know the answer.
Frankly I couldn't believe that the Platner story even got reported considering what resides in the WH and the history of that convicted criminal in regard to sex, women, children, etc.
I found this PBS story to be even-handed. Not about ‘sexting’, but addresses other issues.
I am not a Maine voter (or even an American citizen), but I find it hard to comprehend that the Maine Democratic Party cannot find a more suitable candidate.
I've also found BBC to be a good source for information. They're not beholden to any US government agency, and they report things I've not read in US media. For example, this story on the real damage to American bases since the Iran War began: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2l2yl7r8r2o
Our era is becoming simply unbelievable (indeed, in every way). Untruths are everywhere. There is little doubt that Trump has been a huge part of it, since as President (sorry, I really should stick to "occupant of the White House") he sets a tone. Nevertheless, AI makes lies, "hallucinations," misinformation just all pervasive. Good grief!
1) Ms. Sullivan might have mentioned the scourge of inappropriately anonymous sourcing. The Times and the Post are notorious for breaking their own, published rule on this. "Administration officials say..." is one of the most common phrases seen in both organs. All governments leak intentionally. Journalists shouldn't serve as their errand boys [or girls!].
2) "Something as simple as a Google search will help." Amazed to see this, as earlier in the essay, Ms. Sullivan had warned readers of AI's untrustworthiness. (Its error rate is about ten percent.) Her post did not distinguish between Google AI and its non-AI. That's an important distinction. Maybe she meant Google non-AI, but didn't say? Not so good!
Your career as a woman in journalism sounds a lot like mine in banking. There were important firsts, but there was also an unfortunate front row seat to witness a significant decline in the industry you loved.
I learned early on (high school debate) that it is a necessary condition to cite your sources.
Also, I attended a (free) lecture at Duke with Frank Bruni and Bret Stephens: a question was asked concerning how Mr. Stephens felt about being a mentor to Bari Weiss; Mr. Stephens gave an incredibly favorable explanation, almost as though he knew the question was going to be asked in advance, and he wanted to give the sweetest response possible. I tried to think about how I would respond, if I had found myself in that position, I (still) cannot answer that question. There are times when I find Mr. Stephens to be refreshingly candid (for example, he was very honest during the Duke event that he has enjoyed a life of privilege), but then, he seemed to have inadvertently shied away, pulling the curtain closed. Fair enough, I suppose. I'm still trying to sort out how I felt about his response.
I share your wariness when I engage with Mr. Stephens’ columns or public appearances. He is clearly an incredibly smart person with an agile mind, but he also seems to be a skilled rhetorician, which I don’t mean as a compliment. He is someone who knows how to ingratiate himself with the audience in a way that almost lulls you into accepting whatever comes next. That’s why I find his shtick so off-putting. I find myself nodding along as he acknowledges a past error in judgment or some personal misgiving or offers a biting criticism of the current administration and then before you know it, he is saying,”…and that’s why all Americans should support Netanyahu, even liberals…”
Bret is predictable, if nothing else. He never misses an opportunity to ding Democrats, not matter what the subject of their discussion is. Same with Douthat.
The Talarico smear should be a clarifying moment for Dem’s. I hope the national party will call it out for what it is. And watch what the GOP is doing to Mayor Mamdani, there’s a similar dynamic at work.
As for your recommendation about AI “one can always do a Google search”—even that isn’t reliable. From the BBC: “Going forward, [CEO Sundar] Pichai said, Google Search would provide its own AI-generated answers to many of your questions, a feature called "AI Overviews" that's already rolled out to users in the United States. "The result is a product that does the work for you," Pichai said. "Google Search is generative AI at the scale of human curiosity."
I still haven’t figured out whether the Graham Plattner story is true, but I don’t live in Maine.
One Trump trick that much of the media and establishment falls for is when he uses language to spread his propaganda - e.g., the naming of “Truth Social”, “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, “Department of Government Efficiency”, etc. or Republicans overall refusing to use “Democratic” as an adjective. I’d like to see media outlets show the courage to use qualifiers like “so-called” or come up with neutral terms rather than endlessly repeating these embedded lies.
Exactly - “Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. “ - 1984
Very well said. And I agree. We pay for our subscription to the Globe & Mail (I'm from just across the lake from, Lackawanna in Ontario) and it's worth every penny. The problem is so many people get their news free and legacy, fact-checked media costs more than most can afford now. The upward spiral of the cost of verified news coincides directly with the rise of advertising revenues on social media which publishes (mostly) crap for free. You get what you pay for. We have to solve that.
I appreciate you calling what Stephen Miller said about Talarico a lie. Few mainstream outlets did, including your link to The Hill’s story. “False claims” is a passive description that obscures intent. The sooner the news media calls the intentional “false claims” what they truly are, the better.
Don’t forget “baseless claims,” John.
And "without evidence."
I did like that MS Now repeated Talarico’s response to flap about God’s gender by quoting St. Paul writing “ In Christ, there is ‘male nor female’”. Too bad more of the media didn’t bother doing that.
I agree, but the staffer who called Stephen Miller ugly was an idiot, and this was very unhelpful. If she worked for me, I’d fire her.
I disagree. I love that she did that.
On the face of it, firing someone for that sounds like the rational and high-minded thing to do, but I'm afraid it counters two of my perspectives. First, as much as I love Michelle Obama, when she said, "When they go low, we go high," she was wrong. Going low clearly works for the fascists. It will work for those countering the fascists.
Second, harken to this. “The madman shouted in the marketplace and no-one stopped to answer him. Thus it was confirmed that his thesis was incontrovertible,” Dag Hammarskjöld in 1957, “Markings” (1963).
You’re right
To me, there is nothing more important than truth. I was a young Senate staffer in Washington during the Watergate hearings, and I’ve just written a personal piece that I’ll publish on Thursday about the line from Watergate to Trump.
Watergate showed what could happen when truth still had somewhere to go: into testimony, newspapers, courts, Congress, and the public conscience. Trumpism shows what happens when a movement decides those truth-bearing institutions are the enemy…when there is no accountability for his lies.
Thank you for naming so clearly why truth is not simply a journalistic value, but a democratic necessity.
Since Trump dumped us into a Post-Truth Era in his first presidency—and along with Fox “News” and other Right Wing outlets keep a chunk of our population there—those Americans don’t know a fact when they see one. They have bought into misinformation so long—with Trump hammering the nails into these factless coffins—I’m not sure how we get these people back to understanding truth in reporting. Their brains have literally been changed not to mention their consciousness. And these Right Wing outlets keep hammering the misinformation into them.
Thank you!
I’ve mentioned your piece—of course, adding a link—to my post coming out on Thursday. It’s the core of what I’m writing about.
Beth, I admire your observation and language pointing out "what could happen when truth still had somewhere to go ... ." But the attack on the evidence-based and fact-checked truth-telling media began way before Trumpism. We are at our peril not realizing how far back some of this started. The most vivid in my mind was Rush Limbaugh's unrelenting attacks on the "lamestream media." The planning for this propaganda war, of course, began much earlier.
Yes, but Trump has never accepted any accountability for all his lies. And, in fact, he hasn’t been held accountable. Limbaugh didn’t have to be accountable to anyone. He could spread his lies with ease. The mainstream media lied about before the war in Iraq. They lied about France, because France didn’t support the wrong war. We could go on and on. But Trump is still in a different category.
I think you and I are looking at this a little differently. First, I agree with you that a variety of media outlets have failed us. Some do so as a result of humanity — that is, people make honest mistakes. And good people will do their best to correct those mistakes. Other media errors are more sinister. I despair the lack of media literacy leading to the success of the propaganda.
That said, I want to address this question of accountability. My view is the media isn’t responsible for making anyone accountable. We do the best we can to present the facts; i.e., “truth.” It’s up to others to hold accountable those exposed by the facts. But something has changed since Watergate. Exposure led to shame and to a system reacting to the facts. So, for example, the Watergate episode resulted in the proper outcome because those in the position to hold people accountable took action. They did so because they, and we, accepted what the Washington Post and others reported as facts. Further, the authorities knew they would be shamed for not acting on our behalf.
However, at the same time that Watergate “worked out right,” forces were in play to change how accountability worked. In 1962, James McGill Buchanan and Glenn Turlock published “The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. (Please go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Buchanan.) This set the stage for, eventually, Buchanan to team up with the Koch brothers develop a long-term strategy to return our nation to the 1850 world of John C. Calhoun. The tactics included, but weren’t limited to, reshaping the judiciary to their wants, gutting the public schools, making post high school education available only for the already-wealthy elites and destroying the credibility of the respected legacy media. There is so much more to this, of course.
Trump, and others like him, haven’t been held accountable because the political ecosystem has provided them protection and because the oligarchy behind all this doesn’t care about “shame” anymore. My view, having studied this since 2021, is that whatever media does an excellent job exposing these oligarchs (for example, ProPublica, the Texas Tribune) no longer matter. Trump and the entire Koch-founded ecosystem are now immune to any legally acceptable accountability.
Circling back to your criticism of the media on Iraq and France, my view of the media’s most egregious failure is not covering this stealth takeover of our government. They could have figured it out long before Nancy MacLean’s “Democracy in Chains” was published in 2017. The bottom-line now? The only thing the oligarchy reacts to is money and power. My truth is that the media doesn’t matter any more and the fate of our nation will eventually rest in the hands of those in the Pentagon more loyal to the Constitution than the oligarchs.
Hey, George, you’re talking about a lot more here than truth and media. I’m not going to get into all of that. I agree with you about the dangers of the Broligarchy. But this kind of battle between the ultra-rich and the common man repeats over and over again, although this cycle may be the worst ever. It’s revolting. But I have to disagree with you about the media. It matters.
"AI Hallucinations?" That's not all that far off from Kellyanne Conway's "Alternative Facts" and maybe it's direct progeny.
Ha! Good point.
On the Scott Pelley/60 Minutes blowup, I worked “across town” from Scott (and his wife) in the DFW market before CBS came calling for him. The accusation that he was “rude” in the meeting rings totally false. He was one of the most polite, careful and kind people in the business.
Interesting that none of the new bosses even tried to say he was wrong.
CBS is now run by opinion writers. They start from a known position then search for anecdotes and facts that support them. Pelley and the 60 Minutes crew search out facts, compile narrative stories and trust viewers to understand what they mean. Sadly, the new honchos don’t seem to grasp the difference in the two fields.
We will miss the real 60 Minutes show.
Scott Pelley will be alright.
So 60 minutes is now the same as the Washington Post's Editorial Board.
Finland has an impressive media literacy program that is integrated into the school curriculum at all levels. The youngest kids learn through play and through stories such as “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, “The Boy Who Cried Wolf, folktales about tricksters, etc. Scientific and critical thinking are emphasized. There are also programs to help adults improve their media literacy skills.
“ Media Literacy in Finland: A Model for Raising an Informed Society”
https://www.fesin.fi/media-literacy-in-finland-a-model-for-raising-an-informed-society/
This approach clearly works. The Finns regularly score highest on an Open Society survey of 35 European countries’ citizens ability to spot to fake news.
This program is adjusted as fake news tactics evolve. Today the Finns are teaching even the youngest children to spot AI generated content.
“Finnish Children Are Learning How To Spot AI-Generated Content From the Age of Three”
https://mymodernmet.com/finland-media-literacy/
We should be paying a lot more attention to this proven comprehensive approach to combatting fake news instead of reinventing the wheel.
Thanks very much for sharing this.
Your comment about Graham Platner sexting caught my eye. We're going to see many smear campaigns from Republican PACs and superPACS. One Nation has been sending out weekly mailings to voters all over Maine boasting about her funding various projects in Maine. While, most of these may be accurate almost all of them were funded with bills passed under Biden.
Margaret, your work has become a massive influence in my life, a life which has involved seeking the truth and bringing that truth to my readers, just as you do. Now, I have said this before and will repeat it like a warped 75rpm record that I left on my central heating. We, the media are still taking Trump seriously. This is our major mistake. Never take a person like that seriously. I know it's difficult and probably too late but ... ignoring him is the only answer. He hates that. Does he have ANY IDEA of what will happen on the day he dies? Billions of people around the globe will take to the streets in celebration. It will be like the end of World War Two, but on steroids. For once, he'll be right. It'll be the biggest and most glorious event mankind has ever seen. Shame he won't get to see it. God bless, Margaret.
Thanks very much.
Here you accept the accuracy of the Platner story, but what exactly are the facts of that story? Do we have a shared definition of "sexting"? Do texts that meet that definition need to refer to sexual acts? Body parts? Or are they merely expressions of physical attraction? Mere flirtation?
As far as I know we don't know how many of such texts exist and how many women to whom they were sent.
So while Platner clearly did SOMETHING that most of us (but apparently not the tens of millions who support Trump) find objectionable, we don't really know the details. Yet the media, including neutral or left leaning people like you, casually repeat the word "sexting" without providing any of the facts that back up the story. This could be a story of really bad behavior or simply stupid behavior. There's a difference.
This is another example of how the mainstream media does the bidding of Republicans, running with their narrative because it is simple and attracts eyeballs.
I will give a pass to moral failings a lot more easily than violations of law and ethics. And in the age of Trump, it is pretty amusing to watch commentators on both the right and the left surround Platner and go in for the kill before the people of Maine have had a chance to weigh in.
As David Sirota has pointed out, Susan Collins has a marriage problem. She’s married to a corporate executive who has businesses that regularly go to the Senate for funding. So why is the media only discussing one of these marriages? I think we know the answer.
Frankly I couldn't believe that the Platner story even got reported considering what resides in the WH and the history of that convicted criminal in regard to sex, women, children, etc.
Platner is a Democrat. Republicans get a pass. The rules are different for Democrats.
I found this PBS story to be even-handed. Not about ‘sexting’, but addresses other issues.
I am not a Maine voter (or even an American citizen), but I find it hard to comprehend that the Maine Democratic Party cannot find a more suitable candidate.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/maines-graham-platner-thinks-voters-will-overlook-his-past-to-support-a-new-type-of-candidate
I've also found BBC to be a good source for information. They're not beholden to any US government agency, and they report things I've not read in US media. For example, this story on the real damage to American bases since the Iran War began: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2l2yl7r8r2o
Our era is becoming simply unbelievable (indeed, in every way). Untruths are everywhere. There is little doubt that Trump has been a huge part of it, since as President (sorry, I really should stick to "occupant of the White House") he sets a tone. Nevertheless, AI makes lies, "hallucinations," misinformation just all pervasive. Good grief!
Two points:
1) Ms. Sullivan might have mentioned the scourge of inappropriately anonymous sourcing. The Times and the Post are notorious for breaking their own, published rule on this. "Administration officials say..." is one of the most common phrases seen in both organs. All governments leak intentionally. Journalists shouldn't serve as their errand boys [or girls!].
2) "Something as simple as a Google search will help." Amazed to see this, as earlier in the essay, Ms. Sullivan had warned readers of AI's untrustworthiness. (Its error rate is about ten percent.) Her post did not distinguish between Google AI and its non-AI. That's an important distinction. Maybe she meant Google non-AI, but didn't say? Not so good!
Yes, thanks on both. I’ve added (non-AI) to my search suggestion.,
Your career as a woman in journalism sounds a lot like mine in banking. There were important firsts, but there was also an unfortunate front row seat to witness a significant decline in the industry you loved.
Yes, it’s been painful to see, Barbara.
Same for tenured college teachers. Tenure allowed teachers to be brave.
I learned early on (high school debate) that it is a necessary condition to cite your sources.
Also, I attended a (free) lecture at Duke with Frank Bruni and Bret Stephens: a question was asked concerning how Mr. Stephens felt about being a mentor to Bari Weiss; Mr. Stephens gave an incredibly favorable explanation, almost as though he knew the question was going to be asked in advance, and he wanted to give the sweetest response possible. I tried to think about how I would respond, if I had found myself in that position, I (still) cannot answer that question. There are times when I find Mr. Stephens to be refreshingly candid (for example, he was very honest during the Duke event that he has enjoyed a life of privilege), but then, he seemed to have inadvertently shied away, pulling the curtain closed. Fair enough, I suppose. I'm still trying to sort out how I felt about his response.
I share your wariness when I engage with Mr. Stephens’ columns or public appearances. He is clearly an incredibly smart person with an agile mind, but he also seems to be a skilled rhetorician, which I don’t mean as a compliment. He is someone who knows how to ingratiate himself with the audience in a way that almost lulls you into accepting whatever comes next. That’s why I find his shtick so off-putting. I find myself nodding along as he acknowledges a past error in judgment or some personal misgiving or offers a biting criticism of the current administration and then before you know it, he is saying,”…and that’s why all Americans should support Netanyahu, even liberals…”
Bret is predictable, if nothing else. He never misses an opportunity to ding Democrats, not matter what the subject of their discussion is. Same with Douthat.
You nailed it. I gave up reading Stephen's long ago when it was obvious that all roads led to the same dead end.
Me, too Leslie! I referenced high school debate in my comment. Two years on a debate team provided knowledge and wisdom I still use today!
So many troubling stories!
The Talarico smear should be a clarifying moment for Dem’s. I hope the national party will call it out for what it is. And watch what the GOP is doing to Mayor Mamdani, there’s a similar dynamic at work.
As for your recommendation about AI “one can always do a Google search”—even that isn’t reliable. From the BBC: “Going forward, [CEO Sundar] Pichai said, Google Search would provide its own AI-generated answers to many of your questions, a feature called "AI Overviews" that's already rolled out to users in the United States. "The result is a product that does the work for you," Pichai said. "Google Search is generative AI at the scale of human curiosity."
I still haven’t figured out whether the Graham Plattner story is true, but I don’t live in Maine.
One Trump trick that much of the media and establishment falls for is when he uses language to spread his propaganda - e.g., the naming of “Truth Social”, “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, “Department of Government Efficiency”, etc. or Republicans overall refusing to use “Democratic” as an adjective. I’d like to see media outlets show the courage to use qualifiers like “so-called” or come up with neutral terms rather than endlessly repeating these embedded lies.
So Orwellian, and you’re right.
Exactly - “Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. “ - 1984
Very well said. And I agree. We pay for our subscription to the Globe & Mail (I'm from just across the lake from, Lackawanna in Ontario) and it's worth every penny. The problem is so many people get their news free and legacy, fact-checked media costs more than most can afford now. The upward spiral of the cost of verified news coincides directly with the rise of advertising revenues on social media which publishes (mostly) crap for free. You get what you pay for. We have to solve that.