Post-Trump happenings

[C C]

Pretty simple. If CNN wants ratings then they’re going to have to make up shit about Biden. Loyalty only goes so far. Follow the money, and besides Joe should be good for some good material. Go with what got you there.

Problem is that CNN is run and staffed by leftists, who are all willing to lose money to benefit their political agenda. "Get woke, go broke" is a saying because of how often they've proven they're willing to do it.

Even though it’s based on deceit and dishonesty it’s still a business with shareholders. Don’t think they want to go broke, especially now if CNN  realizes they’ve become exactly what they railed against, no different than hippie movement. The generations grow up, some faster than others. Unless they get back to what they do best they will be in for hard times. Irony is they needed Trump to be profitable. I’d love to see them do an about face as it could promote a shift to the right. They have power, not sure if they know how much.

How about a rival news agency springing up and doing the same to Joe?

Patience. Biden isn’t immune from publishing industry

https://lithub.com/get-ready-for-a-wave-...den-books/

At best, it would merely return to the usual, superficial impartiality exhibited over the years. Fully highlighted in the entertainment industry, where Donks get the Will Rogers type of political joshing while the Phants receive the meaner pokes and caricatures.

Reverse with the "alt" news media, but a tit-for-tat situation, with the latter also having less direct exposure to the world (i.e., you sort of have to intentionally seek it out rather than being casually bombarded by it everywhere).

[Leigha]

@ Syne, for some reason can't quote, but I hear you about scandal being more interesting than ''facts.'' That said, CNN provided a lot of scandal/opinion pieces, but suffered low ratings during Trump's term. So, perhaps, they need to return to integrity in their reporting, and that will boost their ratings?

No one likes an echo chamber. I guess some might, but overall, most people like differing opinions ...that makes news interesting. Imagine if Sci-Village acted as little more than an echo chamber. Very few people would visit. Sci-forums is an echo chamber, mainly spewing biased ''facts,'' and that is why many have left.

[C C]

[...] No one likes an echo chamber. I guess some might, but overall, most people like differing opinions ...that makes news interesting. Imagine if Sci-Village acted as little more than an echo chamber. Very few people would visit. Sci-forums is an echo chamber, mainly spewing biased ''facts,'' and that is why many have left.

The freedom to stir things up, without it necessarily being in troll mode. Actually Scivillage could use some genuine left cheerleaders -- can't expect MR and C2 to carry the burden. Since devil's advocacy, middle-of-the road, left of center, etc just isn't a sufficient substitute.

Rainbow Unicorn completely disappeared, and one wishes that E could have been blessed with an internet device that had a physical keyboard rather than being stuck with that hybrid smartphone/tablet or whatever it was. (Which isn't to suggest that RU was radical, but perhaps farther along the spectrum of being a potential, authentic cheerleader than the rest of us. Or doing a better job of simulation if that was the case -- almost as good as Johnny Depp after following an elderly Hunter S. Thompson around to mimic him for a movie role or the results of Gary Oldman living and breathing Herman J. Mankiewicz for a period before filming "Mank".)

[Syne]

Problem is that CNN is run and staffed by leftists, who are all willing to lose money to benefit their political agenda. "Get woke, go broke" is a saying because of how often they've proven they're willing to do it.

Even though it’s based on deceit and dishonesty it’s still a business with shareholders. Don’t think they want to go broke, especially now if CNN  realizes they’ve become exactly what they railed against, no different than hippie movement. The generations grow up, some faster than others. Unless they get back to what they do best they will be in for hard times. Irony is they needed Trump to be profitable. I’d love to see them do an about face as it could promote a shift to the right. They have power, not sure if they know how much.

How about a rival news agency springing up and doing the same to Joe?

Patience. Biden isn’t immune from publishing industry

https://lithub.com/get-ready-for-a-wave-...den-books/

CNN's bias comes directly from its president, as undercover audio of their phone conferences has shown. https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/202...rding-law/

CNN has consistently done worse than Fox News, under both Obama and Trump. So if they really wanted to compete, they've done so by now. Instead, they hire RINOs as if they legitimately represent conservative views. CNN is not a publicly traded company and:
CNN chief Jeff Zucker may be at war with Trump, but the new bosses at AT&T don’t mind

The NYT has already proven it will omit best selling books from its "best sellers" list, and without promotion, books critical of Democrats rarely get beyond a mostly Republican audience. They'll be published, and even do well, but they will not enter the awareness of the solely legacy media audience...except maybe being told they are propaganda.

There are plenty of new media outlets that already criticize Joe and the Democrats, many of which sprung up under Obama. Their reach has yet to match that of legacy media though...partially though biased search results from Google and outright censoring on social media (like the NYP story on Hunter Biden just before the election...which 10% said would have changed their vote).

---

@ Syne, for some reason can't quote, but I hear you about scandal being more interesting than ''facts.'' That said, CNN provided a lot of scandal/opinion pieces, but suffered low ratings during Trump's term. So, perhaps, they need to return to integrity in their reporting, and that will boost their ratings?

No one likes an echo chamber. I guess some might, but overall, most people like differing opinions ...that makes news interesting. Imagine if Sci-Village acted as little more than an echo chamber. Very few people would visit. Sci-forums is an echo chamber, mainly spewing biased ''facts,'' and that is why many have left.

CNN only seemed to suffer low ratings in comparison with Fox News, but they did better under Trump than under Obama. As an example:

In 2009, during the first full week after the inauguration, as tracked by Nielsen (Jan. 26-Feb. 1), Fox News averaged 2.4 million viewers in prime time and 1.3 million viewers in total day. CNN averaged 1.1 million viewers in prime time and 776,000 viewers in total day, while MSNBC averaged 968,000 viewers in prime time and 488,000 in total day.

In 2017, during the first full week after the inauguration (Jan. 23-29), Fox News averaged 3.4 million viewers in prime time and 2.0 million in total day, while CNN averaged 1.2 million viewers in prime time and 897,000 in total day. MSNBC averaged 1.4 million viewers in prime time and 781,000 in total day.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/t...ngs-234513

Even under Obama, CNN only pretended to have integrity and be objective journalism (as they avoided any criticism or scandals), and so many people see through it nowadays that they're not likely to recover their credibility.

Due to personal bias, people largely do not seek out news sources and opinions that differ from their own. They find what is convenient, like legacy media, and it immediately confirms what they already think, so they feel they have a good grasp on the world. And many on the left who do seek out different views only do so for ammunition they can distort to affirm their existing views. Like I've said many times, the right cannot help but be aware of leftist views, as they are expressed throughout entertainment and legacy media. So the right doesn't have any motive in learning opposing views.

And while many people do find echo chambers on forums boring, there's still plenty of regular and semi-regular posters at SciForums. Many more than here. That's because many people like knowing that moderation will essentially do their bidding, just like they expect big government to do.

---

Actually Scivillage could use some genuine left cheerleaders -- can't expect MR and C2 to carry the burden.

They're obviously not mentally/intellectually up to the task. But then, those on SciForums do no better. When pressed they either avoid or rely on others to provide a facade of widespread agreement (argument ad populum).

[Yazata]

Overall, I agree, but there are still states where never-Trumpers can still be elected, like Romney, Collins, and Murkowski.

I'm not that familiar with Maine politics.

As a former Presidential candidate Romney is a certifiable big name and he has a weird Utah-Mormon thing going for him. (Utah can be very clannish.) That makes him something of a special case in Utah Senatorial elections and it might not carry over very well to national Presidential elections.

The 2016 Alaska Senatorial election was very interesting. Murkowski was the well known Republican incumbent and got 44% of the vote. #2 was the Libertarian candidate who got 29%. Significantly the Libertarian endorsed Trump but the Republican (Murkowski) didn't. #3 was an Independent with 13%. The Democrat came in #4 at 11%.

I suspect that Murkowski's failure to endorse Trump was less damaging in 2016 than it would be now, given that many Republicans feared that Trump was really another elite big-city billionaire liberal who was just gaming Republican voters with a bait-and-switch. (And Murkowski's slide to the left and her strident hostility to Trumpism was less visible then.) Today the Trumpist agenda is clear and I expect that many of the straight-ticket Alaska Republican voters who went for Murkowski in 2016 because she was the Republican candidate would gladly favor a more Trumpist alternative in the coming 2022 Republican Senatorial primary. 

They don't seem to think that will affect their reelection chances. And with the country split almost down the middle, those defectors are a huge fly in the ointment.

I don't know about Collins. I expect Romney might be reelected, but if he is it would probably be less because never-Trumpers have a big voter base (it's my claim that they don't) than it would be because Romney is a Utah favorite-son special case.

And I think that Lisa Murkowski is probably a dead-woman-walking in Alaska if she gets a credible Republican primary challenger who presents a more Trumpist alternative. Alaska is one of the reddest of red states and it's significant that the Libertarian was able to peel almost three times the votes that the Democrat candidate got away from Murkowski simply by endorsing Trump.

[Syne]

Overall, I agree, but there are still states where never-Trumpers can still be elected, like Romney, Collins, and Murkowski.

I'm not that familiar with Maine politics.

As a former Presidential candidate Romney is a certifiable big name and he has a weird Utah-Mormon thing going for him. (Utah can be very clannish.) That makes him something of a special case in Utah Senatorial elections and it might not carry over very well to national Presidential elections.

The 2016 Alaska Senatorial election was very interesting. Murkowski was the well known Republican incumbent and got 44% of the vote. #2 was the Libertarian candidate who got 29%. Significantly the Libertarian endorsed Trump but the Republican (Murkowski) didn't. #3 was an Independent with 13%. The Democrat came in #4 at 11%.

I suspect that Murkowski's failure to endorse Trump was less damaging in 2016 than it would be now, given that many Republicans feared that Trump was really another elite big-city billionaire liberal who was just gaming Republican voters with a bait-and-switch. (And Murkowski's slide to the left and her strident hostility to Trumpism was less visible then.) Today the Trumpist agenda is clear and I expect that many of the straight-ticket Alaska Republican voters who went for Murkowski in 2016 because she was the Republican candidate would gladly favor a more Trumpist alternative in the coming 2022 Republican Senatorial primary. 

They don't seem to think that will affect their reelection chances. And with the country split almost down the middle, those defectors are a huge fly in the ointment.

I don't know about Collins. I expect Romney might be reelected, but if he is it would probably be less because never-Trumpers have a big voter base (it's my claim that they don't) than it would be because Romney is a Utah favorite-son special case.

And I think that Lisa Murkowski is probably a dead-woman-walking in Alaska if she gets a credible Republican primary challenger who presents a more Trumpist alternative. Alaska is one of the reddest of red states and it's significant that the Libertarian was able to peel almost three times the votes that the Democrat candidate got away from Murkowski simply by endorsing Trump.

I don't know. Those states have put up with their Senators voting against the GOP for quite a while. Murkowski and Collins sided with McCain to keep Obamacare. Collins just won reelection. I assume Maine not voting for a Republican president since H.W. Bush explains that. I agree that Romney has the weird Mormon thing working for him. Mormons are more cultish than, say, evangelicals. No idea what's going on in Alaska. It seems people believe she has more clout in DC because her name is so often in the news for bucking the GOP. That's not likely to change.


Non sequitur, but I was just musing yesterday that president Kamala may actually be the best of a bad situation...if Trump doesn't win. Assuming Dems win both GA senate run-offs...pretty safe bet when nothing is being done to stop voter fraud...the senate will be 50-50 (well, 50-48-2, with two independents who caucus with Dems). The VP is the tie-breaker vote in the senate. So with Kamala as VP, the Dems effectively control the senate. But if she has to replace Joe, the VP is vacated and requires approval by both House and Senate to fill. And without a VP, the GOP is effectively back in control of the senate. So barring Romney, Collins, or Murkowski siding with Dems, the GOP could keep the VP vacant. Except I have no faith in those RINOs holding ranks.

[C C]

. . . for some reason can't quote . . .

Once I couldn't get the Reply button to work. Had to open the right-click menu over Reply and click the "Open link in new tab" option. That might even get the quote to show up if it's purely a blank box or empty textarea problem. Or not (as this issue was discussed in the past, but I can't recall what remedies were suggested).

[Leigha]

. . . for some reason can't quote . . .

Once I couldn't get the Reply button to work. Had to open the right-click menu over Reply and click the "Open link in new tab" option. That might even get the quote to show up if it's purely a blank box or empty textarea problem. Or not (as this issue was discussed in the past, but I can't recall what remedies were suggested).

Happens very rarely anymore, but on occasion...the text area is blank when hitting reply. I'll have to reread the thread in site feedback to see what the potential solutions are. lol But, as mentioned, it's a rarity, now.

[Syne]

Biden receives Covid-19 vaccine, praises Trump's 'Operation Warp Speed'

So how many Democrats will agree with Joe that Trump did good? MR? Or is Joe suddenly senile?