Misinformation drove these people to vote for Trump. This is going be leopard eating their faces. Sad and shows just how much fake videos and misinformation can influence our elections.
If everyone watched MeidasTouch for the political/legal news, America would be far saner and harder to dupe. Its the only media outlet I have any respect or hope for
Trump’s election seems/feels like reoccurring issue with short term memory, long term planning, critical thinking, and reading deficiencies amoung the American population.
All the direct result of decades worth of work by Republicans to erode public education and vilify ‘expertise’ as a concept.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” - Isaac Asimov
remember when talking about “dumbing down the country” got you labeled as a tinfoil hat conspiracy loon? peppridge ranch remembers
Trump’s election seems/feels like reoccurring issue with short term memory,
This is actually about all we have. If it happened more than 5 minutes ago, it didn’t happen.
long term planning,
Dems tend not to see more than about 5 minutes ahead, either.
critical thinking,
Nonexistent in the modern age. People have long since spoken and have said they prefer online echo chambers where critical thinking is actively discouraged.
and reading deficiencies amoung the American population.
When do you think the last time your average American voter read a book? Or for that matter consumed a piece of news media that wasn’t a social media clickbait video from their echo chamber of choice?
If everyone watched MeidasTouch for the political/legal news, America would be far saner and harder to dupe. Its the only media outlet I have any respect or hope for
I’m going to be honest, I watch a lot of very left-leaning independent media. MeidasTouch, BTC, David Pakman, Jesse Dollemore. I subscribe to BTC. But I’ve got a lot of issues with them, including MeidasTouch, myself.
-
They all use extreme and misleading hyperbole and clickbait in their titles and thumbnails that have a strained-at-best relationship with objective facts and the subject at hand. Saying that Jack Smith is winding down his cases against Trump is not “BIG news on FEDERAL PROSECUTION of TRUMP before inauguration!!!”, for example. BTC is particularly noteworthy for this.
-
They all focus their coverage almost entirely on Trump, to the point where it’s not unreasonable to question what these people would do if Trump really were to just ride off into the sunset, and cover him in such a way where they are clearly profiting off of the outrage.
-
None of them promote new Democrat ideas or give coverage to Democrat politicians unless they are going on the air to speak against Trump. Little to no time is dedicated to left-leaning topics that aren’t somehow heavily tied to Trump and keeping Trump outrage high.
-
With the exception of BTC, they all hock products that nobody has ever heard of, they have never heard of, and by the way they read the script, couldn’t care less about beyond the check they get from the sponsor. David Pakman is particularly egregious with his claims about how long he’s been using the product and is a fan of it, which you can tell is 100% grade-A bullshit by the way he reads the script.
Don’t get me wrong. At the end of the day, they are still at least giving factual and accurate information even if it’s clouded in hyperbole and clickbait, which is infinitely far more than I can say for Fox, Newsmax, Twitter, Trump Social, or OANN. The products they’re hocking are at least actual products and won’t actively harm consumers, unlike the crypto scams, ads for ivermectin, and whatever other money laundering schemes RAN is peddling this week.
But at the same time, they are all profiting heavily off of making sure outrage against Trump stays high. They all shy away from covering anything that could be construed as beneficial to Trump out of fear of losing subscribers. They all, with the exception of BTC, lie to their subscribers by claiming they use a product they clearly care nothing about. They all skew their coverage with an extreme left bent. They are far better than what we get from the right, but they are by no means objective, are not above and beyond skewing coverage in a way that they feel is most profitable for them, and would absolutely sell out to the very mainstream media they claim to despise if given the chance.
Respectfully, they found a niche and they rolled with it. I do mildly criticize the hyperbole but I accept its something that helps get clicks which id rather they get than basically all the alternatives.
The products are whatever, sometimes I’m glad to hear about whats big and they tend to take on decent quality offerings that I may act on at some point, most of the podcasts and outlets I follow have to do some form of advertising but they all make it fun or minimally intrusive so again I accept that as a function of doing business and being able to continue their work.
I’m sure we couldn’t disagree that the legal analysis and breakdowns are top-notch and quite deep. They’ve made me, a non-lawyer or law student utterly fascinated with the law and how it can all go wrong and where it upholds what it should where it matters
Edit: thanks for a new channel to explore (Jesse Dollemore), dont think I’ve seen them before if they are unaffilaited with any of the others you mentioned but i will check them out 😘
Respectfully, they found a niche and they rolled with it. I do mildly criticize the hyperbole but I accept its something that helps get clicks which id rather they get than basically all the alternatives.
This is true to some degree. But at the same time, these are all still a bunch of white guys who happened to be born into the wealth needed to create their channels in the first place, so it’s more of which group of rich white dudes is getting the clicks.
And if that’s the way they want to roll, it’s really none of my business nor concern. Go with it. But just don’t claim that you’re objective and independent when watching about three minutes of your coverage proves otherwise.
The products are whatever, sometimes I’m glad to hear about whats big and they tend to take on decent quality offerings that I may act on at some point, most of the podcasts and outlets I follow have to do some form of advertising but they all make it fun or minimally intrusive so again I accept that as a function of doing business and being able to continue their work.
I have no problems with advertising. They have to make money too. But there’s a difference between “Here’s a word from our sponsor” and letting the ad run vs. claiming to like and use a product they’ve clearly never heard of while they’re reading off a script with all of the acting talent of a first grader in a school play. And to some, it begs the question of if they’re willing to peddle this crap and lie to me about it in the process, what else are they lying about to generate revenue?
I’m sure we couldn’t disagree that the legal analysis and breakdowns are top-notch and quite deep. They’ve made me, a non-lawyer or law student utterly fascinated with the law and how it can all go wrong and where it upholds what it should where it matters
Oh, this I agree with. Once you dig through the clickbait and hyperbole, the information is quite good. But you’ve got to dig through more than you should have to to get there.
You should give the Humanist Report a shot. Mike is extremely measured and doesn’t do advertisements apart from a book he wrote and that’s just in the background. I find his takes more reasonable than anyone else on the left, although I watch a lot of different sources. At least worth mixing it in.
They all use extreme and misleading hyperbole and clickbait in their titles and thumbnails that have a strained-at-best relationship with objective facts and the subject at hand. Saying that Jack Smith is winding down his cases against Trump is not “BIG news on FEDERAL PROSECUTION of TRUMP before inauguration!!!”, for example. BTC is particularly noteworthy for this.
This is literally why I’ve come to call them mierdas touch and have specifically never clicked on a video of theirs. The trend of all these asshats to do this with EVERY story is just infuriating, pakman and all.
I scroll through YouTube and it’s just “Trump WRECKED by new BOMBSHELL!” “New polling DESTROYED Trump!” “Trump FEARS this koala!” “The left DOMINATED a sandwich” I never click on anything like that and the shit they say is never true to the emotion they put behind the title. No that poll didn’t WRECK anyone. No Jack Smith didn’t DESTROY anyone. No the left didn’t DOMINATE that sandwich…
…the koala though. Everyone should fear the koala…
This is literally why I’ve come to call them mierdas touch and have specifically never clicked on a video of theirs. The trend of all these asshats to do this with EVERY story is just infuriating, pakman and all.
I scroll through YouTube and it’s just “Trump WRECKED by new BOMBSHELL!” “New polling DESTROYED Trump!” “Trump FEARS this koala!” “The left DOMINATED a sandwich” I never click on anything like that and the shit they say is never true to the emotion they put behind the title. No that poll didn’t WRECK anyone. No Jack Smith didn’t DESTROY anyone. No the left didn’t DOMINATE that sandwich…
Exactly.
If someone is looking for objective, independent media and they see your video titled “Trump WRECKED by NEW BOMBSHELL!!” and the ad that precedes your video is actually you just hocking some random kitchen appliance that you’ve clearly never heard of and have no interest in, you’ve already lost credibility with them before you’ve actually uttered out a single sentence. You just told that potential subscriber that you’re just as willing to shill garbage and lie to your subscribers to generate revenue as whatever echo chamber they just left, begging the question of if the information you’re giving is objective and accurate, or skewed to maximize outrage and therefore profits from your subscriber base.
We can blame voters or fix our media landscape. You can do both, but we need to do the latter to have a functioning democracy.
part of me wishes that the democrats spent money to put up a decent fight against the VERY rampant misinformation in spanish media instead of using the money to attack third party candidates.
Third party candidates are often part of the misinformation machine. Used as an attack Vector as well. The problem is Democrats cannot address everything. Oligarchs fund conservative media more than most people realize. So many outlets exist just to push a narrative. Not to make a profit. Tim Pool and several other right-wing demagogues were recently exposed for getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars effectively a week to put out one or two low effort barely edited videos of propaganda. They made more in a couple weeks than someone like Sam Cedar for instance makes in a year. And they are just the ones we know about. Democrats simply cannot compete with or push back against all of it with the minuscule funding they do get.
the democrats literally broke campaign fund raising records and their donor list includes some of the richest oligarchs on this planet.
it was clear that they barely tried at all on univision and telemundo based on the professionally-polished trump-loving pundits mopping the floor with unpracticed volunteers and nonprofits; it was like watching the debate but in reverse with trump’s side dominating the discourse just as hard as kamala did.
i think that the democrats just assumed that latinos would vote for them anyways like they did with almost everyone else.
Much as I agree, these people went rabbitholing on Youtube. Well-designed “independent” (toxic) videos, properly targeted by Youtube & co (in exchange for some tax returns, maybe?) were an important part of their information, something that you can hardly blame on more … traditional sources.
How would you fix something that isn’t broken? This is what for-profit capitalist media does and has always done. Manufacturer consent for capitalism and its desires. Regulation in the past made it mildly less obvious? I mean they still breathlessly covered and promoted the Red Scare a half a century ago.
Not to mention that state and nonprofit media still have issues. How would one fix any of them? The only way to fix the media is to fix the voters. Actually teach critical thinking stills and encourage them. Not gullibly devouring anything fed to you unquestioningly.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. All the information to debunk every claim ever made by Trump is out there. All anyone has to do is look. But most people cannot be bothered. They will just go with whatever hearsay they see on Facebook.
On that note I recently had to deal with my sister getting a bit frothy. Raging about how the Harris administration had spent so much more money than the Trump administration had on some meaningless thing. I had to insert myself and point out if there had never been a Harris administration. And that not even the Biden Administration had done what she was talking about.
only way to fix the media is to fix the voters.
This narrative serves the capitalist class and cannot be proven. You don’t “fix” voters, you create solidarity by dealing with their material conditions (engage in mutual aid).
Solidarity is great. And I I’m all for it. But how do you have solidarity with a group of people that cannot even agree on what constitutes reality. How do you address the material conditions of people who reject addressing the material conditions if it also helps someone who isn’t them.
The answer is you cannot. Not until critical thinking skills Etc are addressed. As long as people are blindly ideological of any stripe. There can’t be solidarity
How would you fix something that isn’t broken?
I would respectfully disagree and point out that all of your well-considered points are in fact indicative that media in the US and to some other extent the rest of the world is very much broken.
And has been for well over 50 years.
Then you should be able to provide relevant counter points to current events and the constant creep of sensationalist yellow journalism. Otherwise you’re just disagreeing to disagree.
When it comes to mass media it’s actually been this way far longer. The 50 years statement was in relation to just postwar propaganda output ala the red scare. It existed and was popular before that too. But I look forward to you actually posing something to actually disprove it other than “nuh uh”.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink.
The issue here is that the horse has been drilled into being gullible for generations now. Compared to other civilised nations, what Fox & co are allowed to spew forth on a daily basis goes way beyond what would be considered libel or incitement in other places. But the root of the problem isn’t even that, the real crux is that whoever pays the most, decides what is legal and what not in the US. The fact that pumping money into politics has been decided to be perfectly a-ok freedom of speech instead of skewing legislation towards the richest is incomprehensible in many other societies. The Supreme Court and the lobbies make a mockery of actual democracy in favour of buying influence.
Democracy: “of the People, by the People, for the People”.
Y’all seem to forget the middle part. Institutions, including the media, are not there to hand democracy on a silver platter. Democracy must be safeguarded. Constantly. There is no room for passive participation. American democracy is under threat because people are so apathetic and just expect it to happen on its own.
Statements like “the media should…” are not going to accomplish anything. It’s just more passive participation.
Sure, stopping billion dollar, profit-driven corporate media conglomerates should be super easy.
Honestly, “corporate mainstream media sucks” is a thing most people agree on. I know a guy who voted for Trump at least once who has been turning away from that kind of politics lately, and it’s this kind of message I hear him repeating. Now, I’m sure we have different views on how to solve that and what alternative sources should be used, but if it’s something to agree on, then maybe it’s a point of leverage.
People are really not ready for the media landscape conversation because it has absolutely no easy answers. The first amendment means that well-funded misinformation systems have an absolute right to keep operating.
Tell me you haven’t spent much time in the naturalized Latino community, hanging out, asking them about where they came from, asking how they feel about illegal immigrants, without, you know, telling me.
After trump called every stripe of latino, rapists and murderers, and threatened mass deportations, out loud, and often, more latinos voted for donald trump in this election than have ever voted for any republican candidate in any american election before.
It’s deluded and destructive, but this is the reality on the ground.
Well I won’t feel sorry for them when they get deported along with all the "illegals " they chose the leopard to eat their face on purpose.
yes. agreed. though, once again, working in the community, really opened up my eyes to what a great many naturalized citizens feel is important to them. not all, of course, but it shocked the shit out of me, and no one would have believed it until after they voted.
*edit: it’s important to know what your constituency values, and if those things run counter to the basis of secular egalitarian representative democracy, change their minds. just saying well that’s stupid and self destructive to the whole, isn’t going to win their votes.
I know all about it. I worked in the flooring industry. A lot illegal immigrants doing that work, and some had Trump stickers and blue lives matter stickers.
So they hate themselves? Or are they delusional enough to think that the Trump administration will weed out the “good” latinos from the “bad” ones?
to answer this honestly more than dips the toe into racist stereotypes, and i’d like to have the honest conversation but will suffice to say, the guys i know (and this isn’t limited to that small group) appreciate strength, and a heavy hand from their government, almost above all other things.
it would have been advantageous for democrats to have pointed out that, by and large, the nations from which a majority have immigrated from, are corrupt, and dangerous to the point where a living wage is unattainable, and the organs of state either could not or would not keep them and their families safe.
that is what the united states can offer, with a government of by and for the people. now we fall considerably short of this, all the time, and have since the founding fathers, but we have an engine of economy, and relative comparative safety which continue to draw latino immigrants, legal and otherwise.
it’s in pointing out the benefits, of a free egalitarian secular representative accountable democracy, which drew they and their families here in the first place, and explain, in detail, how corruption that the MAGA world was threatening, and displayed during Trump’s first term, would destroy all that they had come to this country for in the first place.
The ones that voted are by definition here legally, and they’re susceptible to the propaganda about illegals coming in and taking jobs and getting all sorts of resources from the government. If you believe that, while your path to citizenship was anything but that, you might start thinking something needs to be done about the border too.
While the border wall stuff is definitely rooted into racism, the economic argument will still speak to immigrants that are in the country legally. Of course, if Trump is serious about “rounding up illegals” or whatever the plan is, a lot of legal residents will also end up caught in the drag net, and it’s going to suck for everyone.
“I didn’t do anything beyond confirm my own biases. Why are things this terrible all of a sudden? I didn’t want this!”
If only there was some warning that disinformation was going to play a role in the election.
