I continually find myself wondering why the press refuses to see and comment on what is in plain view. That a “batshit crazy individual,” detached from reality, is telling and showing us who he really is. It’s equally perplexing that a sizable percentage of our population either shares those views and/or feels the price of celery is a far more important consideration. I would add a few more lines to my comment but my dog wants to go out and I dare not let her roam the yard unescorted!
Great post! I guess my question is why, despite all of the data, will 45-47% of voters vote for him in November. Even with a Fox-only diet, his behaviors and incompetence have to be perceptible to more people. Are people that blind? How is he even an option?
This is why so many turn to independent media sources that provide fact-based news and why increasing numbers of people have less and less faith in mainstream media. I’ve found it a shame that when the Washington Post could have stepped in and assumed the mantle of “the paper of record,” it instead swung right as well. MSM still does untold damage to democracy, however, whether here or abroad. There are, of course, fine journalists within MSM doing what they can within the parameters they work. Kudos to those who remain in that category—and to you for calling out the rest of the media for its short-sightedness and greed. MSM is truly abrogating its responsibility
A very important post, Brian. Thank you. Let me follow with a rather naive question: What is Trump’s purpose/goal in inviting this individual to a 9/11 event on the anniversary of 9/11? Does he believe what she espouses or is he, as you last wrote, a “need for chaos” candidate seeking to generate chaos for political gain? Either is despicable, but your insight would be appreciated.
He’s using her as an adviser. Allegedly, she was involved in his debate prep (so we can thank her for that, I guess). He’s long wanted to hire Loomer for the campaign and his various advisers have blocked that, but he listens to her (a lot of the most insane stuff he says often originates in Loomer-adjacent discourse).
These anodyne headlines sound a lot like what an AI bot would spit out to this prompt: “two party leaders attend memorial event”. You have to wonder how much of this stuff is just AI generated and not really evaluated by real people before it’s released.
Probably the vast majority of journalists are decent people. Unfortunately, since Google and social media stole their income, the media organizations in which they work are more interested in making money (or just surviving) than telling the objective truth.
Trump is batshit crazy for sure. But he also said the sanest most important thing said on the debate stage. Biden and Harris foreign policies-Gaza-Ukraine have pushed us closer to nuclear war. I doubt if Trump read Chomsky or Jeffery Sachs and the host of scholars that agree with Trump on this.
You are right, America is batshit crazy (if you don't mind a Canadian saying so). Apart from the MAGA craziness, I really don't get this substack obsession with the NY Times. It seems really wrong and counterproductive to me. If you want to know more about objective measures of media bias, you can check this out (https://econ.st/3zjkI8O). There is no evidence of right wing drift of outlets like the nyt (if anything the opposite is more likely). If people reading the NY Times or Wash Post don't know that Trump and his gang are completely unfit for office, it is because they don't want to know. The idea that, when given correct or incorrect information, people change their mind or behaviour has been debunked for a long time (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7506985/ or https://www.aiha.org/blog/talking-about-science-goodbye-and-good-riddance-to-the-deficit-model) for just two of many examples). Rather, it seems more likely that people make up their minds first for other reasons and then look for or interpret the information that confirms their bias (https://substack.com/@conspicuouscognition/p-145052124). There is also the related Hostile Media Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect), which makes people disbelieve or get angry at exposure to media that disagrees with their pre-conception or even is not sufficiently strong in advocacy for what they think is important. All this evidence makes me think that a focus on headlines is unlikely to change many minds, including those of the remaining swing voters in battleground states who likely have different priorities than ours. I really don't get what people hope to achieve by going on about this.
To me, the limitations I describe in my comment remain, whether we are talking about the NYTimes / WaPo or the broader media ecosystem. So, I still don't see what that would do. Thanks for responding.
I think if you take that view to the extreme, information just doesn’t matter any longer. Some info does - it cuts through - the crazy cat ladies comment really cut through and has affected the likelihood of Trump losing, for example. The “cut through” is what I’m talking about. Clinton’s emails are a classic example. The NYT made it front page news repeatedly. It probably cost her the race.
Sure but the effect is temporary and frankly I don't know that Clinton was not in trouble from the start and people just focused on how bad Trump was and then were surprised (I was not immune). Other info that could cut through and have more of an impact long term is info that responds to people's real needs and priorities. Science is moving (slowly) from one-way communication to engaging people, dialogue, and responding to people's priorities, not our own. Some of us think that if we don't do this, trust in science will continue to decline. I know that people are thinking along similar lines in politics. To me, that is more important than focusing on the media. Have a good evening.
Well said. You and multiple authors on Substack are well beyond the reach of the gatekeepers and I thank you for that. What makes people like Loomer do what they do (aside from the $$$), and what attracts their followers? Is it a need to deny the reality of a traumatic event? Is denial of reality a way to assuage the need to dig for the facts, to live in the real world instead of a make-believe fantasy world where the believer has power to create their own world?
“His disqualifying conduct may be routine, but it continues to be the most important story in American politics.” (A thousand times this. Thank you.)
I continually find myself wondering why the press refuses to see and comment on what is in plain view. That a “batshit crazy individual,” detached from reality, is telling and showing us who he really is. It’s equally perplexing that a sizable percentage of our population either shares those views and/or feels the price of celery is a far more important consideration. I would add a few more lines to my comment but my dog wants to go out and I dare not let her roam the yard unescorted!
Great post! I guess my question is why, despite all of the data, will 45-47% of voters vote for him in November. Even with a Fox-only diet, his behaviors and incompetence have to be perceptible to more people. Are people that blind? How is he even an option?
This is why so many turn to independent media sources that provide fact-based news and why increasing numbers of people have less and less faith in mainstream media. I’ve found it a shame that when the Washington Post could have stepped in and assumed the mantle of “the paper of record,” it instead swung right as well. MSM still does untold damage to democracy, however, whether here or abroad. There are, of course, fine journalists within MSM doing what they can within the parameters they work. Kudos to those who remain in that category—and to you for calling out the rest of the media for its short-sightedness and greed. MSM is truly abrogating its responsibility
Loomer's presence got a fair bit of coverage, including this in WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/12/trump-presidential-campaign-laura-loomer/ By contrast NYTimes mentioned her three quarters of the way down a story which started with Trump being hugged by firefighters
A very important post, Brian. Thank you. Let me follow with a rather naive question: What is Trump’s purpose/goal in inviting this individual to a 9/11 event on the anniversary of 9/11? Does he believe what she espouses or is he, as you last wrote, a “need for chaos” candidate seeking to generate chaos for political gain? Either is despicable, but your insight would be appreciated.
He’s using her as an adviser. Allegedly, she was involved in his debate prep (so we can thank her for that, I guess). He’s long wanted to hire Loomer for the campaign and his various advisers have blocked that, but he listens to her (a lot of the most insane stuff he says often originates in Loomer-adjacent discourse).
Thank you. That's even worse than I thought.
These anodyne headlines sound a lot like what an AI bot would spit out to this prompt: “two party leaders attend memorial event”. You have to wonder how much of this stuff is just AI generated and not really evaluated by real people before it’s released.
Probably the vast majority of journalists are decent people. Unfortunately, since Google and social media stole their income, the media organizations in which they work are more interested in making money (or just surviving) than telling the objective truth.
Trump is batshit crazy for sure. But he also said the sanest most important thing said on the debate stage. Biden and Harris foreign policies-Gaza-Ukraine have pushed us closer to nuclear war. I doubt if Trump read Chomsky or Jeffery Sachs and the host of scholars that agree with Trump on this.
Brilliant linkage to Hannah Arendt.
Here’s a link to FDR: The only thing we have to fear is ourselves.
You are right, America is batshit crazy (if you don't mind a Canadian saying so). Apart from the MAGA craziness, I really don't get this substack obsession with the NY Times. It seems really wrong and counterproductive to me. If you want to know more about objective measures of media bias, you can check this out (https://econ.st/3zjkI8O). There is no evidence of right wing drift of outlets like the nyt (if anything the opposite is more likely). If people reading the NY Times or Wash Post don't know that Trump and his gang are completely unfit for office, it is because they don't want to know. The idea that, when given correct or incorrect information, people change their mind or behaviour has been debunked for a long time (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7506985/ or https://www.aiha.org/blog/talking-about-science-goodbye-and-good-riddance-to-the-deficit-model) for just two of many examples). Rather, it seems more likely that people make up their minds first for other reasons and then look for or interpret the information that confirms their bias (https://substack.com/@conspicuouscognition/p-145052124). There is also the related Hostile Media Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect), which makes people disbelieve or get angry at exposure to media that disagrees with their pre-conception or even is not sufficiently strong in advocacy for what they think is important. All this evidence makes me think that a focus on headlines is unlikely to change many minds, including those of the remaining swing voters in battleground states who likely have different priorities than ours. I really don't get what people hope to achieve by going on about this.
It’s not that the headlines would change minds - it’s that the NYT and WaPo set the media agenda for much of the broadcast media ecosystem.
To me, the limitations I describe in my comment remain, whether we are talking about the NYTimes / WaPo or the broader media ecosystem. So, I still don't see what that would do. Thanks for responding.
I think if you take that view to the extreme, information just doesn’t matter any longer. Some info does - it cuts through - the crazy cat ladies comment really cut through and has affected the likelihood of Trump losing, for example. The “cut through” is what I’m talking about. Clinton’s emails are a classic example. The NYT made it front page news repeatedly. It probably cost her the race.
Sure but the effect is temporary and frankly I don't know that Clinton was not in trouble from the start and people just focused on how bad Trump was and then were surprised (I was not immune). Other info that could cut through and have more of an impact long term is info that responds to people's real needs and priorities. Science is moving (slowly) from one-way communication to engaging people, dialogue, and responding to people's priorities, not our own. Some of us think that if we don't do this, trust in science will continue to decline. I know that people are thinking along similar lines in politics. To me, that is more important than focusing on the media. Have a good evening.
Well said. You and multiple authors on Substack are well beyond the reach of the gatekeepers and I thank you for that. What makes people like Loomer do what they do (aside from the $$$), and what attracts their followers? Is it a need to deny the reality of a traumatic event? Is denial of reality a way to assuage the need to dig for the facts, to live in the real world instead of a make-believe fantasy world where the believer has power to create their own world?
Brian, I'll see your flummoxed and raise you nonplussed!