Seriously, it just empowers their stupidity. There's no "lesson to take away" from this, that will come from the eventual charges (if they get anything at all, you just don't know). Stop giving them the spotlight they crave.
Yeah I don't think there's anything wrong with this type of reporting. I think it's natural to ask why people would do something like this, and I think showing that they are just completely out of touch with reality is important
I agree with this if you look at the Trumpist movement as a disinformation cult. Everybody has some agency, we're all responsible for our decisions, but this path towards fascism has been manufactured like a cult, and like all cults the members are both victimizers and victims themselves. For 20+ years, the conservative movement has sewed collective doubt into its adherent's brains about how no facts can be trusted. Can't trust the New York Times, the WaPo, NPR, Associated Press, any international press, because they're all "the elites trying to control you" and not reporting the truth. Can't trust big tech they're liberals, can't trust the universities they're all socialists, can't trust the medical or economic experts because they all went to the universities, can't trust your neighbor because he could be a Democrat and we all know about the democrats... And over time, years of this destructive delusion, they hold no shared reality and anybody can step into it and become their reality. In this case, it was a television celebrity. It's going to be hard, maybe impossible, to break that portion of the cult.
But, another aspect of this is establishing trust in a federal economic incentive. Since Reagan, Americans have come to believe one of his central lies: "The most terrifying words in the English language: 'I'm from the government and I'm hear to help.'" This is a lie, but it's incumbent on us -- me, liberals -- to combat the lie with programs that disprove it. The conservative author, Amity Shales, wrote a book called "The Forgotten Man" which was about how FDR's New Deal actually exaccerbated the Great Depression, which is probably wrong, but more importantly she was blind to a point that her book was making but sshe didn't understand it. She concluded -- correctly -- that World War II is what pulled the United States out of the great depression. This is factually, historically correct. However, I'd argue that the reason that the United States was fighting against the Nazis instead of with the Nazis was because the cooperation between Hoover and FDR created a liberal system of government that the average American working man could believe in. That without the New Deal, America would have been just as likely to slip into fascism as Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain, and Mussolini's Italy did. And we had prominent American fascists -- Father Coughlin, populists like Huwie Long, Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford -- who could appeal to Americans on that economic populist agenda, mixed with hypernationalism, isolationism, and it was only because of the New Deal that most Americans trusted FDR more so than Father Coughlin or Huwie Long.. While the New Deal might not have been the economic engine that ended the Great Depression, World War II was, I argue that it was because of the New Deal that we weren't aligned with the fascists and suffering their same fate in 1945.
The Baltimore Sun printed a glorified obituary for the air force Insurrectionist who was shot dead
Bloomberg is in line here with the mainstream press not an outlier
So he quit his job because he was afraid to get covid. Then 6 months later he is protesting that places are closed so people don't get covid ?
"Well I shouldn't have to work during covid but they should!"
But remember his actions are the cries of economic anxiety and we should pity him
Tell me again why people like this are expected to be forgiven and reasoned with when they neither seek forgiveness and are incapable of reason?
Hard disagree. The coverage from the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, NPR, and then other prominent opinion makers like The Atlantic and the New Yorker has been -- IMO -- very good with this crisis. Just a small anecdote but one of the primary reasons why Google, Apple, and Amazon all cracked down on Parler was because of the interview that the CEO gave to the NYT's Kara Swisher while the riots were taking place. That interview was explicitly cited. Most of what we know about this insurrection was from primary, on-premise reporting and photos taken by members of the media who's lives are also at risk to get that coverage. Like members of the media had to turn the corner and see this scratched into the Capitol, while they were being assaulted in and outside:
I didn't read the obit in the Baltimore Sun, and I don't think I've ever read the Baltimore Sun to know much about it (aside from passing article or something). Most of the other coverage I saw of this terrorist was helpful at showing how these insurrectionists can get easily radicalized, that they live next door to you, are on your state and local town select boards, and so on.
I personally don't like the blanket criticism of the media that comes basically anytime someone within the media has a bad take or when there's a bad article from a pretty shitty reporting outlet like Bloomberg. If someone says "ugh, bloomberg, wtf are you doing glorifying this person," then I agree, but I hate the blanket criticism of the media that comes from everything. I also see the rise of right wing fascism in America primarily having to do with blanket distrust of all "elitist" media, and I'm worried about it outside of the right.
Guy who lives in a bus, cleans chimneys, and is incapable of figuring out how to get unemployment insurance that was being handed out like candy in my is convinced he's smarter than everyone else because she read something online. Just about sums up these people.
