Billionaire oligarchs do flex their muscle, but when that happens, we usually hear about it because (a) reporters do predominantly have a “journalistic code” that they try to live by, and (b) there’re too many people involved for it not to leak when suppression actively happens.

I think instead, reporters are chilled by pressure in general and become overcautious while rationalizing it as their code. E.g., Trump is a litigious psychopath, an aspiring and now active authoritarian, and reporters probably generally know that. And they wouldn’t “cowe” to threats of retribution. But the anxiety of those threats makes them hyper-aware when they write an article, and then overcompensate by removing “bias” when it is merely bias towards reality. Consciously, they are still independent. But effectively, they are pulling punches.

That’s how manipulative sociopaths use threats of retribution - it isn’t just “I’ll make your life hell if you oppose me” and a direct obedience. No, the victim rebels, feels anger, resentment, plans revenge. But over time, they also change their behavior, even if they feel it’s tactical and temporary (“pick your battles”).

I say this not to be pedantic. I think it’s really important to understand what’s happening here. “Oligarchs control media” is true in some cases, and I agree it’s an enormous problem - that itself is part of the chilling anxiety reporters feel to “triple check” their material, and centralized power is always its own problem - but we have to identify the disease properly if we want to find a cure.

The US media doesn’t know how to reconcile legitimate institutions being used for objectively illegitimate ends.

Rightly, the media should report solely on the facts, but there is no mandate that reporters cannot use basic powers of reasoning and cannot draw inherent conclusions from undeniable premises. They can and should note the foundational point that these actions are incompatible with the DOJ mandate to seek public redress for criminal action based on factual investigation and evidence, and therefore are not legitimate. These moves are political choices first and legal justification backfill second.

Instead, when we have a nihilistic force wielding the DOJ for corrupt ends, reporters feels they can only describe what is happening, like a passive camera lens, unless relegated to “opinion” articles. And that is where this is all falling apart.

Well, I just nouned your verb right back to the way it was, checkmate.

I know Walz/Harris was impossible given the Biden lead-up and Harris running the show after, but if Walz was the ticket leader I think Trump would have lost.

Trump is a dark triad personality wearing a working-man’s death mask, and his base sees it and marvels at how “real” he is. But Walz knows how to actually be real, actually communicate like a regular guy, and is just good in the way middle America likes to imagine itself.

His Harris campaign bounce following “weird” would likely have held the swing state firewall, until Harris decided she wanted to bring in Liz Cheney and put a muzzle on Walz to not offend (or inspire) anyone. Given our poor Democrat name recognition options (Harris, Newsom…Jefferies?), maybe Walz is our best hope, if we somehow make it to a fair election in 2028.

A convicted felon’s personal attorney interviewed another convicted felon, and they all agreed that neither convicted felon did anything wrong.

News at 11.

You’ve just justified another $100 million in salary to David Zaslov.