FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2023
We hear about Stop W.O.K.E.: Yesterday morning, it finally happened, during the 8 o'clock hour!
(All times will be Eastern.)
Dear God, it finally happened! Devoted viewers of Fox & Friends finally heard a fleeting reference to the judge's findings in the Donald J. Trump civil trial!
It's as we noted in yesterday's report. On Tuesday, a New York judge delivered a crushing verdict against Trump in a high-stakes civil trial. The judge's ruling came in a lawsuit brought by Letitia James, the state's Attorney General.
In blue tribe America, this ruling was treated as major news. As we noted yesterday, the news report in Wednesday morning's New York Times appeared atop the front page of print editions, beneath this triple headline:
FRAUD BY TRUMP FOUND AS JUDGE ISSUES PENALTIES
ASSET VALUES INFLATED
James’s Win in New York May Wrest Control of Key Properties
For readers of the New York Times, this was a major news event. But for viewers of a certain "cable news" show, the event hadn't even happened!
As we noted yesterday, the judge's ruling wasn't mentioned, not even once, on Wednesday morning's Fox & Friends "cable news" program.
Viewers of the three-hour program heard extensive discussions of Joe Biden's uncontrollable (and uncontrolled) dog. The program had opened with an extensive discussion of yet another alleged "near stumble" as Biden boarded Air Force One.
The friends burned away additional time with a braindead discussion of the big pop star in the luxury box at the NFL game. But for three solid hours on Wednesday morning, red tribe viewers didn't hear a single word about the judge's rulings in the Trump fraud trial.
It topped the front page of the New York Times. For people watching Fox & Friends, the rulings hadn't happened.
Yesterday morning, the dam finally broke! During yesterday's 8 o'clock hour, a fleeting reference was finally made to the judge's rulings.
The fleeting account was provided by Brian Kilmeade, one of the original friends on this long-running program. That said, this is the full extent of what red tribe viewers were told:
KILMEADE (9/28/23): Clearly, Chris Christie will not be [Trump's] running mate. But I'll add this:
When you see what happened with Trump in that civil trial yesterday [sic], when they decide that he wasn't truthful about his wealth, and they're going to go after him, and they try to take now all his buildings away?
There's no banks that are complaining. There's no insurance companies that are complaining. There's no tenants that are complaining.
But they're just saying, "Hey! We think you over— We think we overestimated your wealth, and Mar-a-Lago is not worth that much, it's actually worth $18 million." By a political operative who ran unopposed as a judge, and an attorney general who ran on the platform of convicting him?
That's what gets people more than upset and actually, in my view, Lawrence [Jones], builds up the Trump support.
They go, "You're not even giving me a chance to vote for my guy. You're trying to take his money now, let alone his freedom."
JONES: Yeah, Brian. You make such a great point...
In six hours of watching Fox & Friends over two successive mornings, that's the full extent of what red tribe viewers were told about Tuesday's judicial rulings.
(If you assume that we're being unfair, you can watch this full exchange by just clicking here.)
At the Times, the ruling generated a lengthy news report at the top of page A1. On Fox & Friends, it generated one resentful, fleeting summary over the course of two days and six broadcast hours.
If viewers blinked, they never heard about the Tuesday rulings at all! For most viewers of this red tribe show, this event has never occurred!
Question! Which news org displayed better news judgment about the judge's rulings? As always, that's a matter of judgment—but this is what we mean when we say that "we the people" now live in (at least) two different worlds.
Kilmeade has been a reliable propagandist for the past 25 years. He gave a very limited account of what actually happened in that trial, and he plainly suggested that the whole thing was just the latest coup by agents of the Deep State.
That's what red tribe viewers were told about Tuesday's judicial rulings. Then again, we blue tribe viewers also keep getting told various things which may not exactly be accurate.
There are many examples. Returning to where we started this week, we keep getting told this about Florida's Stop WOKE Act:
Instruction should be tailored so no student would feel guilt or “psychological distress” over past actions by members of the same race.
This past Sunday, we were told that for the ten millionth time. On this occasion, we were told that by a news reporter in the Washington Post.
Simply put, that isn't what the famously infamous legislation actually says. But when Kevin Drum noted this obvious fact, angry commenters rose to complain about his (accurate) statement—and even about our own!
For background, see Tuesday's report. In this particular instance, the game is played this way:
Our tribe embellishes what the act actually says. We keep repeating our embellished account, over and over again.
In so doing, we take an imperfect situation and we make it much, much worse. When Kevin Drum notes that we're doing this, our angry tribals explode.
Our conduct is very dumb. But as the poet wrote, in a thoroughly different context:
"Yet this is [us]."
For more than a quarter century, Fox & Friends has been a clownish TV show. Quite often, our blue tribe's signature cable news shows are discernibly clownish too.
Especially at times of tribal war, Dumbness is a basic human trait—and it remains undefeated. Down through the annals of time, it has brought all prior civilizations down.
Will our civilization, such as it is, be the next to fall? Indeed, is it possible that major top experts are actually right—that the fall has already occurred?
Tomorrow: Internet Archive willing, as heard on today's Morning Joe
"That's what red tribe viewers were told about Tuesday's judicial rulings. Then again, we blue tribe viewers also keep getting told various things which may not exactly be accurate.
ReplyDeleteThere are many examples. Returning to where we started this week, we keep getting told this about Florida's Stop WOKE Act: "
Somerby repeats his complaint about omission of the word MUST."
How is this omission in any way comparable to the omissions and distortions of Kilmeade on Fox concerning Trump's conviction? They are not the same in kind, motivation, magnitude, or any other respect. Holding this as equivalent is a fraud in itself, one perpetrated by Somerby in order to malign the mainstream media, which provided full coverage of Trump's verdict as well as describing what has happened in FL to teachers, and what happened with Biden's dog and the attack on Taylor Swift by the right wing. We blue tribe members got to hear all of the news.
Does anyone suppose that those on the right are hearing about the EXACT wording of the FL stop woke laws? Do you think they are being told to limit their complaints to the letter of the law? Of course not.
Our blue tribe is not clownish, nor is the mainstream media. The problem is that the right wing media have become disinformation sources in support of right wing political goals. Objective analysts have said this. Political scientists have said it. Somerby's attempts to equate right and left are way off base, to the point of being their own sort of disinformation.
This is a lie, just like the other lies told on the right. Don't be fooled.
Somerby doesn’t equate right and left. He thinks right wing sites are worse. He thinks left wing sites are better, but not sufficienty better to prevent the coming apocalypse.
Delete"This past Sunday, we were told that for the ten millionth time."
ReplyDeleteBehold! A third tribe. The Somerby tribe, where you tell whoppers to yourself.
"Our conduct is very dumb. But as the poet wrote, in a thoroughly different context:
ReplyDelete"Yet this is [us]."
Not only is the context very different, but Ezra Pound was not talking about dumbness.
Why grab an irrelevant quote like this, when Somerby can just say, in his own words, this is us? Ezra Pound is long dead and he would never agree with what Somerby has been saying. There is nothing special about those words in THIS context. So why do it?
My speculation is that Somerby feels like additional weight will be added to his specious assertion if he links a famous poet's name to it. But that is still an abuse of Pound's legacy, even when Somerby notes that the context is "thoroughly different". It isn't cute or funny or even informative. It is an abuse of another person's name, someone who is deceased and cannot defend his work.
It is perhaps a step in the right direction that Somerby notes that the poem has nothing to do with the way he has grabbed that last line. But why not show actual integrity and stop doing this shit?
Sincere question: If you think Somerby lacks integrity and keeps doing shit, why do you continue to read him?
DeleteAnother played, tired version of "America. Love it or leave it."
DeleteNot quite. I could care less whether you come or go. I’m just curious why you persist in reading someone you do not respect. For example, if you had a nym, I would know that I can skip over your comments.
DeleteYou mean, like we skip over yours, George? But, serious question: why do you read the comments, particularly the anonymous ones, if they annoy you so much? I mean, 99% of your comments are just bellyaching about the other commenters.
Delete"why do you continue to read him?"
DeleteDo you know of a better site to read the Right-wing grievance of the day?
"Our tribe embellishes what the act actually says. We keep repeating our embellished account, over and over again."
ReplyDeleteKilmeade, who was quoted at length so that everyone here can know what was said on Fox, presented a very embellished account, a distorted account including several outright lies and leaving out important facts about the Trump verdict. Did Somerby debunk any of them? No. Instead he implies that the left, blue tribe, presents embellished accounts (by leaving out the word MUST).
A naive reader might hear that the left embellishes, hear the distorted account by Kilmeade, and conclude that Kilmeade's version is correct while what was said on mainstream media is "embellished". That is how Somerby discounts, invalidates the accurate news presented on mainstream media (which he incorrectly calls blue). This protects the right wing's outraged fury at the persecution of Trump and keeps right wingers from hearing the facts about what Trump did to deserve that verdict.
This is how Somerby is carrying water for the right wing today, while pretending to acknowledge that Fox hasn't been forthcoming about Trump's trial. Cue the fan-boys to claim that Somerby is criticizing Fox today -- because they are either deliberately obtuse, as Somerby is, or because they can only understand the superficial fact that Somerby said something negative about Fox, and not grasp that he has also spread Fox disinformation to liberal readers while undermining the understanding liberals have already received in the mainstream news.
To borrow from the red scare, it is hard to know whether Somerby's fan boys are dupes or fellow travelers when they argue in support of Somerby's deceit. Is it stupidity, are they non-native speakers, or are they here to help Somerby out with a chorus of assent? Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because the resuly is the same.
Thank you! Now I see the light! Calling me a stupid fanboy who is a dupe and a fellow-traveler has led me to see the error of my way!
DeleteTo be serious: I think this exemplifies one of Somerby’s fundamental points. We have to persuade 1% of the Others to vote for Biden. Name-calling is counter-productive.
Delete
Delete"This is how Somerby is carrying water for the right wing today, while pretending to acknowledge that Fox hasn't been forthcoming about Trump's trial.'
Here are some relevant quotes from Bob's post:
"Yesterday morning, it finally happened, during the 8 o'clock hour!"
"Dear God, it finally happened! Devoted viewers of Fox & Friends finally heard a fleeting reference to the judge's findings in the Donald J. Trump civil trial"
"As we noted yesterday, the judge's ruling wasn't mentioned, not even once, on Wednesday morning's Fox & Friends "cable news" program…"
"But for three solid hours on Wednesday morning, red tribe viewers didn't hear a single word about the judge's rulings in the Trump fraud trial."
Question: what would Bob have to do to convince you he was making an actual acknowledgement, as opposed to a pretend one?
Yesterday I watched quite a bit of the Impeachment Inquiry hearing on C-Span. That is news too, but I haven't heard a peep about it from Somerby. What is news about it? The right presented no evidence supporting an inquiry, much less impeachment of Joe Biden, but even their own witnesses admitted there was no evidence. There were several bits and pieces of recycled Burisma accusations, random texts and emails with words highlighted (which AOC pointed out sound different in their original context), and lots of innuendo about where money came from while Joe Biden was not in office. None of that was sworn evidence either, as the hearing witnesses also agreed. So the conservatives were left with a huge nothingburger, while the left pointed out that the entire hearing was done at Trump's demand to distract from his own trials and further his campaign.
ReplyDeleteCrickets from Somerby. I assume Fox will try to construct some Hunter-related outrage from their empty accusations, the witnesses were clearly embarrassed (whether they knew it or not) and time was wasted that could have been spent trying to prevent the govt shutdown.
Somerby is busy obsessing over the wording of the Stop Woke Act (as DeSantis calls it). How does that help anyone or anything? It would be better if he pointed out the way the right is trying to tar Joe Biden with the actions of his son, who does not work for the government, is not running for any office, and who has no done anything illegal or demonstrably immoral, aside from getting behind on his taxes when he was a drug addict.
Another entry in the Attack Somerby for What He Doesn’t Say genre.
DeleteDogface George,
DeleteI think what frustrates many commenters is they're paying top dollar to read Bob's posts, but he's just not very responsive to their demands.
Their only other news sources tell them exactly what they want to hear 100% of the time. Which is obviously unhealthy and can lead to nothing but disaster as we have seen over the last 8 years.
DeleteMeanwhile, there is evidence that Trump actually did buy a gun in SC with a picture of himself on it, in violation of laws against indicted suspects of federal crimes being allowed to purchase guns.
ReplyDeleteCrickets from Somerby on that one too.
Attack Somerby for What He Doesn’t Say!
Delete@1:32 PM - Somerby does that all the time. Try and keep up.
DeleteDianne Feinstein has died.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats could make this news doubly convenient by appointing Kamala Harris to replace her.
DeleteMeow, bitch.
DeleteErik Loomis reviews Dianne Feinstein’s career:
Deletehttps://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2023/09/feinstein-2
" ... we blue tribe viewers also keep getting told various things which may not exactly be accurate."
ReplyDeleteSomerby balancing spinning plates while riding a unicycle again.
I finally found an explanation for the discrepancy in the value of Mar-a-Lago. It was on a conservative site. The lower figure (really a range of about $18m to $34m) is the value, given the various legal restriction on how the property can be used. The higher figure (hundreds of millions) was the value if all these restrictions were removed. The lower figure was the appropriate one for this purpose of listing Trump's wealth.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a home, asshole, it is a cottage, and that is what he paid taxes on.
Delete@12:51 PM - Read the complaint and the judge's Order granting the State summary judgment instead of cherry picking from a conservative source.
DeleteOtherwise, you're opining in bad faith.
I now believe I misunderstood the judge's finding of fraud. Can someone correct me if I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe word "fraud" is a powerful finding. However, I now think this was a civil trial, rather than a criminal trial. I understand that the judge will issue penalties.
The fact that it was a civil trial would explain why Trump's lawyers did not request a jury trial. It also explains the complaint from the Trump side that this was a victimless fraud. Although Trump lied about his assets, he didn't fail on any financial obligations. Nobody was harmed. It was a victimless fraud.
What happens to your financial obligations when you declare bankruptcy? The judge laughed at the no harm no foul argument. Trump received bigger loans under more favorable interest rates because of his FRAUDULENT claims, as well as cheated the State of NY of tax revenue by undervaluing assets for tax purposes. Asshole.
DeleteSince this was a civil trial, how did this case get to court in the first place? Who brought the charges? Trump wasn't being sued by a damaged party, was he?
DeleteDavid, it's a civil case brought by the Attorney General of New York State, Letitia James.
Deletehttps://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-letitia-james-fraud-lawsuit-1569245a9284427117b8d3ba5da74249
David, are you asking who had standing to bring the civil suit? I believe it was the same people who took President Biden's student loan forgiveness executive action all the way to the supreme court, with a giant stick up their ass.
DeleteThank you, Caesar. That's a nice artcle.
DeleteDIC,
DeleteNew York state law makes Trump’s misstatements a crime, whether or not financial loss was incurred.
And I believer the ‘victimless crime’ aspect applies only to the bank loans. I think there were also misstatements made to insurers, and for tax purposes, that involved actual losses.
@1:06 PM - Dean Baker:
Delete"Contrary to what some folks tell you, the banks were harmed by Trump's lies on his financial statements, even though he repaid the loans. If they realized how bad his finances were, they would have charged a higher interest rate."
Interesting point, Jim. I don't think a bank could successfully sue for damages, because their harm is hypothetical. It's based on the assumption that Trump would have taken the same loan at a higher interest rate is he had stated his financials honestly.
DeleteThere is something called the internet. It contains something called information. Type in your questions and push the send button. Example: type in the Google search bar the question of whether it is against the law to lie on loan financial documents. You will learn that it is called bank fraud and that crimes of this sort have resulted in multiple years of prison sentencing. The perpetrator is defrauding a financial institution of money it would have been paid for the loan if accurate information was given. Money is a limited commodity that can otherwise be loaned out to honest people at rates set by the bank for profit. So, no, it is not hypothetical. This is how the world works. Because this is how the world works, and because it is not hypothetical, the criminal that you have pledged to vote for next year committed bank fraud. In order not to pay the bank what they would have charged an honest person. Let's say that an actuary informs a life insurance company that a fifty pack year smoker has a lifespan attenuation of ten years statistically. If a fifty pack year smoker checks the non smoker box on his insurance application, do we have to wait until he dies in order to determine whether he was a criminal when he checked that box? Are you beginning to understand this?
DeleteI think white people should feel guilty.
ReplyDeleteThey don’t have to, though.
There. I am not in violation of the stop woke act.
Anonymouse 3:40pm, you’re in violation of the Ideal gas law.
Delete