
The unbearable smugness of the press - shawndumas
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-unbearable-smugness-of-the-press-presidential-election-2016/
======
Lagged2Death
_Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking “we did it” feeling in the
press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the
republic._

The press I saw served mainly as a gigantic megaphone used to amplify a river
of Trump bullshit 24/7\. They did _not_ call him out as a liar, not remotely
to the degree that would have been appropriate.

Trump controls something like ~500 businesses; what conflicts of interest
might arise from him assuming the title of President? Why haven't I seen any
news about that?

But I know all about Clinton's personal email server. Which apparently
resulted in no real breaches of security. Why do I know so much about that?

 _We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical
problems with demonic possession ... That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we
mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get
in line._

It's _mockery_ to point out racism and sexism, now? What?

The data after the fact does indeed support the "they're just fucking racists"
interpretation. Now more than ever.

The fact that they don't _believe_ they are racists or that they don't
_understand_ that they are racists doesn't mean the "racist" diagnosis is
_wrong_. The fact that calling someone a racist isn't _nice_ doesn't mean
racism should be tolerated or covered up.

If you want journalists to approach Trump supporters with empathy, fine: go
ahead and approach the racists with empathy. If "empathy" means "covering up
racism with nicer words" then that's bullshit, that's not journalism anymore.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
bigot : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own
opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a
group with hatred and intolerance

Yes, let's label a group of people as racists for supporting a particular
canidate for elected office. That's not hypocritical or anything...

~~~
Lagged2Death
_Yes, let 's label a group of people as racists for supporting a particular
canidate for elected office. That's not hypocritical or anything..._

At other times, in other situations, I have been sympathetic to this line of
reasoning, but I don't think it applies here.

Let me quote something I wish I had written myself:

 _When you 're offered a chance to get something you want by throwing
minorities to the wolves, and you take it because hey, no skin off my nose,
that's racism. That's evil. It's low-key evil distinct from actively
advocating slavery or painting swastikas on walls, but it's more than mere
"apathy" to racial issues._

To actively vote for a racist candidate with a racist platform is simply a
racist act, regardless of the voter's reasons or intentions. That is, as far
as I can see, merely factual.

"Labeling" is ironically and conveniently a label itself. Sometimes "labeling"
is a real concern. This isn't one of those times.

~~~
coldtea
> _When you 're offered a chance to get something you want by throwing
> minorities to the wolves, and you take it because hey, no skin off my nose,
> that's racism. That's evil. It's low-key evil distinct from actively
> advocating slavery or painting swastikas on walls, but it's more than mere
> "apathy" to racial issues._

What about apathy to foreign policy issues? Or is racism not racism when it
concerns attacks on people abroad? Hillary has been consistently and
vehemently pro-war and pro-"interventions" at every chance she got.

~~~
Lagged2Death
_Hillary has been consistently and vehemently pro-war..._

Go ahead, tell us with a straight face that supporters of Donald J. "bomb the
shit out of them" Trump are pacifists who just want to avoid all that nasty
conflict. I'll wait.

~~~
coldtea
> _Go ahead, tell us with a straight face that supporters of Donald J. "bomb
> the shit out of them" Trump are pacifists who just want to avoid all that
> nasty conflict. I'll wait._

Besides being loud-mouthed and support-our-troops kind of patriots, most of
them are isolationists who don't care much for the US being involved in the
other end of the world. That has been traditionally truer for the Republicans
than for Democrats (with the exception of Bush Jr.) at the leadership level
(as opposed to the voters level).

Also note that the "bomb the shit out of them" Trump said was for ISIS. And
why not?

Whereas the previous 2 (or rather 4) presidential terms we have seem tons of
"bombing the shit out" or meddling with local governments in places from Iraq
to Libya and Syria, with dire effects (instability, civil war, chaos and other
results of "bringing democracy"), and Clinton was all in favor...

------
nitwit005
He presents no example of "doing it right", and in fact smugly dismisses the
people who attempted to do what he's suggesting:

> here’s been some sympathy from the press, sure: the dispatches from “heroin
> country” that read like reports from colonial administrators checking in on
> the natives.

Seems like he's just adding more smugness.

~~~
trendia
He can recognize the problem in others... he just needs to recognize when he's
doing it himself.

Baby steps.

