#the mainstream press is failing america

[contemplatingoutlander]

Given what recently happened with the billionaire owners of The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times preventing their editorial boards from endorsing Harris for president, it seems this excellent column by The Guardian's Rebecca Solnit is quite appropriate. Here are some excerpts:

The first thing to say about the hate and scorn currently directed at the mainstream US media is that they worked hard to earn it. They’ve done so by failing, repeatedly, determinedly, spectacularly to do their job, which is to maintain their independence, inform the electorate, and speak truth to power. While the left has long had reasons to dismiss centrist media, and the right has loathed it most when it did do its job well, the moderates who are furious at it now seem to be something new – and a host of former editors, media experts and independent journalists have been going after them hard this summer. Longtime journalist James Fallows declares that three institutions – the Republican party, the supreme court, and the mainstream political press – “have catastrophically failed to ‘meet the moment’ under pressure of [the] Trump era”. Centrist political reformer and columnist Norm Ornstein states that these news institutions “have had no reflection, no willingness to think through how irresponsible and reckless so much of our mainstream press and so many of our journalists have been and continue to be”. Most voters, he says, “have no clue what a second Trump term would actually be like. Instead, we get the same insipid focus on the horse race and the polls, while normalizing abnormal behavior and treating this like a typical presidential election, not one that is an existential threat to democracy.” Lamenting the state of the media recently on X, Jeff Jarvis, another former editor and newspaper columnist, said: “What ‘press’? The broken and vindictive Times? The newly Murdochian Post? Hedge-fund newspaper husks? Rudderless CNN or NPR? Murdoch’s fascist media?”

[See more excerpts under the cut.]

[...] They pursue the appearance of fairness and balance by treating the true and the false, the normal and the outrageous, as equally valid and by normalizing Republicans, especially Donald Trump, whose gibberish gets translated into English and whose past crimes and present-day lies and threats get glossed over. They neglect, again and again, important stories with real consequences. This is not entirely new – in a scathing analysis of 2016 election coverage, the Columbia Journalism Review noted that “in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election” – but it’s gotten worse, and a lot of insiders have gotten sick of it. In July, ordinary people on social media decided to share information about the rightwing Project 2025 and did a superb job of raising public awareness about it, while the press obsessed about Joe Biden’s age and health. NBC did report on this grassroots education effort, but did so using the “both sides are equally valid” framework often deployed by mainstream media, saying the agenda is “championed by some creators as a guide to less government oversight and slammed by others as a road map to an authoritarian takeover of America”. There is no valid case it brings less government oversight. [...] Last winter, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has a Nobel prize in economics, told Greg Sargent on the latter’s Daily Blast podcast that when he writes positive pieces about the Biden economy, his editor asks “don’t you want to qualify” it; “aren’t people upset by X, Y and Z and shouldn’t you be acknowledging that?” [...] It’s hard to gloat over the decline of these dinosaurs of American media, when a free press and a well-informed electorate are both crucial to democracy. The alternatives to the major news outlets simply don’t reach enough readers and listeners, though the non-profit investigative outfit ProPublica and progressive magazines such as the New Republic and Mother Jones, are doing a lot of the best reporting and commentary. [...] A host of brilliant journalists young and old, have started independent newsletters, covering tech, the state of the media, politics, climate, reproductive rights and virtually everything else, but their reach is too modest to make them a replacement for the big newspapers and networks. The great exception might be historian Heather Cox Richardson, whose newsletter and Facebook followers give her a readership not much smaller than that of the Washington Post. The tremendous success of her sober, historically grounded (and footnoted!) news summaries and reflections bespeaks a hunger for real news.

[mariacallous]

The first thing to say about the hate and scorn currently directed at the mainstream US media is that they worked hard to earn it. They’ve done so by failing, repeatedly, determinedly, spectacularly to do their job, which is to maintain their independence, inform the electorate, and speak truth to power. While the left has long had reasons to dismiss centrist media, and the right has loathed it most when it did do its job well, the moderates who are furious at it now seem to be something new – and a host of former editors, media experts and independent journalists have been going after them hard this summer.

Longtime journalist James Fallows declares that three institutions – the Republican party, the supreme court, and the mainstream political press – “have catastrophically failed to ‘meet the moment’ under pressure of [the] Trump era”. Centrist political reformer and columnist Norm Ornstein states that these news institutions “have had no reflection, no willingness to think through how irresponsible and reckless so much of our mainstream press and so many of our journalists have been and continue to be”.

Most voters, he says, “have no clue what a second Trump term would actually be like. Instead, we get the same insipid focus on the horse race and the polls, while normalizing abnormal behavior and treating this like a typical presidential election, not one that is an existential threat to democracy.”

Lamenting the state of the media recently on X, Jeff Jarvis, another former editor and newspaper columnist, said: “What ‘press’? The broken and vindictive Times? The newly Murdochian Post? Hedge-fund newspaper husks? Rudderless CNN or NPR? Murdoch’s fascist media?”

These critics are responding to how the behemoths of the industry seem intent on bending the facts to fit their frameworks and agendas. In pursuit of clickbait content centered on conflicts and personalities, they follow each other into informational stampedes and confirmation bubbles.

They pursue the appearance of fairness and balance by treating the true and the false, the normal and the outrageous, as equally valid and by normalizing Republicans, especially Donald Trump, whose gibberish gets translated into English and whose past crimes and present-day lies and threats get glossed over. They neglect, again and again, important stories with real consequences. This is not entirely new – in a scathing analysis of 2016 election coverage, the Columbia Journalism Review noted that “in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election” – but it’s gotten worse, and a lot of insiders have gotten sick of it.

In July, ordinary people on social media decided to share information about the rightwing Project 2025 and did a superb job of raising public awareness about it, while the press obsessed about Joe Biden’s age and health. NBC did report on this grassroots education effort, but did so using the “both sides are equally valid” framework often deployed by mainstream media, saying the agenda is “championed by some creators as a guide to less government oversight and slammed by others as a road map to an authoritarian takeover of America”. There is no valid case it brings less government oversight.

In an even more outrageous case, the New York Times ran a story comparing the Democratic and Republican plans to increase the housing supply – which treated Trump’s plans for mass deportation of undocumented immigrants as just another housing-supply strategy that might work or might not. (That it would create massive human rights violations and likely lead to huge civil disturbances was one overlooked factor, though the fact that some of these immigrants are key to the building trades was mentioned.)

Other stories of pressing concern are either picked up and dropped or just neglected overall, as with Trump’s threats to dismantle a huge portion of the climate legislation that is both the Biden administration’s signal achievement and crucial for the fate of the planet. The Washington Post editorial board did offer this risibly feeble critique on 17 August: “It would no doubt be better for the climate if the US president acknowledged the reality of global warming – rather than calling it a scam, as Mr Trump has.”

While the press blamed Biden for failing to communicate his achievements, which is part of his job, it’s their whole job to do so. The Climate Jobs National Resource Center reports that the Inflation Reduction Act has created “a combined potential of over $2tn in investment, 1,091,966 megawatts of clean power, and approximately 3,947,670 jobs”, but few Americans have any sense of what the bill has achieved or even that the economy is by many measures strong.

Last winter, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has a Nobel prize in economics, told Greg Sargent on the latter’s Daily Blast podcast that when he writes positive pieces about the Biden economy, his editor asks “don’t you want to qualify” it; “aren’t people upset by X, Y and Z and shouldn’t you be acknowledging that?”

Meanwhile in an accusatory piece about Kamala Harris headlined When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?, a Washington Post columnist declares in another case of bothsiderism: “Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter.” The evidence that corporations have jacked up prices and are reaping huge profits is easy to find, but facts don’t matter much in this kind of opining.

It’s hard to gloat over the decline of these dinosaurs of American media, when a free press and a well-informed electorate are both crucial to democracy. The alternatives to the major news outlets simply don’t reach enough readers and listeners, though the non-profit investigative outfit ProPublica and progressive magazines such as the New Republic and Mother Jones, are doing a lot of the best reporting and commentary.

Earlier this year, when Alabama senator Katie Britt gave her loopy rebuttal to Biden’s State of the Union address, it was an independent journalist, Jonathan Katz, who broke the story on TikTok that her claims about a victim of sex trafficking contained significant falsehoods. The big news outlets picked up the scoop from him, making me wonder what their staffs of hundreds were doing that night.

A host of brilliant journalists young and old, have started independent newsletters, covering tech, the state of the media, politics, climate, reproductive rights and virtually everything else, but their reach is too modest to make them a replacement for the big newspapers and networks. The great exception might be historian Heather Cox Richardson, whose newsletter and Facebook followers give her a readership not much smaller than that of the Washington Post. The tremendous success of her sober, historically grounded (and footnoted!) news summaries and reflections bespeaks a hunger for real news.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

The first thing to say about the hate and scorn currently directed at the mainstream US media is that they worked hard to earn it. They’ve done so by failing, repeatedly, determinedly, spectacularly to do their job, which is to maintain their independence, inform the electorate, and speak truth to power. While the left has long had reasons to dismiss centrist media, and the right has loathed it most when it did do its job well, the moderates who are furious at it now seem to be something new – and a host of former editors, media experts and independent journalists have been going after them hard this summer.

Longtime journalist James Fallows declares that three institutions – the Republican party, the supreme court, and the mainstream political press – “have catastrophically failed to ‘meet the moment’ under pressure of [the] Trump era”. Centrist political reformer and columnist Norm Ornstein states that these news institutions “have had no reflection, no willingness to think through how irresponsible and reckless so much of our mainstream press and so many of our journalists have been and continue to be”.

Most voters, he says, “have no clue what a second Trump term would actually be like. Instead, we get the same insipid focus on the horse race and the polls, while normalizing abnormal behavior and treating this like a typical presidential election, not one that is an existential threat to democracy.”

Lamenting the state of the media recently on X, Jeff Jarvis, another former editor and newspaper columnist, said: “What ‘press’? The broken and vindictive Times? The newly Murdochian Post? Hedge-fund newspaper husks? Rudderless CNN or NPR? Murdoch’s fascist media?”

These critics are responding to how the behemoths of the industry seem intent on bending the facts to fit their frameworks and agendas. In pursuit of clickbait content centered on conflicts and personalities, they follow each other into informational stampedes and confirmation bubbles.

They pursue the appearance of fairness and balance by treating the true and the false, the normal and the outrageous, as equally valid and by normalizing Republicans, especially Donald Trump, whose gibberish gets translated into English and whose past crimes and present-day lies and threats get glossed over. They neglect, again and again, important stories with real consequences. This is not entirely new – in a scathing analysis of 2016 election coverage, the Columbia Journalism Review noted that “in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election” – but it’s gotten worse, and a lot of insiders have gotten sick of it.

In July, ordinary people on social media decided to share information about the rightwing Project 2025 and did a superb job of raising public awareness about it, while the press obsessed about Joe Biden’s age and health. NBC did report on this grassroots education effort, but did so using the “both sides are equally valid” framework often deployed by mainstream media, saying the agenda is “championed by some creators as a guide to less government oversight and slammed by others as a road map to an authoritarian takeover of America”. There is no valid case it brings less government oversight.

In an even more outrageous case, the New York Times ran a story comparing the Democratic and Republican plans to increase the housing supply – which treated Trump’s plans for mass deportation of undocumented immigrants as just another housing-supply strategy that might work or might not. (That it would create massive human rights violations and likely lead to huge civil disturbances was one overlooked factor, though the fact that some of these immigrants are key to the building trades was mentioned.)

Other stories of pressing concern are either picked up and dropped or just neglected overall, as with Trump’s threats to dismantle a huge portion of the climate legislation that is both the Biden administration’s signal achievement and crucial for the fate of the planet. The Washington Post editorial board did offer this risibly feeble critique on 17 August: “It would no doubt be better for the climate if the US president acknowledged the reality of global warming – rather than calling it a scam, as Mr Trump has.”

While the press blamed Biden for failing to communicate his achievements, which is part of his job, it’s their whole job to do so. The Climate Jobs National Resource Center reports that the Inflation Reduction Act has created “a combined potential of over $2tn in investment, 1,091,966 megawatts of clean power, and approximately 3,947,670 jobs”, but few Americans have any sense of what the bill has achieved or even that the economy is by many measures strong.

Last winter, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has a Nobel prize in economics, told Greg Sargent on the latter’s Daily Blast podcast that when he writes positive pieces about the Biden economy, his editor asks “don’t you want to qualify” it; “aren’t people upset by X, Y and Z and shouldn’t you be acknowledging that?”

Meanwhile in an accusatory piece about Kamala Harris headlined When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?, a Washington Post columnist declares in another case of bothsiderism: “Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter.” The evidence that corporations have jacked up prices and are reaping huge profits is easy to find, but facts don’t matter much in this kind of opining.

It’s hard to gloat over the decline of these dinosaurs of American media, when a free press and a well-informed electorate are both crucial to democracy. The alternatives to the major news outlets simply don’t reach enough readers and listeners, though the non-profit investigative outfit ProPublica and progressive magazines such as the New Republic and Mother Jones, are doing a lot of the best reporting and commentary.

Earlier this year, when Alabama senator Katie Britt gave her loopy rebuttal to Biden’s State of the Union address, it was an independent journalist, Jonathan Katz, who broke the story on TikTok that her claims about a victim of sex trafficking contained significant falsehoods. The big news outlets picked up the scoop from him, making me wonder what their staffs of hundreds were doing that night.

A host of brilliant journalists young and old, have started independent newsletters, covering tech, the state of the media, politics, climate, reproductive rights and virtually everything else, but their reach is too modest to make them a replacement for the big newspapers and networks. The great exception might be historian Heather Cox Richardson, whose newsletter and Facebook followers give her a readership not much smaller than that of the Washington Post. The tremendous success of her sober, historically grounded (and footnoted!) news summaries and reflections bespeaks a hunger for real news.

Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. She is the author of Orwell’s Roses and co-editor with Thelma Young Lutunatabua of the climate anthology Not Too Late: Changing the Climate Story from Despair to Possibility

[ngdrb]

The Growing Dangers of the MAGA Movement

The "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement, spearheaded by former President Donald Trump, has become a prominent political force in the United States. While its supporters claim it champions patriotism and traditional American values, the movement has increasingly been associated with extremist ideologies, posing significant threats to American democracy, social cohesion, and national stability.

Core Beliefs and Goals

At its core, the MAGA movement promotes a narrow, exclusionary vision of American identity rooted in nativism, white Christian nationalism, and anti-immigrant sentiment. It espouses a nostalgic longing for an idealized past when America was supposedly "great," often interpreted as a time of unchallenged white, Christian dominance. The movement's rhetoric frequently portrays immigrants, racial and religious minorities, and progressive values as existential threats to this perceived traditional American way of life.

One of the movement's central goals is to reshape the American political landscape by dismantling established norms, institutions, and checks and balances. This includes undermining the independence of the judiciary, weakening the separation of powers, and eroding the integrity of democratic processes, such as free and fair elections. The movement has consistently sought to consolidate power and marginalize dissenting voices, often through the perpetuation of conspiracy theories and the demonization of perceived enemies.

Ties to Extremist Ideologies

While the MAGA movement claims to reject extremism, its rhetoric and actions have increasingly aligned with far-right, white nationalist, and anti-democratic ideologies. The movement has provided a mainstream platform for individuals and groups that espouse hateful, discriminatory, and often violent beliefs.

The overlap between the MAGA movement and extremist groups has become increasingly apparent, with many prominent figures within the movement embracing or failing to condemn racist, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic ideologies. This normalization of extremist ideologies has contributed to the mainstreaming of hate speech, conspiracy theories, and the vilification of marginalized communities.

Moreover, the movement's unwavering support for former President Trump, even in the face of his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, has further solidified its ties to anti-democratic forces. The events of January 6th, 2021, when MAGA supporters violently stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, highlighted the movement's potential for inciting violence and undermining the foundations of American democracy.

Impact on American Democracy

The MAGA movement's assault on democratic norms and institutions poses grave threats to the integrity of American democracy. Its efforts to undermine the credibility of elections, the independence of the judiciary, and the freedom of the press have eroded public trust in the very pillars that uphold the nation's democratic system.

The movement's embrace of conspiracy theories and disinformation has fueled a profound erosion of shared reality, making it increasingly difficult to engage in constructive political discourse and find common ground. This polarization has paralyzed meaningful policymaking and exacerbated societal divisions, hindering the nation's ability to address pressing challenges effectively.

Furthermore, the movement's rhetoric and actions have contributed to a toxic political climate, where dissent is often met with hostility, intimidation, and threats of violence. This chilling effect on free speech and open debate undermines the principles of a vibrant democracy and risks silencing legitimate voices and perspectives.

Threats to Social Cohesion and National Stability

The MAGA movement's divisive and exclusionary rhetoric has profound implications for social cohesion and national stability. Its vilification of marginalized communities and promotion of tribalism has fueled a resurgence of hate crimes, discrimination, and societal tensions, eroding the nation's diversity and unity.

The movement's embrace of conspiracy theories and disinformation has also contributed to the erosion of trust in public institutions, mainstream media, and established sources of information. This has created an environment where misinformation and disinformation can thrive, making it increasingly difficult to address complex societal challenges based on facts and evidence.

Moreover, the movement's glorification of violence and its resistance to peaceful transfers of power pose direct threats to national stability. The events of January 6th, 2021, demonstrated the potential for the MAGA movement's rhetoric and actions to incite civil unrest and undermine the foundations of the nation's democratic system.

Conclusion

The MAGA movement, while purporting to champion patriotism and traditional American values, has become increasingly associated with extremist ideologies, anti-democratic tendencies, and threats to social cohesion and national stability. Its narrow, exclusionary vision of American identity, promotion of conspiracy theories, and embrace of divisive rhetoric have eroded democratic norms, fueled societal tensions, and undermined the nation's ability to address pressing challenges effectively.

As the movement continues to gain momentum and influence, it is imperative for all Americans to recognize the grave dangers it poses and to actively defend the principles of democracy, pluralism, and the rule of law. Failure to address the underlying issues that have given rise to the MAGA movement's appeal, and to counter its extremist tendencies, risks further polarization, civil unrest, and the erosion of the democratic foundations that have sustained the United States for over two centuries.

[comeonamericawakeup]

Ever since Donald Trump took over the Republican Party, said Dahlia Lithwick, Democrats and never-Trump conservatives have been calling on the courts and the press to save America. But our "glacial" legal system has failed to stop Trump from running for a second term, despite four criminal indictments. The mainstream media has produced "devastating” reporting on Trump's tax and business fraud, grifting, and fondness for Vladimir Putin and other autocrats, but these disqualifying revelations have barely dented Trump's popularity. In an era in which Fox News, the internet, and Trump himself have redefined media and news, "the very idea of amassing evidence and putting on proof is now fully antiquated." Fact checking, "smoking guns," and the truth are obsolete. "Trump is an arcing, sparking, frothing, flaming black hole" of disinformation, and "millions of his followers believe him when he says that the press lies and the justice system is the deep state." We must face the reality that "journalism isn't coming to save us any more than the courts are coming to save us." With Trump on the verge of returning to power, "we need to recognize that the moment has come to save ourselves."

THE WEEK November 8, 2024

Not enough people got it and now we are all fucked.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Right Wing Watch:

Kari Lake’s appearance at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference is a concise case study in how thoroughly the MAGA movement depends on right-wing media to spread its lies, all while proclaiming a devotion to the truth.  Lake is an Arizona MAGA activist and failed candidate for governor and U.S. Senate. In December, President Donald Trump announced that he wants her to lead the Voice of America, a global news agency funded by the federal government. At CPAC on Friday, Lake praised “Elon and the boys” for the work being carried out by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. Lake claimed that DOGE has exposed that the government has been paying “social security benefits to 150 year-olds…and apparently there’s millions of them.” That’s false. Lake was amplifying a bogus claim that Elon Musk made at his Oval Office press conference a week earlier. “While no evidence was produced to back up this claim, it was picked up by right-wing commentators online, primarily on Musk’s own X platform, as well as being reported credibly by pro-Trump media outlets,” noted WIRED magazine’s David Gilbert. [...] While promoting false claims about Social Security, Lake railed against the mainstream media. She complained about the Associated Press, which has been denied access to White House events for refusing to give in to Trump’s demands that they call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. “They’re criminal, they are,” said Lake, complaining about “fake journalists” who refused to recognize the “impossibility” of Biden’s 2020 popular vote total.  Lake gloated about the movement’s success at convincing MAGA supporters to rely on right-wing outlets for their news, saying “We rendered the fake news worthless and useless.” Lake may be hoping that her praise of DOGE will change Musk’s declaration that the VOA should be shut down. She said at CPAC she understands why some people might want to close down the VOA, but that it is “soft power” for the U.S. and “worth trying to save.” She promised, unconvincingly, that under her leadership VOA “won’t become Trump TV.” 

Speaking at CPAC Friday, two-time MAGA loser Kari Lake pumped out propaganda to the CPAC audience.

[bostonwalks]

Why Tariffs Are Good The claim that tariffs are inherently misguided and inevitably harmful does not stand up to scrutiny, especially when it comes to U.S. trade with China by Michael Lind https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/tariffs-good-trump-china

Donald Trump is back—and so is the tariff. “It’s a beautiful word, isn’t it?” the president quipped before the joint session of Congress on Tuesday—so beautiful that he referenced tariffs 17 more times in his address. In the short time since his second inauguration on Jan. 20, Trump has imposed—and sometimes walked back or temporarily suspended—tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico, and declared a policy of tit-for-tat “reciprocity” or retaliation for any foreign tariffs on American exports that are higher than U.S. tariffs on imports. And he has justified tariffs with multiple rationales, ranging from protecting or reshoring defense-critical American industries to pressuring America’s neighbors to take action to reduce the cross-border flow of illegal immigrants and drugs like fentanyl. In fact, he told members of Congress, tariffs were “about protecting the soul of our country.”

The chaotic and inconsistent nature of Trump’s second-term policy to date can be criticized. But when it comes to tariffs as a tool of economic statecraft in general, the gap between establishment rhetoric and actual government practice is big enough to drive a Chinese EV through.

The audiences of the dying legacy media are told that the tariff is a destructive policy revived by politicians like Trump who fail to understand elementary economics, which teaches that free trade benefits all sides all the time everywhere, with no exceptions. But from North America to Europe to Asia, developed countries are ignoring mainstream economists and their amen corner in the subsidized libertarian think tank world and slapping tariffs onto imports in favored industries like electric vehicles and renewable energy. Governments are resorting to tariffs and industrial policy, not because their prime ministers and presidents flunked Econ 101, but because they do not want their economies deindustrialized by a flood of low-priced, state-subsidized Chinese imports.

The Chinese import threat is why Canada has levied a 100% tariff on imported Chinese EVs, along with a 25% surtax on Chinese steel and Chinese aluminum. The European Union has slapped electric vehicles made in China with tariffs ranging from 7.8% to 35.3%, on top of the standard European tariff of 10% for imported automobiles. India imposes tariffs of 70%-100% on imported electric vehicles from China and other countries.

Like the leaders of Canada, the EU, and India, former president Joe Biden is not generally thought of as a disciple of the Donald Trump school. But last May, the Biden administration imposed new duties not only on Chinese EVs but also on Chinese-made steel and aluminum, semiconductors, batteries, critical minerals, solar cells, ship-to-shore cranes, and medical products. According to the Biden White House press release in May:

China’s forced technology transfers and intellectual property theft have contributed to its control of 70, 80, and even 90 percent of global production for the critical inputs necessary for our technologies, infrastructure, energy, and health care—creating unacceptable risks to America’s supply chains and economic security.

In December, the Biden administration announced new restrictions on the export of chip manufacturing to China. The Biden White House even taunted the first Trump administration for not having gone far enough with its protectionist policies: “The previous administration’s trade deal with China failed to increase American exports or boost American manufacturing as it had promised.”

The verdict of history is clear: No country ever industrialized by pursuing free trade.Share

The rehabilitation of tariffs, then, is a belated course correction in response to the rise of China, which has been driven by U.S. companies that offshored manufacturing. The Middle Kingdom has lost its position as the world’s most populous nation to India, but it has surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest national economy. China dominates global manufacturing, accounting for a market share of around 30% of manufacturing value added in 2023. In comparison, that same year American manufacturing accounted for only 16% of the global total.

In 2023 China produced roughly half of the world’s crude steel. China is the world’s largest automobile maker, accounting for a third of the global total. China’s state-backed aerospace company, COMAC, threatens to take global market share from America’s Boeing and Europe’s Airbus. China is also the world’s largest commercial shipbuilder, responsible for more than half of all shipbuilding. America’s share of the global shipbuilding market is 0.10%. Yes, zero-point-10 percent. Most of the goods shipped across the oceans to and from the U.S. are in ships built in China (51%), South Korea (28%), or Japan (15%). During the COVID pandemic, Americans were shocked to learn how dependent the U.S. is on medical supplies from China, which provides around 30% of active pharmaceutical ingredients used in drugs by value and 78% of the vitamins in the U.S. A single Chinese company, DJI, controls 90% of the American drone market, including 90% of the drones used by American police departments and first responders.

China’s trade with the U.S. resembles that of a dominant manufacturing nation with a resource colony. In 2023, China’s main exports to the U.S. were broadcast equipment, computers, and office machine parts. Apart from integrated circuits, one of the few industries in which the U.S. retains an advantage, America’s main exports to China in 2023 were soybeans and crude petroleum, with the value of soybeans ($15.2 billion) twice that of silicon chip exports ($7.01 billion).

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

The dimly lit auditorium pulses with emotional choruses from Bethel as individuals line up to receive a word from the Lord. A visiting speaker just poured out his heart, pleading with folks to “pursue God’s dream”. The church’s prophet lays his hands on them one at a time, declaring their unique destiny in vague but exciting terms…

“I feel the Lord saying, ‘Your season of waiting is over. Your breakthrough is right around the corner. Press into the dreams I have placed within your heart. The world needs what I have entrusted to you’.”

This scenario plays out frequently in many Charismatic churches across North America, Europe, and throughout large portions of Africa and South America. The “Dream Destiny” concept is not limited to Charismatics but is popular throughout so much of mainstream Evangelicalism.

The Dream Destiny idea goes something like this…

“Jesus died for you to have so much more than you’re currently experiencing. He wants you and even needs you to tap into your full potential, because when you do, you’ll be able to accomplish God’s epic plan for your life. There’s a dormant destiny within you that needs to be awakened. God is trying everything He can to release your inner champion. When you finally break out of your cocoon, you’ll do great exploits for Jesus and the world will never be the same.”

If you sat under Charismatic teachings for any length of time, you doubtless felt pressure to become a spiritual elite. If your experience was anything like mine, you were told to “press in” and strive for that “next level” experience. Just beyond your reach was a second tier of Christian living…You know, “Radical Christianity”?

According to the leaders and influencers, God wants you to spearhead a movement and inspire a generation. “Don’t settle for an ordinary life. Normal Christianity is radically supernatural.”

But you never pressed in hard enough. You never groaned deep enough. Your prayers just weren’t anointed enough. Every conference that promised to change your life failed to do so. No matter what, it was never enough.

Continue reading… (I know this is heavy but I promise it gets encouraging 😅)

Source: These Aren’t the Apostles You’re Looking For (Facebook)

Link: https://examiningnar.substack.com/p/never-enough?r=1m8bij&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post&fbclid=IwAR3C_OPKojELYTZdzeDcoJPk_tM1-RkjvukZhT812LpAMDBTR9ZeAFg0aLc

[bllsbailey]

'America’s Most Controversial White House Correspondent' Wreck a CNN Reporter to His Face

Her name is Natalie Winters. She’s a White House correspondent for Steve Bannon’s War Room, and she’s ruffled feathers of the establishment press who can’t get their heads around why they’re mocked, hated, and distrusted. Winters has been criticized for her attire in the White House Press Room in a media narrative that resembles Mean Girls. It doesn’t matter. Like most supporters of President Trump, she can take the hits and dish them out, like when CNN’s Donie O'Sullivan

tried to press her on her media credentials. 

Before we mention her brutal takedown of CNN here, it needs to be said the lack of self-awareness from the mainstream press is astounding. Your influence is waning, your product is subpar, and that’s why millions are turning to new information ecosystems. Saying ‘I’m a reporter with The New York Times’ is akin to wearing a sign saying, ‘I’m brain damaged; seek an adult if you see me trying to put my fingers in an electrical socket.’ 

“Are you a real journalist,” asked O’Sullivan, which is a ridiculous question. First, anyone can be a reporter—enough with this gatekeeper mentality. We’ve stormed the keep, dude. It’s ours now. But Winters had a better line: “The rest of the media covered for a president that was essentially dead. You failed. That’s why new media is here.” 

America’s Most Controversial White House Correspondent 😉 pic.twitter.com/hazJfrqIhA— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) April 23, 2025

— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) April 23, 2025

— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) April 23, 2025

She is correct. https://t.co/1Qv8cMKWP7— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) April 23, 2025

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) April 23, 2025

Her answers did not disappoint, and you know the rest of the old school establishment was seething over these words.

Trending on Townhall Videos

[imkeepinit]

The mainstream press is failing America – and people are understandably upset

Why Does No One Understand the Real Reason Trump Won?

[mariacallous]

Women have two aesthetic options in Trump world, and they both center on hotness.

Noem’s aesthetic is one of two options available to women in Trump world: the first, and more well known, is the pencil skirted,“realtor-on-a-billboard” look of Lara Trump and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. Noem is performing the other available option, Sharet writes: the strong, sexy badass.

For Trump conservatives, it’s vitally important that their women are perceived as hotter than women on the left, who, in their eyes, look more like the lady in the “triggered feminist” meme than Jennifer Lawrence, who knocked on doors for Trump’s opponent Kamala Harris.

They’re convinced they have “hot” on lockdown now that Trump’s won a second time. The “America Is Hot Again” party thrown at D.C. conservative hotspot Butterworth’s that was recently covered in The Washington Post is proof of that. As one speaker at the event told the youthful crowd, conservatives have an “objectively beautiful lifestyle” and an “objectively superior worldview.”

Of course, objectively beautiful doesn’t mean plastic-surgery-free: As Sharlet writes, generous use of fillers and cosmetic surgery ― “Mar-a-Lago face,” as it’s been labeled ― is part of the strategy rather than a deficiency:

Even as it celebrates body modification — there’s no shame in plastic surgery on the fascist right — it frames itself via a topsy-turvy idea of authenticity. Trump women, goes the thinking, are “real” precisely because they try hard to perform “woman”; liberal and left women are not “real women” because, in this logic, feminism makes them rebel against their “natural” roles. The range of such roles has expanded from those of the 1950s even for fascism women, which is why Noem can comfortably show her power — just so long as she contains it within a still-just-as-narrow spectrum of femininity: “maternal” or “sexy.”

Notably, when Noem entered a town hall meeting to introduce herself to staff of the Department of Homeland Security in January, she came onstage to the Trace Adkins’ song “Hot Mama,” a 2003 country hit with lyrics as corny and sexually suggestive as the title would suggest.

But that hotness can have dark, fascist implications.

Brooks Turner, an artist and educator who studies the aesthetics of fascism, told HuffPost he isn’t surprised by what he’s seeing. Equating motherhood with the project of “real womanhood” is common in fascist regimes.

“In Nazi art and propaganda, for instance, women were usually represented either as young sex symbols, ready to populate the earth with Aryan babies, or as strong, stable mothers, maintaining and when necessary protecting family and homeland,” he said. (The Nazis also targeted trans people for failing to conform to traditional gender norms.)

In the prison video, Turner said Noem synthesizes both of those fascist female archetypes (sexy woman and good mother) while subtly evoking another more mainstream and fresh U.S. cultural archetype: the MILF.

“All of this makes her the perfect aesthetic choice for Head of DHS,” he said.

MILF talk may sound like a stretch, but fascism uses a similar erotic charm to attract and repel people. The ideology is alluring to some because it plays on two taboos: our cultural fetishization of masculinity and power, and our discomfort with authoritarianism and nationalism. As humans, we’re drawn to force and domination. As Vox noted in 2017, it’s the political forbiddenness of fascism in modern times that makes it so erotic ― something scholar Laura Catherine Frost describes in her book “Sex Drives: Fantasies of Fascism in Literary Modernism.”

“Images of sexualized fascism derive their meaning precisely from the distance mainstream culture puts between itself and deviation,” Frost wrote. (A magazine editor quoted in a 2000 New York Times article about the rise of “fascist chic” trend at the time put it much more simply: “Fascism — I hate to say it, but it’s sexy,” he said.)

Fascist regimes fixate on visuals in a more general way, too ― their leaders care what a real man looks like, what a real woman looks like, and what a real family looks like (the family unit is the ultimate tool used to promote national unity).

The Insidious Message Behind Kristi Noem's 'ICE Barbie' Cosplay

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Billboard project

* * * *

Trump lashes out at women accusing him of sexual assault

In a second bizarre appearance this week, Trump spent 45 minutes in a grievance-filled “press conference” overflowing with defamatory attacks on women who have accused him of sexual assault. The one thing the “press conference” did not include was questions from the press.

Trump's 45-minute rant reminded voters of the multiple accusations of sexual assault against him. And in a breath-taking admission, he said he did assault one of his accusers because, “[S]he would not have been the chosen one.” That defense repeats his claim that he did not sexually assault E. Jean Carrol because “She’s not my type.”

It is Kafkaesque that one of the major party nominees has so many credible claims of sexual assault lodged against him that he can spend 45 minutes denying them. In any other era in American history, such allegations would be instantly disqualifying. But the major media focuses on horse-race polling to the exclusion of character and demonstrated unfitness for office.

Even as Maggie Haberman of the Times provided an accurate recitation of Trump's rambling discourse, she acknowledged, “As a one-off event, Mr. Trump’s diatribe was already receding from view in headlines by late afternoon.”

Of course, as long as the Times continues to lose interest in Trump's meltdowns in four hours, it is no wonder that Trump's depravity is overlooked by the public.

There is a growing consensus that the press is failing to hold Trump accountable for his criminality and corruption. Rebecca Solnit of The Guardian addresses the failure of the press in her op-ed, The mainstream press is failing America – and people are understandably upset.

I recommend Solnit’s essay to your weekend reading, but to whet your appetite, I excerpt the following:

The first thing to say about the hate and scorn currently directed at the mainstream US media is that they worked hard to earn it. They’ve done so by failing, repeatedly, determinedly, spectacularly to do their job, which is to maintain their independence, inform the electorate, and speak truth to power. They pursue the appearance of fairness and balance by treating the true and the false, the normal and the outrageous, as equally valid and by normalizing Republicans, especially Donald Trump, whose gibberish gets translated into English and whose past crimes and present-day lies and threats get glossed over. They neglect, again and again, important stories with real consequences.

Solnit’s criticism that the press “translates Trump's gibberish into English” was also discussed by Isabel Fattal in The Atlantic | Daily, A new level of incoherence from Trump. Fattal writes,

But the biggest problem, the problem that all journalistic analysis of Trump's response ought to lead with, is that his answer makes absolutely no sense. Earlier this summer, The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, warned about “one of the most pernicious biases in journalism, the bias toward coherence.” Journalists “feel, understandably, that it is our job to make things make sense,” he wrote. “But what if the actual story is that politics today makes no sense?”

When Joe Biden stumbled in attempts to express himself—a lifelong characteristic driven in part by his stutter—the Times wrote dozens of stories suggesting that Biden was unfit to be president (despite his spectacularly successful current presidency). But when Trump speaks gibberish, the Times strains to glean meaning and coherence where none is to be found.

The question is, “Why?” Why does the media believe it is their role to filter and correct Trump's incoherence? The answer to that question will vex historians for decades and centuries to come.

In the absence of a satisfying or clear answer to that question, my default assumption is that the major media sees Trump as good for business, even if he is bad for democracy. Profit über alles. Shame on them.

Trump is a uniquely unfit candidate for the presidency The presidential oath of office requires the president to swear to protect and defend the Constitution—which Trump has already attempted to overthrow on one occasion and has promised to do so again.

Before Joe Biden withdrew from the race, there was a general sense that “the need to defend democracy” was not an argument that resonated with voters. It should be. Perhaps it is time for Kamala Harris to revisit and reframe the argument, especially given the renewed activity around Trump's legal and criminal jeopardy. It sure would be nice if the major media viewed Trump's threat to democracy as newsworthy.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[the-handsome-stranger]

The Wreckoning of the Deep State

February 10, 2025—History will remember this day. The moment when the American people finally saw the truth laid bare. The criminal conspiracy that protected Hillary Clinton, manipulated justice, and waged war against Donald Trump has now been fully exposed.

For years, patriots demanded answers. Why did the FBI refuse to prosecute Clinton for her blatant violations of 18 U.S. Code § 793? Why was justice obstructed at the highest levels? The answer has now been confirmed by none other than former CIA Director John Ratcliffe—Barack Obama himself ordered the FBI NOT to arrest Hillary Clinton for espionage.

THE ORDER CAME FROM OBAMA HIMSELF The conspiracy went straight to the top. Lisa Page, former FBI lawyer, admitted under oath that the Department of Justice explicitly instructed the FBI to stand down.

John Ratcliffe: “So, just to be clear, when you say you got instructions from the DOJ, they told you outright: ‘We are NOT prosecuting Hillary Clinton for gross negligence’?” Lisa Page: “That is correct.”

This was not an accident. This was a deliberate cover-up, orchestrated at the highest levels. Clinton was meant to secure the presidency in 2016, ensuring the Deep State’s grip on America remained unchallenged. But when Trump won, their house of cards collapsed—sending them into full panic mode.

THE CLASSIFIED EMAILS: OBAMA’S REAL MOTIVE Why did Obama go to such lengths to protect Clinton? Because her private email server contained secrets so explosive they could have destroyed the Deep State.

Emails confirming pay-for-play schemes with foreign governments. Direct collusion between the Obama administration and foreign intelligence agencies to manipulate U.S. politics. Evidence of classified leaks to foreign actors in exchange for political favors. Had Clinton been prosecuted, the case wouldn’t have stopped with her—it would have led straight to Obama himself.

THE FBI: OBAMA’S PERSONAL ENFORCERS The FBI, once a respected law enforcement agency, was weaponized under Obama to serve the Democratic Party. While Clinton was shielded from justice, the Bureau focused its efforts on manufacturing crimes against Trump.

They launched the Russia collusion hoax, fabricating evidence to cripple Trump’s presidency.

They illegally spied on his campaign using FISA warrants based on false information.

They persecuted Trump allies to silence dissent.

The same criminals who protected Clinton tried to destroy Trump, using the FBI as their personal attack dogs.

THE DEEP STATE’S FINAL GAMBIT: THE WAR AGAINST TRUMP Clinton’s exoneration was only the beginning. The moment Trump stepped onto the political stage, the Deep State launched a full-scale assault.

They engineered the 2020 election to ensure he was removed from office.

They used the intelligence agencies to spy on his campaign and presidency.

They filed multiple indictments in a desperate attempt to block his 2024 run.

Yet, they failed. Trump is back, and now, the truth is finally coming to light.

THE MEDIA’S COMPLICITY The mainstream media played its role perfectly. Instead of reporting the truth, they became the Deep State’s propaganda arm.

They dismissed Clinton’s email scandal as a “nothingburger.”

They refused to cover leaked documents proving Obama’s direct orders to protect her.

They pushed every fabricated charge against Trump while burying the real crimes of the Democratic elite.

These are not journalists. These are political operatives, masquerading as the press.

THE TIME FOR JUSTICE IS NOW The evidence is undeniable. The Obama administration, the DOJ, the FBI, and the media conspired to protect Hillary Clinton, silence Trump, and manipulate the justice system to serve their agenda. This cannot be allowed to stand.

Obama must be investigated for obstruction of justice.

Clinton must finally face prosecution for espionage.

The FBI must be purged of political corruption.

The DOJ must be rebuilt from the ground up.

The only question left: Will justice finally be served?