CNN is starting to feel like Fox News “lite”—not as blatantly untruthful, but still skirting the edges of reality. Just watch Kaitlan Collins interview Markwayne Mullin a few months ago, as he twists talking points into pretzels while she smiles for the camera and lets him ramble on uninterrupted for minutes at a time. Who on the Democratic side is ever given that kind of airtime to spin?
Or take Scott Jennings, who reliably bends himself into knots to defend anything Trump-related. This is what gets passed off as “journalism” while the fourth estate is quietly eroded in front of us.
Thanks again, Mike. It’s more food for thought—even if it leaves a bad taste, given the grotesque moment we’re living through.
Also, there's a distinction that often gets collapsed in cases like these, which is the distinction between explaining and excusing.
For instance, up here some years ago, an oil pipeline was bombed. David Suzuki, a notable environmentalist, remarked that this was because some radical environmentalists--more radical than him--were growing increasingly frustrated with the continued use of fossil fuels and were seeing no option other than to take violent action to stop it.
Jason Kenney, at the time Premier of Alberta and leader of the United Conservative Party, immediately accused Suzuki of condoning the actions of the bombers, collapsing the distinction between explanation (which is what Suzuki was doing) and excuse (which Suzuki was not doing, because he does not agree with bombing pipelines).
A lot of the people who were supposedly celebrating the killing of the UnitedHealth CEO were actually saying merely "well, what do you expect when these companies routinely kill people by denying insurance claims so that patients can't afford necessary medical treatment, eventually some crazy person was going to attempt something like this".
Collapsing the distinction and claiming that anyone who tries to point out the chain of events which made some horrendous event increasingly likely is expressing approval of said event is just a way of keeping oneself from having to reflect on one's own role in that chain, just as insisting, as Mike points out, that such horrendous events be treated in isolation rather than as part of a larger pattern is a way of excusing one's own lack of reflection on one's role in said pattern.
This is brilliant. It’s the way you focus on how well liberals have been trained to do this. It makes me feel a bit hopeless though. I hope somebody joins you in pushing back.
I appreciated this analysis greatly overall. Like some others I am puzzled about the care taken not to criticize Van Jones specifically. On the one hand, yes, by taking that care, the messages about climate-creation and genuflection-requirement probably land more crisply. On the other hand, Van Jones is a performer at all times, never to be taken seriously as an analyst etc. A true phony.
Van Jones is and has been a careerist and social climber for some time. He started out questioning, and then quickly abandoning questioning, the official story of 9/11, whereupon his public visibility increased, because he carefully curated and protected his “reputation” at the expense of the truth.
He is there precisely to ensure the survival of the asymmetry of which you speak and to gatekeep the left. If he sincerely believes his condemnations (I suspect some mental process akin to Doublethink is operating with him), then his continuing presence year after year, decade after decade, is still another proof in the vein of Chomsky’s observation once to an unlucky British journalist that, if he thought something different, if he refused the ritual preemptive denunciation, then he would not be where he is.
Why do I suspect you strategically used padded gloves on Jones in this piece to bait your commenters into unleashing the derision on him that he so richly deserves but you refrained from airing yourself?
If you're going to worry about dehumanization, it's not just something done to others. Those around Trump have dehumanized themselves. Assuming they had souls to begin with, they've sold them. Morally they are husks, empty but for their avarice and spite. Where is the Van Jones to report plainly on this: they are no longer human. This is not because anyone in opposition has dehumanized them; it's by their own greedy little hands that their souls have been tossed away.
Yes the climate is utterly reactionary and abhorrent so even slightly leftist commentators must pre condemn their side. But CNN has become, a much more right wing, cautious network careful not to offend their rich right wing bosses who have vowed to be more “inclusive” of conservative opinion to avoid Trump’s ire. Their nonexistent coverage of the Gaza genocide and uncritical reporting on Israel show’s unmitigated bias. Expect the appalling obeisance to the political right to mirror the journalistic collapse of CBS with the Ellison (Zionist) takeover in the works. Stories will be skewed to the right because jobs, money, and prestige are all at stake for everyone working at CNN.
Many thanks for comfort as we grind our teeth out here in the "legacy news" swamp. We can't hope to rebound from this fascist catastrophe until well-meaning "leftish" pundits stop confusing their moral high ground with ammunition to win. "Going high" doesn't quite make the grade. Someone, please jab dear Van with a hat pin.
Considering how many innocents have suffered or died at the hands of this "administration", the asymmetry is a vile assault against the Truth and Reality.
The “structure of the move made…” was employed by the writer of this piece very early on. “Condemn”. This is was the writer himself did within the first few paragraphs.
In the words of JFK: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
CNN is starting to feel like Fox News “lite”—not as blatantly untruthful, but still skirting the edges of reality. Just watch Kaitlan Collins interview Markwayne Mullin a few months ago, as he twists talking points into pretzels while she smiles for the camera and lets him ramble on uninterrupted for minutes at a time. Who on the Democratic side is ever given that kind of airtime to spin?
Or take Scott Jennings, who reliably bends himself into knots to defend anything Trump-related. This is what gets passed off as “journalism” while the fourth estate is quietly eroded in front of us.
Thanks again, Mike. It’s more food for thought—even if it leaves a bad taste, given the grotesque moment we’re living through.
Also, there's a distinction that often gets collapsed in cases like these, which is the distinction between explaining and excusing.
For instance, up here some years ago, an oil pipeline was bombed. David Suzuki, a notable environmentalist, remarked that this was because some radical environmentalists--more radical than him--were growing increasingly frustrated with the continued use of fossil fuels and were seeing no option other than to take violent action to stop it.
Jason Kenney, at the time Premier of Alberta and leader of the United Conservative Party, immediately accused Suzuki of condoning the actions of the bombers, collapsing the distinction between explanation (which is what Suzuki was doing) and excuse (which Suzuki was not doing, because he does not agree with bombing pipelines).
A lot of the people who were supposedly celebrating the killing of the UnitedHealth CEO were actually saying merely "well, what do you expect when these companies routinely kill people by denying insurance claims so that patients can't afford necessary medical treatment, eventually some crazy person was going to attempt something like this".
Collapsing the distinction and claiming that anyone who tries to point out the chain of events which made some horrendous event increasingly likely is expressing approval of said event is just a way of keeping oneself from having to reflect on one's own role in that chain, just as insisting, as Mike points out, that such horrendous events be treated in isolation rather than as part of a larger pattern is a way of excusing one's own lack of reflection on one's role in said pattern.
This is brilliant. It’s the way you focus on how well liberals have been trained to do this. It makes me feel a bit hopeless though. I hope somebody joins you in pushing back.
I have lost all respect for Vans “Dead Gaza Baby” Jones.
I appreciated this analysis greatly overall. Like some others I am puzzled about the care taken not to criticize Van Jones specifically. On the one hand, yes, by taking that care, the messages about climate-creation and genuflection-requirement probably land more crisply. On the other hand, Van Jones is a performer at all times, never to be taken seriously as an analyst etc. A true phony.
Van Jones is and has been a careerist and social climber for some time. He started out questioning, and then quickly abandoning questioning, the official story of 9/11, whereupon his public visibility increased, because he carefully curated and protected his “reputation” at the expense of the truth.
He is there precisely to ensure the survival of the asymmetry of which you speak and to gatekeep the left. If he sincerely believes his condemnations (I suspect some mental process akin to Doublethink is operating with him), then his continuing presence year after year, decade after decade, is still another proof in the vein of Chomsky’s observation once to an unlucky British journalist that, if he thought something different, if he refused the ritual preemptive denunciation, then he would not be where he is.
Why do I suspect you strategically used padded gloves on Jones in this piece to bait your commenters into unleashing the derision on him that he so richly deserves but you refrained from airing yourself?
When Charlie Kirk was shot, the right was outraged by anyone posting Kirk's own words.
When Alex Pretti was shot, the right was calling him a domestic terrorist within hours.
If you're going to worry about dehumanization, it's not just something done to others. Those around Trump have dehumanized themselves. Assuming they had souls to begin with, they've sold them. Morally they are husks, empty but for their avarice and spite. Where is the Van Jones to report plainly on this: they are no longer human. This is not because anyone in opposition has dehumanized them; it's by their own greedy little hands that their souls have been tossed away.
also true
Yes the climate is utterly reactionary and abhorrent so even slightly leftist commentators must pre condemn their side. But CNN has become, a much more right wing, cautious network careful not to offend their rich right wing bosses who have vowed to be more “inclusive” of conservative opinion to avoid Trump’s ire. Their nonexistent coverage of the Gaza genocide and uncritical reporting on Israel show’s unmitigated bias. Expect the appalling obeisance to the political right to mirror the journalistic collapse of CBS with the Ellison (Zionist) takeover in the works. Stories will be skewed to the right because jobs, money, and prestige are all at stake for everyone working at CNN.
Many thanks for comfort as we grind our teeth out here in the "legacy news" swamp. We can't hope to rebound from this fascist catastrophe until well-meaning "leftish" pundits stop confusing their moral high ground with ammunition to win. "Going high" doesn't quite make the grade. Someone, please jab dear Van with a hat pin.
I've observed this behavior for years, but I don't think I would have been capable of putting my finger on this analysis. Really well done.
Fascists can't operate unless the center allows it and the left is always the whipping boy. These people will never learn.
Considering how many innocents have suffered or died at the hands of this "administration", the asymmetry is a vile assault against the Truth and Reality.
The “structure of the move made…” was employed by the writer of this piece very early on. “Condemn”. This is was the writer himself did within the first few paragraphs.
Yes. Thank you for naming the framework. This is the crux of the problem and why nothing ever seems to change. It’s all just a performance.