WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2026
So did Compagno and Gutfeld: Friend, we'll start today with a question:
Is the era of rational discourse over?
As we noted in Monday's report, that's the claim which sits atop a recent essay by Adam Kirsch. Indeed, the dual headline in The Atlantic is still making that allegation:
IDEAS
The Era of Rational Discourse Is Over
For Jürgen Habermas, who died in March, the essence of democracy was thoughtful back-and-forth argument.
Thoughtful back-and-forth discourse? In all honesty, we don't know why Kirsch seems to think that any such era ever existed. But it has long been abundantly clear:
No such discourse exists today. The era in question is over.
No such discourse exists today? Just consider what we saw when we watched last Wednesday's edition of the Fox News Channal ratings blockbuster, The Five. While you're at it, please note the way that program's insane imitation of discourse foreshadowed the inexcusable effort by Stephens and Tett (and even Bill Maher!) on last Friday night's Real Time.
It was Wednesday, April 29. Four nights earlier, a 31-year-old California man had rushed the ballroom at the Washington Hilton, with the apparent intention of assassinating President Trump.
He was stopped before he could enter the hall. In the wake of this event, large segments of the national discourse underwent an instant adjustment.
Red American orgs like the Fox News Channel now had a way to change the subject from the faltering war in Iran and from the president's ballroom. According to the new line of discourse, this third assassination attempt showed the way the irresponsible rhetoric of lefty lunatics and the Democrat [sic] Party had been putting the president's life in danger.
As you know, The Five is our flailing nation's most-watched "cable news" show. The size of its audience dwarfs the size of the congregations which watch any of Blue America's corresponding shows:
Average audience, April 2026
The Five, Fox News Channel: 3.8 million
Deadline: White House, MS NOW: 1.4 million
The numbers are hard to ignore.
On Monday, April 27, the children who appear on The Five had started to explore the new line about the irresponsible rhetoric of those on the left. We'll visit that program tomorrow—but two days later, the children went there again.
Below, we'll offer links to the videotape of last Wednesday's opening segment. You can watch the entire segment for yourself, possibly seeing why we'd say that rational discourse has ceased to exist within this failing nation.
You'll be able to make an assessment yourself. Our summary of that day's imitation of a news discussion starts like this:
As the program started, the routinely excitable Emily Compagno was serving as moderator for the day's first segment. She offered this overview:
COMPAGNO (4/29/26): The shooting marked the third attempted assassination plot targeting President Trump in just two years. And despite fresh calls to cool the rhetoric that puts a target on Trump's back, some on the left are digging in.
Some on the left were digging in, despite that latest attempt! At this point, as you can see, Compagno played videotape of three "people of the left."
One was said to be "digging in." Two were said to be in denial about the sweep of the problem with the rhetoric of the left.
Lost in denial were George Stephanopoulos (ABC News) and Jen Psaki (MS NOW), aides to former Democratic presidents. Governor Pritzker (D-IL) had been cast in the role of the one who was still "digging in."
Eventually, we'll show what all three of these people had said.
Having played three chunks of videotape, Compagno threw to Jesse Watters. Watters proceeded to pretend to discuss what the three had supposedly said.
This is no country for rational discourse! As Watters described the nature of the problem for this program's very large audience, he quickly employed a rhetorical truck—
COMPAGNO: Jesse, it's incredible how lopsided [the problem with the rhetoric] is. I don't know the rose-colored glasses they're using.
WATTERS: Well, the glasses are worn by two Democrat press flacks for Democrat presidents.
Where would they get this idea, Emily, that Trump is such a threat—that he needs to be taken out? Where would they get this idea that he's such a unique danger—that he's a genocidal dictator like Hitler who, at any day, could just kill everybody in sight? Where would they get the idea that he's mentally deranged, and that the cabinet, and perhaps the military, might have to do something about that?
That's the way he started. (He went on at length from there.) In fact, none of the three people in question had said anything dimly resembling the summary this imitation of life now seemed to provide.
The president "needs to be taken out?" None of the three had said anything dimly resembling that. And needless to say, none of the three had played the Hitler card, as Watters instantly did.
Later in the same monologue, Watters played that treasured card again! As he did, he told millions of Red American viewers how widespread this problem is:
WATTERS: This isn't coming from the dark underbelly of the Internet. This is coming from the mainstream media—in the New York Times, on network TV, on network late night television. You go online and this is what they say.
And they can't stop saying it because they can't dial it back. It's who they are. Everything they're saying defines everything about them. If you strip out the hate, they have nothing. There's no policy. There's no agenda.
They can't have an executive say, "Hey, you know, guys? Maybe you don't book the guy who calls Trump Hitler? Maybe you don't have him on again? Do you know the rundown where you're calling him a genocidal maniac conducting illegal wars and raping and pillaging people? Maybe you don't use that tonight."
No one's telling them that, because hate is profitable. Until you break the business model, you're never gonna be able to tear this system apart. And that's what it is. It's about money.
That's what Watters said. In that passage, he played the Hitler card two more times—and as he did, he insisted that this kind of rhetoric is all over the mainstream press!
It's all over the mainstream media, this Fox News tool had said. And yet, how remarkably odd:
In support of this inflammatory rhetoric, producers had played videotape of exactly no one comparing President Trump to Hitler. No examples of this widespread conduct had been offered at all!
Weird, isn't it? They call him Hitler all day and all night—but no examples were offered!
Full disclosure! People who watch the Fox News Channel may not sample much work from the mainstream press. For that reason, they may have had no way of knowing that they were possibly being deceived this day—but as the segment continued, Compagno extended the game.
Compagno had been at the Correspondents Dinner that fateful Saturday night. She had been forced, like everyone else, to hide beneath her table until order had been restored.
Concerning which, here's what she soon said:
COMPAGNO: Some argue, Dana, the breaking point is three assassination attempts on the president that, by the grace of God, he survived them. The future seems really terrifying. And to your point, I was under the table with a lot of journalists that use words like Kristallnacht, and likened his campaign rally here at MSG to a Nazi rally and Hitleresque.
I mean, these are words that are in headlines in these mainstream media journalists [sic].
Words like those can be seen in mainstream media headlines! Oddly, though, no examples were given.
No such excerpts were flashed on the screen! Of course, that didn't keep the Hitler card from being played one last time, as the segment ended:
COMPAGNO: Name me one Republican president that has not been called a Nazi! You can't name one. And that's an issue on the left.
GUTFELD: What did they call Republican before Hitler?
That's the way the segment ended. If anything, a similar segment, two days earlier, had been a bigger and uglier mess.
For the record, this is highly conventional gruel on this relentless imitation of a "cable news" program. Routinely, innocuous video clips are played, at which point then the crazy paraphrasing begins.
In this instance, it was said and implied, again and again, that President Trump is routinely referred to as "Hitler" in the mainstream media—even that it's routinely said that "he needs to be taken out."
But how odd! No examples of such conduct were shown on videotape this day. No examples of such written declamations were thrown up on the screen.
Just for the record, Compagno belongs on a major news program the way we belong in the Bolshoi Ballet. She may be the nicest person on earth, but she simply isn't equipped to be on our nation's news screens.
Watters is waste meat all the way down. At this point, Gutfeld almost seems to be more deranged by the week.
As for two of the demons who had been shown on videotape before the garbage from Watters started, here you see the full texts of what the two "flacks" had said:
STEPHANOPOULOS: No one is legitimizing violence in any way. I have very little patience for this. Has the president faced three threats in the last couple years? Absolutely. Is that abominable? Absolutely. The problem with political violence and extremism, it's evident on both sides.
[...]
PSAKI: The Democrats are blamed all for their rhetoric when what I hear, over and over again, is Democrats saying, "Please tone it down. Please tone down the rhetoric. That's not what we stand for." And we have seen, frankly from the other side, from Trump and others, elevated rhetoric. Now you don't want to get in a "he said/she said" place, but frankly it's infuriating.
The pair of "Democrat flacks" had dared to say that there are problems with political violence and with elevated rhetoric "on both sides!" Racing to prove the latter point, Watters, Compagno and Gutfeld jumped right in with classic examples of playing the Hitler card.
Three Democrats were aired that day—Pritzker, Stephanopoulos and Psaki. None of the three had mentioned Hitler or Kristallnacht. None of the three had said anything dimly like that—but then, up jumped the Fox News claque, shouting Hitler from morning to night.
This is no country for rational discourse. Two nights later, up stepped Maher, who we greatly admire.
As we noted yesterday, Bill kept playing the Hitler card too. This is no country for discourse!
Tomorrow: The Five on Monday, April 27. Also, what the fiendish Pritzker had said.
.
Andy Borowitz describes the similarities between Trump and Napoleon III, another bonkers authoritarian leader who overthrew the king and was in turn was overthrown by the French people after he started his own needless wars (without allies) against Mexico and Prussia. He also tore down 2/3 of the buildings in Paris, built gold ballrooms, and let his armed goons roam the streets killing people at will.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.borowitzreport.com/p/is-trump-like-napoleon
"Thoughtful back-and-forth discourse? In all honesty, we don't know why Kirsch seems to think that any such era ever existed."
ReplyDeleteWe had our own experiment in thoughtful discourse yesterday in Somerby's own comment section. It started with a few commenters discussing the premises of Somerby's essay -- that Habermas was full of shit and Bill Maher was right that Trump should not be compared to Hitler, but otherwise wrong because the left hasn't been calling Trump Hitler. "What have they done to the real Bill Maher?" Somerby asked.
Those of us discussing whether Trump has been compared to Hitler, and whether he deserves such a comparison were shortly ambushed by Somerby's own cadre of trolls, notably DG, Leroy and David in CA, although there are others without nyms too. Then discussion was hijacked and diverted to non-topics and name-calling. That proved Somerby's hypothesis that there is no thoughtful discourse.
Academics like Habermas do not have to contend with scores of unruly trolls butting into their discussions. Even students are respectful and only contribute on-topic ideas expressed in the vocabulary of their field. That is partly because everyone contributing is interested in the subject at hand, but also because there are real-world consequences for students behave rudely toward their professors and other accomplished figures in a field where they want grades and ultimately jobs. There are no consequences for trolls on the internet because Somerby has chosen to impose none -- he does not moderate his own blog.
So, while this is obviously a failed example of thoughtful discourse, it has also not been an example of the arenas where such discourse normally occurs. Everything deteriorates when you let antisocial assholes participate. They live to disrupt what others are doing and to promote their own interests, which in this case may be pay for political disruption, or it may just be the enjoyment of bullying others. They clearly do not give any thought to the subject under discussion, as evidenced by the content of their comments.
Before Somerby declares thoughtful discourse impossible, he should give it a fair chance to succeed. He has not done that. There is thoughtful discourse at other blogs and especially in the forums reserved for political commentary. But Somerby ignores those places. Luckily, the continuance of discourse does not depend on Somerby, who himself seems like a troll whose only purpose here is to call the press names, collect whatever bonus he gets for bullying youngish female journalists, and refusing to understand that Trump may be crazy but he still has political power and thus must be dealt with.
The next Right-wing argument made in good faith will be the first.
Delete"Somerby's own cadre of trolls, notably DG . . . .Then discussion was hijacked and diverted to . . . name-calling."
DeleteTalk about a lack of self-awareness! You lecture us against namecalling while in the very process of namecalling.
The point is not to confuse name calling with discourse, asshole.
DeleteOK. Let's say for the sake of argument that I am, as you say, a paid political disrupter, a bully, and an antisocial asshole troll. But what are you? The exemplar of thoughtful discourse? You really think you can sell that one?
DeleteBesides that, you have to hide out among the anons. You hit and hide. Not such a good look, in my opinion.
DeleteI engage in thoughtful discourse. You don’t.
DeleteWell, there it is. I just can't compete when you pull out a clever, insightful riposte like that.
DeletePlease identify by date and time stamp the last thoughtful discourse contribution you made at this blog. Data is evidence.
DeleteWhen you come to this site, the number of comments increased considerably but they are all ugly name calling and derogatory remarks, nothing that advances any discussion in progress when you arrive. That means you are the guy that Somerby is complaining about when he says that we no longer have thoughtful discourse in our democracy.
Look at your four comments directly above. None of them is on topic. They are all personal attacks because you think someone dissed you by calling you a troll. And yet, you are a troll as shown by the content of those four empty comments.
I get it that you don't have any idea how to make a substantive comment, because you don't know anything about anything. That's OK. In that case, you do not have anything to contribute to thoughtful discourse and should either shut up and go away, or read what others are saying and try to learn something. Talking is the last thing you should be doing when you are as ignorant and empty headed yet full of anger as you are.
"Please identify by date and time stamp the last thoughtful discourse contribution you made at this blog."
DeleteSuper easy, because I use a nym. 5/5 at 4:26 pm. Now you -- Oh, you can't, because you're a rando anon! Too bad.
"Talking is the last thing you should be doing when you are as ignorant and empty headed yet full of anger as you are."
DeleteOK. I'm backing away slowly, and watching your hands.
Look at the way Dogface introduces a threat of violence into what should be thoughtful discourse...
DeleteReally? Are you terribly frightened?
DeleteThe thoughtfulness of discourse is not measured by how many people watch a news show. There may even be an inverse relationship involved, since MSNOW is arguable more thoughtful than anything on Fox. Not sure why Somerby presents those figures at all.
ReplyDelete"We'll visit that program tomorrow—but two days later, the children went there again. "
ReplyDeleteIt is confusing when Somerby refers to non-children as children, given that Trump has taken to holding signing ceremonies involving actual children, where he tells them about transgender mutilization (not a real word) and the dangers of Iran nukes (which they don't have).
Somerby should find a better word to name-call the press now that Trump is using innocent children to promote his ideas. I've never considered children sufficiently obnoxious to use as a derogatory term, but Somerby may have had other experiences. Many of us like and enjoy the company of children and don't consider them bad people, the way Somerby does when he applies that name to his worst enemies, female members of the press.
Trump has taken to holding signing ceremonies involving actual children, where he tells them about transgender mutilization (not a real word) and the dangers of Iran nukes (which they don't have).
DeleteDear Lord, how much longer do we have to endure this madman in the WH? How much longer?
Surely Somerby is joking when he talks about thoughtful discourse and The Five in the same breath?
ReplyDeleteSomerby has always like to name-drop, such as when he mentions meeting someone famous (like Roseanne Barr) and tells us how nice she was to him. When he name drops Habermas, a German philosopher, after never mentioning him before, we are supposed to think that Somerby has read his work. Personally, I think this is fraud -- I doubt Somerby has ever read anything by the poor man, who died and thus cannot defend his own ideas now that Somerby is attacking them. Rational discourse indeed!
Fox has no reason to stay away from the topic of Iran. Fox was not reporting a "faltering war in Iran." Fox has been reporting a successful war in Iran. As reported by Fox, the US successfully destroy pretty much all of Iran's military, the US is blockading Irani ships and defeating the Iranian blockade. Furthermore, says Fox, the US has the option of more aggressive attacks at our option.
ReplyDeleteFox is a pro Republican pro Trump propaganda outlet, David.
DeleteIt is Somerby's strawman that Fox has any interest in thoughtful discourse. It has other goals.
Delete"You can watch the entire segment for yourself, possibly seeing why we'd say that rational discourse has ceased to exist within this failing nation."
The idea that the lack of thoughtful discourse on Fox applies to the entire nation is ridiculous. Fox is entertainment and propaganda, not any kind of discourse. One clue is that it does not allow actual members of Blue America to participate in any meaningful way (other than the token Tarlov who is verbally beaten up and used to reinforce Red dominance).
So, Somerby sets up Fox as an example, then concludes that we are a failing nation without rational discourse. The absurdity of that reasoning should be obvious to all here.
How does Somerby expect to be taken seriously when he advances ideas like this? He is behaving like a clown and a shill for the right, implying that the left is brought us to this situation when his whole set of claims is wrong and senseless, not to mention insulting to both Blue America and anyone who reads Somerby's garbage.
Somerby says no examples of anyone calling Trump Hitler were provided. The right cannot benefit by showing anyone calling Trump something as derogatory as a Hitler comparison. The left has generally followed Godwin's Law but plenty of comparisons have been made informally, especially on Social Media.
ReplyDeleteHere is the most well-known reference to Trump as Hitler:
"A state representative from Georgia has thrown a wrench into what was supposed to be something of a coronation for Republican U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance. After securing former President Trump’s endorsement last week, Vance was set to campaign with Trump’s son Don Jr. before Trump himself visits Ohio this weekend.
Like Vance, Rep. Josh McLaurin, D-Sandy Springs, went to Yale for law school, and the two lived together for a time. Monday, McLaurin shared an apparent screenshot of a conversation they had in February of 2016.
https://twitter.com/JoshforGeorgia/status/1516093390378741763?s=20&t=iSsnnYLLjyTPd2H5UAWLPQ
“I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler. How’s that for discouraging?” Vance writes in the message."
Godwin's Law: "Godwin's Law, formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990, states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1. It acts as a memetic tool to highlight lazy, hyperbolic debate tactics, often implying that such comparisons signal a loss of the argument."
For the left, mention of behaviors committed by Hitler, such as detainment of political enemies in camps, ICE interference with citizens and immigrants, inflammatory speeches, targeting of minorities as scapegoats, and so on, evoke Hitler without anyone needing to mention his name. There are frequent references to Nazis in Trump's administration, Trump's support for the extreme right (those good people on both sides), Project 25, and Trump's own admiration for Hitler as evidenced by the book of Hitler's speeches kept by his bedside (according to Ivana).
Why doesn't Somerby know about this? How is Somerby's assertion that no one has called Trump Hitler have any validity in the context of the ongoing concerns about authoritarianism by Trump and his appointees?
Again, Somerby seems to be making things up. Why? Who knows? He may consider this a double bind, where the left is diminished if it hasn't recognized Trump's Hitlerian tendencies, but is also placed in the position of condemning itself if it admits that it has called Trump Hitler.
When even JD Vance saw who and what Trump was, but decided to ally with Trump for his own benefit, we can be sure that the left recognizes the same facts about Trump. Why does Somerby deny that? He is obviously trying to protect against right wing claims that comparing Trump to Hitler incites violence and that the left is thus responsible for Case Allen and other shooters.
I think it is obvious that Trump needs to be removed from the presidency. Saying that is not a call for violence because we have legal, peaceful means of removing the president for incapacity. Congress needs to act.
Cont.
DeleteThe right would be attacking the left no matter what manifesto this shooter published, no matter what the circumstances of an attempted shooting. We don't need to pretend that Trump is not Hitleresque to defend ourselves against accusations of inciting violence. We on the left want Trump to be removed from office. There is no shame in that, and no crime either. Most of all, we don't need Somerby to lie for us. His obviously dishonest claim that no one on the left is comparing Trump to Hitler does not help "thoughtful discourse" or change the reality that Trump needs to go.
As with Richard Nixon, perhaps a stout Republican concerned about his country might have a conversation with Trump and convince him to resign for health reasons. It is the best option open to the right, given the impending tidal wave that will engulf the November elections and sweep Democrats into office in 2028. Republicans can solve the problem of Trump themselves by asking him to step down.
"Watters is waste meat all the way down."
ReplyDeleteHow ugly is that, as a depersonalizing statement of hate? It is moments like this, when Somerby lets his guard down, that we see what an awful person Somerby is.
Not nearly as awful as Watters.
DeleteWatters owns his shit.
Delete"In this instance, it was said and implied, again and again, that President Trump is routinely referred to as "Hitler" in the mainstream media..."
ReplyDeleteActually, Trump is referred to as "Shitler," in social media and on the left. That is NOT mainstream media, which only puts the name Hitler in headlines when someone else is calling Trump that name.
We do not yet have thought police. Referring to Trump as Hitler is well within the limits of freedom of speech. The sooner the general public realizes how similar Trump is to Hitler, the sooner we can build public support for removing him from office. That decrease in Trump's favorability ratings, now trending toward zero, is what Red propagandists fear, not that someone will shoot at Trump. Somerby is ignoring that this noise from the right is about protecting Trump from negative speech that will decrease his political viability.
Why does Somerby call the Democrats he quoted "flacks" when none of them are currently working to promote any specific candidate or politician? It comes across as one-sided gratuitous nastiness to use that term, especially when it no longer applies to their job.
ReplyDeletePritzker is not a flack. He is governor of Illinois.
DeleteHe is not fiendish either. Don't we have enough enemies on the right without Somerby piling on the adjectives? He is supposed to be one of us, but offhand remarks like this, calling Pritzker fiendish, contradict that idea.
DeleteI am planning to vote for Pritzker for president in 2028, because of the way he stood up to ICE incursions. The state police are now investigating the fatal shooting of a detainee by an ICE agent in the Chicago suburbs.
Delete"This is no country for rational discourse. Two nights later, up stepped Maher, who we greatly admire.
ReplyDeleteAs we noted yesterday, Bill kept playing the Hitler card too. This is no country for discourse!"
Why does Somerby confuse "discourse" with comparing Trump to Hitler? There are thoughtful analyses comparing Trump and Hitler that offer facts and contrast and compare the terms of both men. That is certainly within the realm of discourse.
Somerby seems to be saying that one cannot talk about Hitler and Trump and still be engaging in thoughtful discourse. That is manifestly untrue, especially for historians and political scientists and even political analysts and journalists (depending on the circumstances). No one considers social media, or Fox propaganda shows, to be any kind of discourse, which is designed as the informal or formal exchange of ideas.
Name calling is not discourse but an expression of hostility, a form of bullying. When those who hate Trump call him Hitler to disparage him, they are expressing hostility and hostility can lead to violence in extreme circumstances. But those who are actively comparing Trump and Hitler, even when warning about the dangers of evil leaders, are expressing ideas and that makes such conversations not only discourse, but thoughtful to the extent that honestly held ideas and facts are being exchanged.
It is an abuse of Habermas when Somerby grabs his philosophical career studying thoughtful discourse and communication and uses it as a stick to beat up on those who think Trump IS the new Hitler. There are many such people holding sincere beliefs about their similarity. When Timothy Snyder or Masha Gessen talk, we should all be paying close attention, in my opinion.
Instead, I find myself wondering why Somerby holds Bill Maher in such high esteem when he mostly sounds like an asshole these days. Where is the example of Maher's astuteness? There is none, so why should we believe anything Somerby says about Maher? Or so Somerby's reasoning goes today.
"Tomorrow: The Five on Monday, April 27"
ReplyDeleteIsn't that date well in our rear view mirror? Why do we have to go back to talk about anything Gutfeld said then? Let's move on.
Hitler is as Hitler does.
ReplyDeleteIn an election as close as 2024, something like this can help swing the outcome:
ReplyDelete"A comprehensive study released on Wednesday has revealed that the popular social media app TikTok may have helped tilt the 2024 election in President Donald Trump’s favor, The Guardian reported.
“In an environment where margins are thin, systematic differences in the kind of political information recommended to tens of millions of young voters are worth taking seriously,” said Yasir Zaki, a professor of computer science at New York University’s campus in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), speaking with The Guardian.
Younger voters aged 18 to 29 – TikTok’s primary user base – shifted towards Trump by 10 percentage points when comparing the 2020 and 2024 elections. And, according to a study published by the prestigious scientific journal Nature, TikTok’s algorithm had “systematically prioritized pro-Republican content in three states leading up to the 2024 US elections,” The Guardian reported.
“Our finding isn’t just about reinforcement,” said Talal Rahwan, also a professor at New York University at UAE, as well as one of the authors of the study, speaking with The Guardian.
“Democratic accounts were shown significantly more anti-Democratic content than Republican accounts were shown anti-Republican content. The algorithm wasn’t just giving people what they want; it was giving one side more of what the other side says about them.”
To conduct the study, researchers created hundreds of TikTok accounts, used virtual private networks to geolocate said accounts to specific cities, and trained said accounts to watch videos aligning with either pro-Democratic or pro-Republican Party content. The dummy accounts trained on pro-GOP content were delivered by TikTok’s algorithm with 11.5% more content aligning with their views when compared to the pro-Democratic Party content.
“Our findings show partisan imbalances in political information exposure on a platform dominated by algorithmic recommendations, with implications for platform governance and democratic discourse,” the peer-reviewed study reads."
sig sauer p220
ReplyDeletesig sauer p320
sig sauer p365
pistola taurus g2c
ar15 fucile