Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Founder Presents Vision For The New Republic, Many Resign In Protest
SkiTee94 writes: Chris Hughes, one of the original founders of Facebook, is in damage control mode to save his recently acquired, century-old publication The New Republic. In response to Hughes' vision to turn the highly respected, and most would say old school, publication into a "digital media company," about a dozen senior editors and writers simply quit (out of a 54-person staff). One of the editors who quit said, "The narrative that they are putting out there is that it is the 21st century and we have to innovate and adapt. ... We don’t know what their vision is. It is Silicon Valley mumbo jumbo buzzwords that don’t mean anything." Is Hughes a visionary cleaning out dead wood or a clueless tech star leaving destruction in his wake?
"....It is Silicon Valley mumbo jumbo buzzwords that don’t mean anything."
That made my day!
I've heard Hughes speak. He enjoys pushing new things simply because they're new, not because they'll actually improve the product.
Sad to see this happen to TNR.
Hughes is both a visionary cleaning out dead wood and a clueless tech star, the latter because he bought TNR in the first place.
Same thing is happening to ACN in The Newsroom (HBO) right now.
Some Tech Billionaire screwing up the righteous journalism methodology of the network's senior management.
Interesting!
"....It is Silicon Valley mumbo jumbo buzzwords that donâ(TM)t mean anything"
That made my day!
What those editors have forgotten is, long before Silicon Valley was known as the "Silicon Valley" there were already BUZZWORDS and most of those were invented by pencil pushers, such as themselves!
Without knowing what he means by "digital media company" and what changes exactly were taking place it's impossible to know.
Maybe the staff overreacted to some BS corporate email?
Maybe the publication was being turned into something with typical clickbait articles, because it makes more profits?
Heh, only someone whose politics is on the extreme right would consider TNR a "far left wing liberal rag".
I'd say that Hughes didn't do a damn thing.
You had a bunch of journalists who didn't identify with the pablum the new owner was puking. So, to send a CLEAR message, they quit.
An unusually direct show of integrity in today's era of spineless, jellyfish-like hack wannabes.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
People in this country just want to read and hear views that reinforce their World view.
As a result, people are uninformed, lack understanding of the issues and get suckered by propaganda.
As an experiment, watch the news about the protests happening around the country. Some networks just report and show the very few instances of violence, while another network focuses on the violence because their viewers' World view is that black people are violent subhumans - and they want to make them angry enough to keep tuning in.
No magazine that is a century old should be called new, unless it's readership is mostly vampires.
From about 1975 forward TNR was in the vanguard of "neoliberalism", which basically amounts to packaging hard right Republican ideas + hippie punching and selling in to "moderate" Democratic politicians and DC insiders who think they need to "move right" to get re-elected. Classifying TNR (cf Andrew Sullivan) as a 'liberal rag' is a bit, oh, silly.
sPh
You can always have more. It is fun watching troglodytes if they are far away. Problems start when they can send drones to protect democracy, human rights and ensure the path to (mostly own) prosperity. A fuckhead in middle of US Murican desert (WDC) can kill people indiscriminately from huge distance and would not even know where and who the killed ones were, why they had to die etc. Murica rulez!
Which admittedly is darkly amusing as from 1980 forward TNR - under multiple editors - was as engaged as any neoliberal [*] entity in destroying economic security for the majority of US citizens. Now they get re-engineering/outsourced/disrupted and it is a tragedy.
Also, the failure of any of these people to resign during TNR's era of deep racism under Peretz/Sullivan should disqualify them from uttering even a peep.
sPh
[*] neoliberal = hard right Republican with a prettier face
They already all got jobs in the White House/MSNBC
Yes because there are no other aspects of human reality than business ones.
I am willing to bet that the ages of those who resigned were all over 55. That some of the adaptations were things like rewarding skill not seniority. That new hires might actually be paid as much as someone with 20+ years.
Other than FOX on TV, which national media outlets are there that aren't left wing liberal biased? .
Pretty well every AM radio talk show which has likes of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity etc etc etc
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
"It's my business so if you don't like it, you can leave" is a legitimate way to do business, but when about 20% your staff - most of whom are very senior - resigns as a result, you are probably doing it wrong.
You don't have a single left wing outlet in the US. Even the most left leaning is way into the political right everywhere else on the planet. You've got so used to extreme right as central, you cannot see you're a fascist state.
For the past 40 years TNR has apparently been owned by a incredibly bigoted person who used the liberal credibility of the magazine to push his white supremacists ideas. Certainly these ideals are accepted in some circles, but not the target audience of the TNR. As a new generation who was not raised on overt bigotry came into being, a generation that pretty uniformly saw the assassination of MLK through history books, not newscasts, and were not raised on magazine subscriptions, the new century saw the circulation of the new republic cut in half. The white supremacy could no longer be covered with the inertia of the respect of the magazine.
In this way we see the problems of TNR firmly rooted in old ideas and the destruction of the brand by the previous owner. If the brand is to be rehabilitated it is going to require the jettison of the previous ideas that are not consistent with far left ideology, and those who think that white supremacy is consistent with anything real in the US were free to leave with the editors.
TNR is only going to be saved by re branding as an online source of liberal news and analysis. While the editors did not promote any kind of white supremacy, they were complicit in the past, and that may have been a problem in the present.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Just wondering where all the Hughes supporters in this thread stood during the recent Dice-Holdings-foists-Beta-on-Slashdot kerfuffle.
You are absolutely correct. We need real right-wing media not lapdogs of FedGov like Fox News.
What is "AM radio"?
That thing that conservatives listen to when they are driving around in their fracking powered gas guzzlers, and also that thing they listen to when at home and not in church.
A quick glance at google shows that these types of shows have a combined audience in excess of 50 million.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Thats just severe crazy pretending to be right wing.
He's just another dickhead with far too much power in his little hands.
Not in the US there aren't.
When SJWs and Hipsters and click-baiters dog pile into your organisation, if you've failed to keep them aout, the best thing to do is walk away and let them implode things all by themselves. The New Repuiblic editors, the devs who forked Node.js into io.js, both made the right decision. These people do not care about the organisations they co-opt. They are there to push agenda, insanity, stifle competition and above all farm the organisation for kudos and cash until it falls apart.
Geeks need to stop being so trusting of those who try to creep in. Always make certain someone earns their position through merit. It's the only way to keep these people out. Otherwise, you'll need to walk quickly too.
No, this magazine actually is a public trust. It has never turned a profit in 100 years. But it has provided a forum for some of the best writers we've ever had. I hate to break it to you: lots of terrific art, theater, music , literature, science , sport, journalism , and for that matter, personal relationships, are not for-profit activities. And now this FB dweeb has decided to fire the Editor without telling him, kill the print edition, and become another HuffPo or Daily Mirror Online or TMZ or ... any number of other shallow "digital media" your generation is saturated with. It is just part of the general demise of good writing and the rise of "info porn" that the Internet has brought us -- along w Instant Billionaires like Bezo and Hughes and Zuckerberg.
Can they stop calling it "New" York City? It's several centuries old, we all know it's not "New" anymore.
Thats just severe crazy pretending to be right wing.
I prefer to think that they have researched the market and are offering a product that is desired by a large segment of the population. And that their commentary is very well crafted in order to increase the moral outrage in their audience and hence increase ratings.
Whether or not they are "pretending" is only something that is known to them.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Which ones? Well, all the media outlets owned by large multinational corporations with a heavy lobbying arm and strong interest in a pro-corporate government.
In other words, ALL OF THEM. Well, except perhaps MSNBC they are more like Fox, a propaganda experiment.
Your are either a troll or simply nuts.
Sure - because the only possible opposite of "liberal" is "fascist." Not, say, "conservative." Unless of you are of the crowd that doesn't believe there is a difference between a conservative and a fascist.
You have a good point. The U.S. considers those who espouse totalitarianism to be outside of the main stream. Once you enter into the realm of supporting totalitarianism, we no longer consider it worth our time to discuss how you disagree with someone else who supports totalitarianism. Whereas most of the rest of the world considers the political spectrum to run from totalitarianism on one end to totalitarianism on the other, with the distinction being how that totalitarianism is run and who runs it.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It can be both a 'Trust' and a business. The two are not incompatible.
For a decent magazine to survive in the modern media environment. It has to make a choice:
1 Regurgitate the cheapest possible copy and content you can scrape up from the cheapest possible source to get your advertising costs as low as possible so you can undercut the price of any other magazine. Race to the bottom.
2 Be a distinct and unique voice that attracts readers for your unique writing and insight.
Guess which one the editors want and which one the new owner wants? Given that there are more crappy magazines out there already than anyone can read, which one do you think is likely to attract quality employees?
Magazine market is racing to the bottom almost across the board. This new owner sounds like he is dying to join the race.
The problem with this purchase, and the NYT pay-to-read-editorial thing a few years ago, is that there's too much free propaganda on the web. Any business model that relies on getting people to pay for propaganda from any perspective is doomed.
No, you have to reverse that... Those people are paid to act crazy. And for that kind of money, I would put on the red nose too... It would be crazy not to.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Funny, just a few days ago I watched the movie The Secret Life of Walter Mitty..
The open letter from the long-time editors who quit says:
> It is a sad irony that at this perilous moment, with a reactionary variant of conservatism in the ascendancy, liberalismâ(TM)s central journal should be scuttled with flagrant and frivolous abandon.
The very people who make the magazine are very clear that their intention has been that it is "liberalism's central journal". Elsewhere you'll see they honestly and clearly state their intention to promote left-wing liberalism. They aren't pretending to be objective, balanced, or factual.
It sounds like the writers quit wile they were ahead. Could be a good thing because they didn't get fired, but a bad thing because maybe they didn't gamble long enough. Maybe they were just looking for a reason to get out because it wasn't their thing.
Is this where this season's Newsroom plot came from? I assumed they were just trotting out an old trope, not mirroring current events...
...very senior...
That's the key... Better to get out while the offer is on the table...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
That's the point. Right wing - other than the anti-regulation buisness lapdog wing - is severe crazy. That's why they vote for the anti-regulation business lapdog wing's agenda...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I don't know what the new republic is but, I give it two thumbs up and much farm animals!
The liberal TNR has been packaging "hard right Republican ideas + hippie punching"? And "Classifying TNR (cf Andrew Sullivan) as a 'liberal rag' is a bit, oh, silly"? That's just nuts. TNR is Liberal. You're heading deep into the fringe left if you want to claim they're "right wing" in some fashion.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Could you give me the address for this Ms. U.S. person whose beliefs you are presenting to us? I'd like to get in touch with her and learn more about her ideology. I find it interesting.
I also have a few friends who refer to themselves as U.S. Citizens who are interested to find out if her name has any connection to their self chosen label or if it is just some kind of odd coincidence.
thanks.
Hughes was involved in online organizing for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign on My.BarackObama.com, the campaign's online social networking website.[7]
Look how that turned out.
He is also an invitee of the Bilderberg Group and attended the Swiss 2011 Bilderberg conference at the Suvretta House in St. Moritz, Switzerland.[12]
Laugh
In March 2012, he purchased a majority stake in The New Republic Magazine. He is now the publisher and editor-in-chief of the magazine.[13]
Money makes you an expert in everything.
Under Hughes, the magazine has become less focused on "The Beltway," with more cultural coverage and attention to visuals. It also stopped running an editorial in every issue. There has also been attention to what media observers have described as a less uniformly pro-Israel tone in its coverage (which was a hallmark of Marty Peretz's ownership).[24]
On December 4, 2014, it was announced that Gabriel Snyder, previously of Bloomberg, would replace Franklin Foer as editor, and that the print edition of TNR would be reduced to ten issues a year. At the same time, a letter of resignation was signed by ten contributing editors, Paul Berman, Jonathan Chait, William Deresiewicz, Ruth Franklin, Anthony Grafton, Enrique Krauze, Ryan Lizza, Sacha Z. Scoblic, Helen Vendler, Sean Wilentz, and sent to Chris Hughes. Longtime contributor and the current literary editor of TNR, Leon Wieseltier, also resigned in protest to the changes being made at the magazine by Hughes and CEO Guy Vidra.[25]
My personal opinion is anyone involved in growing Facebook is scum, the antithesis of what the World needs.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Pretty much all of them. There is such a fear of being seen as "leftist" that over the years media companies have leaded further and further right. FOX and AM radio are extreme cases, but even places like NYT is pretty right leaning.
Unless you've got a Sugar Daddy shoveling money into the organization, you absolutely must make money to pay your bills and feed your staff.
I'm having a hard time understanding.
lapdogs of FedGov
So the Federal Government actually supports the Second Amendment now? Or do I just have the wrong idea about Fox News? Because I thought they were pretty much pro-guns, and I cannot imagine a pro-gun person possibly being considered a lapdog of FedGov.
To know the future, you just read the past. One of the strengths of those that consider themselves Digital Citizen is the lack of consideration for resource burning beyond the daily 8:00am status meeting. Graffiti scribbled on the carcases of dead trees is going the way of Cuneiform. People still read Cuneiform, but can one read yesterdays daily 8:00am status meeting; 10,000 years from now? The writers of Cuneiform already know.
You're more provincial than the Americans you're attempting to insult if you believe that "everywhere else on the planet" is to the left of the United States.
By the way - in actual fascist states, people don't go around yelling "fascist state" without a care in the world.
So, less than a sixth of the US population?
Nothing to do with totalitarianism. Outside of a few social issues, the U.S. has almost no liberal politicians, and the U.S. also has essentially no fiscally conservative politicians. Instead, both parties are fiscally liberal, with the Republicans being the most fiscally liberal (spend money and don't worry about raising taxes to pay for it). Both parties are socially fairly conservative, with very few progressives or socialists even on the Democrat side of the aisle. The only real differences between the two parties are that:
In short, the differences are mostly a lot of empty rhetoric, full of sound and fury....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Liberal = fascist, you tool!
Indeed, both the Supreme Court and President Obama have recently supported the fact that the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens.
As for Fox News being "fascist" LOL, Marine LePen is right-wing, Brit Hume is not. True mild rightists like LePen do not even get on TV, print, or radio in the US.
Can I point out that there's this thing called relativity. Basically, the way which something appears to you is based wholly on you're frame of reference. When dealing with if something is left or right as an absolute is impossible, because that implies that there is an absolute center. If you're extremely far left compared to most, but view yourself as moderate, then everything is going to appear right to you.
Also, on your point about Iraq, need I remind you that unless my memory is failing me, the only European country which was objectively against the whole Iraq war was France. Basically every other country, there were protests from anti-war activists, but their governments overall supported it. But hey, by your statement above, that means that at that time, there was no left not only in the US, but also in Europe.
everything on american TV is right-wing you moron
Fleecing conservatives of their money is in fact a market. Those guys will open up their wallets if you say all the right sweet things. Even better they'll go around repeating it. There is an entire eco-system in right wing political systems doing this. Since a lot of these people trend to being older, they are both susceptible to fear and they have money. The young, can also be susceptible, but they don't have money so there is no market.
They need to create an index for conservatives.
"It's like they're Andy Rooney going on and on about refusing to give up his typewriter."
And how many viewers did Andy Rooney have before he died? Millions, now you know why the new owner is in damage control mode. If the old editors setup their own competing magazine and take a large chunk of TNR's readers with them the new owner is screwed if it takes even that much.
I don't listen to NPR for the political commentary. Mostly stuff like Car Talk, and some of the insightful pieces for instance on Katrina or things that national media have stopped focusing on.
Again, conservatives are loud and they have money.
Elsewhere, for which you don't have a quote handy.
Listen weekdays.
Until Hughes bought it, for the previous few decades it had been controlled by Marty Peretz, and was to some extent reflective of his views, which are an odd idiosyncratic mix of left-wing and right-wing ideas. He's socially liberal but a defense hawk, among other positions. Which explains why TNR was liberal on things like gay marriage, but neoconservative on things like the Iraq War.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Supporting Excellent Iraq War II, pumping the _Bell Curve_, publishing the racist fantasies of Stephen Glass, joining the anti-public education movement, and also publishing the "No Exit" hatchet job on Bill Clinton's health care reform proposal isn't in any way shape or form liberal. And that's not even taking into account Martin Perez' racism and ethnic hatred which is of a variety that is a bit harder to criticize in US society but which most liberals reject.
Representative quote from Andrew Sullivan: "The middle part of the country—the great red zone that voted for Bush—is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column." [note that he later altered that essay as published on his blog to make it less self-damning; this is the original wording]. Yes, he's gay. No, he's not liberal.
sPh
Right, Left -- actual life is more complicated than that.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The market of people who are willing to pay for high-quality written content is too small. It is real, and these subscribers act as patrons of works of true value. So, something of value is absolutely lost.
But it is lost because the present culture of consumers don't value it. What people are willing to actually do is what drives these business decisions. The majority have spoken: there isn't a place in the new market for content of this type and quality. Clickbait trash is what the largest section of the market responds to, so it is what everyone gets.
If you can somehow create a cultural trend that shifts these currents, please consider yourself invited to do so. But simply providing the water will never make the horse drink.
You are one of those proud know-it-alls who knows nothing about what he 's yapping about. TNR has never ever been "far left " -- it was founded by folks around TRoosevelt as a quintessially "liberal" mag, and in recent decades it has if anything become rather reactionary, espec on anything even vaguely related to Palestine.
Is there a difference?
Learn to love Alaska
Performance pay--- how do you measure performance? It is NOT a simple problem and no matter what you come up with humans are naturally talented at adaptation, they will survive and many will thrive by gaming your system. Seniority is the least hackable metric of all and so simple everybody knows it's inherent flaws - but EVERY metric is going to be flawed.
Online performance is largely measured by CLICKS. The result is the trashy click bait we have today. An earth shattering investigative report which might take a year of a senior journalist's time (a REAL journalist) puts them at the bottom of the scale while some twit pushing rumors/gossip who can't spell has tons of clicked of trash gets to the top (and has the nerve to call what they do journalism.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Like Fox News, It is entertainment for old geezers who aren't happy unless they have those damn liberals to complain about.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Belo Corp was national and very conservative, until they were acquired. I have no idea what the result of that acquisition had on their leanings.
There are a lot of the smaller ones that are very conservative.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm sorry, but the only difference between a liberal and a totalitarian is that the liberal says, "You are free to do whatever you want, as long as what you want is what I think you should want."
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
"The Democrats tend to create social programs, then forget to check up on them to see if they're actually working as intended, and just assume that they are. The Republicans also tend to not check up on them, but complain that they're not working as intended, even if they are."
I don't mind social programs. But they need to be checked. There are a lot of unintended consequences that happen with them and they can both be abused or micromanaged. I tend to prefer giving money to people who know how to do it correctly and from a local perspective. I would totally gut the welfare state and start over.. although not now, too many crazy conservatives around. It's important that we have a very large middle class while making sure people don't slip into poverty. If we want to have healthy small businesses or even be able to create small businesses that is where it needs to be. We need to de-emphasize large corporations.
It is Silicon Valley mumbo jumbo buzzwords that don’t mean anything
Oh, you mean like business buzzwords like "synergy" and "innovation" and "accreditation"? Give me a break.
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
Promise me you don't take a look at Europe. You'd probably go blind and deaf with all those deep red socialist news networks littering the airwaves with their leftist propaganda.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes. Most of the crazy lives on the far Left.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
They consider "liberal" to be "left". It really boggles the mind.
I'd really love to see where they'd put the average European center-left party.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
LOL
Hows Obama's position on those H1-B visas treating you and just how much income have you lost.
Or how's that UVA rape thing going for you ? Fake but Accurate again ?
come 2016 let me know how you feel Hillary is working out for you.
What you mean is that conservatives are Right.
I think you're making an unintuitive leaps of logic. Your mistake is that you're still defining political buckets for those who are exploiting them. There is no political bucket, it's just business. The conservative demographic is much more likely to open their wallets than liberals because liberals tend to be younger and have less money.
as in Right wing? or something else?
It's far more than a dozen that simply packed up and left and there's also a whole slew of contributors, columnists, and other's associated with the publication that have quit and/or asked for their names to come off the masthead. Essentially anyone that was anyone has declared they want nothing to do with the publication anymore. Literally overnight a century old establishment is gone and not because it failed but because all the key people associated with it walked out the door. Even if you don't agree with everything said in the publication, it's a very sad day. Those that left are preemptively saying that nobody was against advancing a digital strategy and pushing more content online, but what they are against is largely the incompetence of the new owner and the fact that Hughes seems clueless in understanding what about the publication allowed it to exist for a hundred years when others failed left and right. It's like someone bought the Royal Shakespeare Company and said "Shakespeare is so old and stale, I think we should like make action movies or something..." Only time will tell, but Right now Hughes comes across looking like someone who stumbled into a lot of money by simply being at the right place at the right time with the right people--not because he's actually a skilled businessman. With The New Republic it's as if he thought "oooh, buying publications seems like a popular thing for rich guys to do... yeah let's do that and then do some cool Silicon Valley stuff with it... like I think I know something about that!" His husband's political campaign in New York this fall was equally a disaster. Voters saw through the fluff and saw someone saying "hey my husband has a lot of money and can pay for me to run for office... vote for me, it would be awesome!" Not surprisingly the voters weren't impressed.
Could you give me the address for this Ms. U.S. person whose beliefs you are presenting to us? I'd like to get in touch with her and learn more about her ideology. I find it interesting.
What? Who in the US favors totalitarianism? Do you??
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Your center detector needs re-calibration (travel anywhere in the world outside the US)
Yes, the US, once the last, best hope for freedom and liberty, is moving further to the left where all the countries that have already lost are now positioned. Central Banks (rah rah), central control (yippee ECB), and soul-crushing austerity rules while the ECB spends 1.6 Billion Euros (that's Billion with a "B") on its luxurious building, built for kings. Of course, they are the new kings and priests all rolled into one, while the obedient zombies of Europe cheer on their own enslavement.
That's great - let's bring it to the US. It's working very well. The only thing stopping Agenda 21 from wresting control of all property from the US citizens and handing it to the elitists are those that know enough history to recognize the New World Order being promoted by HW Bush and Obama is no different from the serfdom and slavery of the old world that founding of the US tried to avoid in the New World. Old habits die hard, though, and the descendents of the old dictators want their Divine Right of Kings back, but with a new name now because they have created new gods to replace the old, and those gods demand sacrifice from the people. And glory for the New Priests.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
You don't have a single left wing outlet in the US. Even the most left leaning is way into the political right everywhere else on the planet. You've got so used to extreme right as central, you cannot see you're a fascist state.
You don't have a single right wing outlet in Europe. Even the most right leaning is way into the political left in the US. You've got so used to extreme left as central, you cannot see you're living in a fascist state.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
You cannot add figures up like that in radio statistics; if 5-million people listened to ten shows a week each, the "cumulative total" would be 50 million per week, etc.
> See also #3.
Sorry, you wanted the numbers rendered on your ordered list? Wrong site.
Yeah, I can't imagine why they did that, either.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Right, Left -- actual life is more complicated than that.
It only seems complicated because both sides use the same tactics: Each has a group of followers that are convinced the [left / right] is the only ideas that help the common people, and they use those followers to promote ideas that end up, once implemented to always be bad for the common people and provide more power and money to the elites in control. It's all a game to them, and they each have one color of pawns or another.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Yeah,it's also that thing we listen to while we're at work so we can pay taxes to keep no good lazy liberals up!!
You seem to be making a number of mistakes, including thinking that people serving a market don't have convictions, and that liberals are necessarily young or don't have money. Do you think David Korn's only interest is the check he picks up for writing? Keith Oberman pursued his political mania until it ruined him. Slashdot is often innudated by howls about whatever "outrage" the Koch brothers are claimed to have engaged in while practically nobody acknowledges their spending is dwarfed by that of rich liberals and progressives. Being liberal is a state of mind, not an indicator of either wealth or age.
I'm not sure you've addressed anything I'm even talking about. We're like talking about two completely different things. I made the point that conservatives are a market and that businesses like to cater to them because they are generally older and have money. (they also have more free time) All of those are quite intuitively true. I never talked about spending by liberals or koch brothers or whatever. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. They may all be true. I'm just telling you what makes Fox and others successful in a media market.
I agree there is nothing in the mainstream, but www.democracynow.org is legit for a source for legitimate dialog. Too bad most people are too fucking caught up in their own stupid bullshit to pay attention to it.
uh.... so the Washington Post doesn't count then (moderate left)? How about the Detroit Free Press (hard left)? What about the New York Times or MSNBC? And stop pulling your information (and quoting verbatim!) from Yahoo Answers.
By the way, Barack Obama is hard left which is why the American media fucking love him.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
What is going on here with the lists? Who at Slashdot thought that non-list lists made any kind of sense? How do Slashcode devs not understand the effects of list-style-type: none;? Why does this persist?
Perhaps more salient, why are we, as ostensible tech geeks, not raising more of a fuss about a site that many think represents computer geek-ness, and yet that cannot implement sane (and relatively simple) CSS?
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Other than FOX on TV, which national media outlets are there that aren't left wing liberal biased? In Canada all of our media was left biased and so a new newspaper had to be created to give balance for the other 50% who aren't lefties. We now have The National Post. Conservatives also now have The SUN and Sun News Network TV channel.
It's ironic that if news networks simply reported the news instead of editorializing it, they wouldn't be liberal or conservative, they would just be news.
not to worry, you've still got TTAP and the PTA to deal with. Except, you don't, as it's all done behind closed doors, to Chatham House Rules under the guise of State dinners and defence deals. You ain't getting the detail until the ink's dry.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
You don't have a single left wing outlet in the US. Even the most left leaning is way into the political right everywhere else on the planet. You've got so used to extreme right as central, you cannot see you're a fascist state.
dailykos.com
huffingtonpost.com
I could go on, but I'd rather not waste anymore time on your hyperbolic statements.
So say the crazies on the far right.
Learn to love Alaska
this part does not seem true:
> The Republicans tend to be backed more by the wealthy, so they tend to lower taxes on the wealthy
> while borrowing from Social Security that mostly benefits the poor and middle class,
> whereas the Democrats tend to be backed by more of the upper middle class, so they do the opposite.
For decades, the two most wealthy Americans have been W. Buffett and Bill Gates. Apart from being bridge partners, they have been staunch and public Democratic supporters.
Beyond that, the many millionaires in Silicon Valley and Hollywood tend to be Democrat, while the many millionaires in the financial industries tend to be Republican.
The rich have their tastes, but they are neither particularly "Republican" nor "Democratic."
Fox News is conservative, of course. The Fox News Radio tagline is something like "the latest news and conservative perspectives". Similarly, New Republic calls itself a liberal journal. To pretend that either is objective would be silly.
Fox used to have one good show, Hannity and Coomes, co-anchored by a liberal and a conservative who would both acknowledge when the other made a good point.
Is Hughes a visionary cleaning out dead wood or a clueless tech star leaving destruction in his wake?
Why on earth would you think those are mutually exclusive?
"Your center detector needs re-calibration (travel anywhere in the world outside the US). All media in the US is right to far-right."
Your rest-of-the-world detector also needs some recalibration: that's old school. The rest of the world is getting significantly more right-wing at the moment, while pubilications such as Slate thrive in the US.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Just wanted to point out that everyone trends to being older. It's called aging.
You think the New York Times is left? You might wanna be sitting down for this...
Is Hughes a visionary cleaning out dead wood or a clueless tech star leaving destruction in his wake?
Both. He's clueless because he doesn't understand who buys the New Republic. He's a visionary because NP does have a lot of dead wood. The truest example of who Hughes is: On Season 3 episode 4 of the Newsroom Lucas Pruit buys ACN after it is spun off from its parent company Atlantic Media in an effort to save Atlantic Media from greedy asshole cousins who were given shares in their uncle's will that would allow them to take over the company to...sell it to someone who only wants its IP assets. Hughes is Lucas Pruitt who announces his vision of bring ACN into the 21st century by intoducting crowdsourcing media, instagram and twitter links etc. Everything that Charlie Skinner hates.
A liberal editor COULD try to keep his personal beliefs out of it, so the publication doesn't espouse one position or the other. They could, but New Republic has explicitly chosen to avoid objectivity, they TELL US that the magazine is used to advocate certain positions. Consider what their owner and editor-in-chief says the magazine stands for:
"The New Republic is very much against the Bush tax programs, against Bush Social Security 'reform,' against cutting the inheritance tax, for radical health care changes, passionate about Gore-type environmentalism, for a woman's entitlement to an abortion, for gay marriage, for an increase in the minimum wage, for pursuing aggressively alternatives to our present reliance on oil and our present tax preferences for gas-guzzling automobiles. We were against the confirmation of Justice Alito."
â"Martin Peretz, owner and editor-in-chief, The New Republic
Franklin Foer, New Republic editor:
the magazine âoeinvented the modern usage of the term liberal, and itâ(TM)s one of our historical legacies and obligations to be involved"
They've also had editors who worked two jobs, working for TNR while also working for the KGB. You don't get much more leftist than having the KGB editing the magazine.
That's true, but that's a special case of the more general:
The only difference between almost any person involved in governing and a totalitarian is that the former says, "You are free to do whatever you want, as long as what you want is what I think you should want."
Despite the lofty goals claimed by almost any person of any party, whether running for office or just voting, the main reason that people get involved in government is to assert control over others. There are positive and negative outcomes of their actions, but every single one of these people think that things would be better if only they were king. The only tool that government has is coercion; political differences come down to how that tool is to be applied.
Most of the rest of those who actually want to reduce the power of government either still want the government involved where "what I think you should want" is concerned, or have other non-governmental means to effect coercion.
If you see any political party in the US as not fitting into that statement, it's just because "what [you] think [they] should want" and "what [they] think you should want" are aligned. Your liberal adversaries see themselves as just as rational and correct as you see yourself.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Mostly right on, but the rich are largely Democrat voters and Democrat policies highly favor them. That's why 90% of the "recovery" over the last 6 years went to the top 10%. You read that correctly. Upper middle class tend to be Republican, and Democrat policies hurt them. When Democrats tax "the rich" Warren Buffett doesn't feel it but the upper middle class does.
Do you have ESP?
I've read the comments and even, blasphemously, the article, and I still have no clear idea what's going on here.
Leftists quit because the publication was going right wing?
Talented editors quit because whatever (gawker?) wanted to turn into clickbait?
Nobody seems to talk about what actually happened here.
Back in the 1980s it occupied a more unique space, offering what seemed to be much more of true centrist position, equally critical of the left and the right. At some point it seemed to slide from that position into a more left wing position and losing the intelligence that the center gave it.
But it's not alone, the National Review has crapped out, too, becoming the print edition of Fox News with a little sophomore-level pseudo intellectualisn sprinkled on top after the death of Buckley.
Uh, the point was not whether anyone in the US favors totalitarianism or not. The point was that the original poster made it rather clear that they felt perfectly comfortable speaking as if they were the direct representative of the entire US. Making them an arrogant prick. Not everyone in the US views those espousing Totalitarianism as out of the mainstream. The original claim.
There are those who view the Republican party as espousing Totalitarianism. They are pretty mainstream. Fox news views Obama as advocating Totalitarianism. He and they are both considered mainstream.
The major news outlets spend a lot time discussing these issues. So not simply ignored as the original poster claimed.
There are groups within the US espousing totalitarianism. Just as there are in Europe.
There are groups that do not as well. Both in the US and Europe. The second group outnumbers the first by a large margin in both places.
To pretend that the US holds some sort of special relationship in rejecting Totalitarianism over Europe is xenophobic stereotyping.
'Totalitarianism' is just being used as a trigger word to end actual discussion.
I don't mean to undermine your arguments, but what in God's name or otherwise are you talking about? It's like everything you said had this demeanor of factuality when none of it is true. Very Colbert of you. Not sure whether to applaud an epic troll or kick myself for responding at all.
So, the issue actually is totalitarianism. Do you think many people in America favor totalitarianism? Because I'm going to speak for America and say, no, there aren't many.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I love the irony.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Uh, you pretty much make his point. Those are not left wing.
They are liberal but by no means left wing.
None of these papers advocate for citizen ownership of the means of production. That is left wing.
Socialist Worker, now that is left wing and that is published in the US.
There are other smaller regional socialist papers in the US but they are very small.
There is no large left wing media outlet in the US. They do exist in many other countries.
US is a center right country. Outside of the US they tend to include analytical discussion of Marx in school.
This does in general give them a better understanding of the political spectrum.
In the US I've seen teachers get dragged to the principal's office for mentioning Marx in a class.
The very implication that Socialism might have some positive elements tends to get educators assailed from every authority. It's a disservice to students who miss out on a pretty important historical movement.
In the 30s in the US there was a pretty strong actual Leftist movement but its basically gone.
I seem to recall that leftist countries go to war. That may not be a reliable indicator of idelogical alignment.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Yes, yes you are.
Correct, right about nothing.
Welcome, Mr. Kane, welcome!
Gentlemen, you may resume your duties.
It isn't the racist party it used to be and now the Republicans get blamed for being racist. Now all the "ex"-KKK Democrats are dead or dying off they can pretend all that never happened.
That was not the point of the original poster.
The point of the original post was that in the US, support for totalitarianism is considered out of the mainstream in politics and that in Europe it is not considered out of the mainstream. Not how many actual people support totalitarianism but if advocacy for Totalitarianism is considered a mainstream political point of discussion.
The US has no special relationship with Totalitarianism in politics that sets it apart from Europe. Which is what the original poster claimed.
Fox (mainstream) argues that Obama and his supporters advocate for Totalitarianism as Emperor Obama.
Some Democrats argue that Republicans are fighting to create guaranteed hegemony of the Republican party ensuring its Totalitarian rule.
This is all mainstream politics. This pretty much destroys the notion, advocated by the original poster, that in the US we don't engage in discussions in the mainstream about advocacy for Totalitarianism or with those who we argue are advocating for Totalitarianism.
No, in the US, just as in Europe, most people don't support Totalitarianism.
That was never the point of discussion. The point of the original poster, was that somehow the US was different from Europe when it came to the mainstream political role of Totalitarianism.
Based on Fox's constant drumbeat about the prevalence of Totalitarianism in the mainstream Democratic party I don't see how that argument can hold up.
Your center detector needs re-calibration (travel anywhere in the world outside the US)
Yes, the US, once the last, best hope for freedom and liberty, is moving further to the left ...
I can stop reading right there.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
By the way, Barack Obama is hard left which is why the American media fucking love him.
The US doesn't have a meaningful left anymore and Obama is to the right of Richard fucking Nixon (ended the draft, signed the EPA and Title IX into law, desegregation, and a proponent of the 26th amendment). All the real political fighting is over wedge issues where I happen to side with what Obama says (but doesn't necessarily do): Gay rights, access to birth control, etc... As far as actual economics go, Obama is firmly entrenched with the large financial institutions. As is the actual Republican party (the part of the party that wields any power).
The whole left-right political spectrum in the US is absolute bullshit. In general boiling down all complex issues down to a single dimension is completely meaningless. But if Obama was on the left, he would have tried for a single-payer healthcare system.
The economy is way better than when GW Bush left office, yet everyone blames Obama for the economy. Of course it's a systemic issue, not really much under the control of any President, but the spin sure is interesting. You'd think a media that "fucking loves" Obama would make a bigger deal out of his accomplishments. One last thing, the effective tax rate for the rich is at a near historic low while it's simultaneously at near historic highs for the poor. Obama has tried to rectify that, but the right seems only interested in tax cuts for the rich. Maybe Obama would be a "leftest" if he could be, but the current political reality is so skewed that his record is far right of center. (I'm referring to the center of the possible political spectrum, not the center of the paucity of choices we have.)
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Sorry, I don't take political advice nor value the opinion of someone going by the moniker Attila Dimedici. Same as I don't take cooking advice from someone named DahmerFan.
TNR has been a wretched hive of pro-government propaganda since its inception. If it goes belly-up, then good riddance.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
What you mean is that conservatives are Right.
Cute word play, but the current batch of conservatives are reactionary. They want to wind back the clock and go back to "the good old days." The problem is, there were no "good old days." It's all a fiction, most of human history has really sucked for the majority of humans. That's why their were socialist movements. I'm not saying socialism is the answer, but neither is everyone fending for themselves. But it does work well for the oligarchs. At least in the short term.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Nobody cares. Say something useful next time.
In a perfect world perhaps. A network/reporter will always have a bias. Not saying we can't do better though.
Correct enough to win the congress this year presidency in 2016.
BTW how did that democrat controlled government work out by you ? See your dreams realized ?
...
You don't have a single right wing outlet in Europe. Even the most right leaning is way into the political left in the US. You've got so used to extreme left as central, you cannot see you're living in a fascist state.
If you think Europe is facist, you don't know what the word means. And as I've pointed out elsewhere, Obama is to the right of Nixon. The GP is correct, there is no significant "left" in the US. The Republicans and Democrats have everyone fighting over wedge issues and the oligarchs are laughing all the way to the bank.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
If that sounds too insane for you, type "third position" into wikipedia. Oh my oh my.
As far as "far left" goes, I would also like to hear your definition of "far left".
They were good old days you milinial idiot.
You morons don't have a clue. It really saddens me to think that in a few years, those of us that built all of this will pass it on to a bunch of idiots that are he'll bent on destroying it.
You really don't get it do you? YOU WII, UNFORTUNATELY WHEN ITS TOO LATE.R
Maybe we should just start "The Old Republic" and hire the editors who are willing to quit if this happens .
Any takers .
Supporting Excellent Iraq War II, pumping the _Bell Curve_, publishing the racist fantasies of Stephen Glass, joining the anti-public education movement, and also publishing the "No Exit" hatchet job on Bill Clinton's health care reform proposal isn't in any way shape or form liberal. And that's not even taking into account Martin Perez' racism and ethnic hatred which is of a variety that is a bit harder to criticize in US society but which most liberals reject.
Representative quote from Andrew Sullivan: "The middle part of the country—the great red zone that voted for Bush—is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column." [note that he later altered that essay as published on his blog to make it less self-damning; this is the original wording]. Yes, he's gay. No, he's not liberal.
sPh
Sullivan (a Brit) self-identifies as a conservative, which he translates into Democrat in the US.
And he's long admitted his support for the Iraq war was a mistake, I'm curious about your accusation that he altered the essay, he's generally very forthright about when he's wrong and if there's a discrepancy between the TNR article and what he reposted I suspect it's not for the reason you suggest.
Either way, if you ignore the partisanship I don't think supporting the Iraq war was necessarily a conservative or liberal position. If one succeeded in deposing Iraq and replacing him with a relatively healthy democracy with minimal casualties you can make a pretty strong argument for the war from either end of the spectrum. Hitchens identified as a Marxist and I don't believe he ever repented of his support (other than the fact Bush was too incompetent to pull it off).
I stole this Sig
The dominant reason Fox is so successful is that it is the only conservative-leaning major news network. All the others are liberal. So Fox gets almost all of 50% of the overall market (generally 50% of the population is left and 50% right), whereas all its competitors only get fractions of the other 50%
Some of Europe might be, but look up south America, Uruguay, Bolivia etc. They are heading further left.
I get the sense you might be susceptible to a few things yourself.
Have you bought your gold today? The economy is going to crash any day now!
Have you bought your ammo today? Obama's going to ban guns any day now!
Have you actually listened to the ads on conservative talk radio? Set aside partisanship and go do it for a few minutes. Now listen to ads on liberal talk radio... which I guess is just NPR: have you opened your heart and wallet and donated recently? Seems that except for the five Pacifica Radio stations in the entire country, nobody can make money with liberal talk radio.
That's centre left, certainly not far left.
Far left is ending personal property etc. There arenewspapers in Europe with that viewpoint.
In between, firmly left publications like http://socialistworker.co.uk/
I think we need to stop using terms like "left" and "right", because they are utterly confusing on what they mean. Baiscly three big forces exist Socialists(we the people) classical liberal/capitalist(business owners) Third position(proggresivies and fascists, self-appointed experts that know how to live your life better than you)
Funny, they show up fine on my screen. Then again, I browse using a custom stylesheet that overrides that particular bit of Slashdot brain damage. :-D
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Every news outlet has programming for conservative viewers. They are the primary demographic. Fox was just the first to figure it out and take advantage of it. I don't know if 50% of the population is left and right. We're left and right depending on what the situation is. We are the sum of our experiences...
The reason liberal talk radio is a hard sell is because it is an over-served market. Most of the US media leans liberal already. (Look up the studies of donations to Democrats vs Republicans in the media.) There isn't a lot of space there to carve out even more listeners.
There was noticeable overlap between advertisers on Air America and conservative talk stations, including gold sales as I recall. Want a taste of Air America? Try Mike Malloy.
Have you ever actually listened to conservative talk radio? Bennett, Prager, Medved, Hewitt are recommended.
Salem station with convenient schedule
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
No, this magazine actually is a public trust. It has never turned a profit in 100 years. But it has provided a forum for some of the best writers we've ever had.
That sounds awesome and all, but what you're describing is not a business, it's a charity. If they want to convert themselves to a 501(c)3 and take donations like NPR does (which serves a similar niche), then I think that's awesome. But it's not a business, it's a particular type of ego-driven charity bankrolled by the super-wealthy who are happy to lose money being associated with something that gets them invited to smart cocktail parties instead of losing money on something that does things like cure malaria or provide clean drinking water. (See also: "owning professional sports teams.")
I say this as a former professional journalist myself: if your publication is losing money, never get too comfortable and keep your LinkedIn up to date. Because your self-indulgent ownership today may change to an actual business person owner tomorrow, and if they ever do, shit is going to turn 180 degrees immediately in every way you care about. And don't be surprised or upset when it does.
"95% of all Slashdot
Or young people concerned about their future.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You don't seem to have a good source for what contemporary American conservativsm is concerned with. Try these instead:
Weekly Standard
National Review
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Oh my goodness! I think that is the best political post I've seen in a decade of reading slashdot. Well said!
The myth of the liberal media rises yet again.
Pretty much. America was the last bastion of freedom and liberty in the world. It was a slow erosion long before I was born, and 911 patriot act was the final nail in the coffin that made it official.
I've tried to play all the hypothetical scenarios through my head regarding who would be president and at what time. It didn't make a difference. As I've gotten older I've became more cynical to the truth. Simply put, man is destined to ruin and greatness time after time; it's cyclical. For the next 10,000+ years (assuming the human race still exists as we know it), it will be same shit different day. War, conquest, power: it's what defines being human.
Shorter: America is in the decline. Get used to it cupcake!
Life is not for the lazy.
Welfare state socialism is so 20th century. But don't worry. The new editorial staff will rebrand it and find some more gullible idiots to sell it to.
dgatwood's observations on US political tendencies starts off well, but I think goes off the rails at the bullet points.
Abstracted: “There’s not a dime’s difference between the Democrats and Republicans.” (coined by George Wallace; reused by Ralph Nader)
It's this sort of thinking that led a significant number of useful idiots to play at left-wing politics by voting Nader in 2000. I think the differences in outcomes between what we'd have likely seen from a Gore Administration and what we actually got from GWB are self-evident. It was certainly obvious to voters between '00 and '04, when Nader's national total dropped from 2.8 million to
Underestimating what brownish people are capable of, wasting hundreds of thousands of lives, pissing away trillions in treasure, and scamming via a mirror image of LBJ's guns and butter budget with a Republican guns and diamonds if that's a dime, my da kine is a redwood.
Luke, help me take this mask off
So the Libertarian version of liberal then.
It seems no one on the thread's mentioned how TNR was setup in the World War I era to propagandize Americans into interventionism, because they were too "isolationist" and not enough support existed for empire building. They went on to promote other wars and forms of supremacy. Most recently promoting the war in Iraq. There were a sprinkling of interesting pieces here and there but it was mostly the Robert Kagan style liberal neocon guide to Empire for fanciful 21st century Lawrence of Arabia wannabees. Good riddance and I hope it somehow turns into a radically anticolonialist clickbait site.
--hongpong.com
Yup, and they happen to be a part of the populace that always votes.
If you were to take their percentage of total voters, it would be higher, and in their districts, they are an even higher percentage.
That's silly. Progressives and classical liberals nearly don't exist as a political force and socialists only exist in name only, but they mostly just hand out bread and circuses.
What, that a crazy in the middle thinks both sides are crazy? Where's the irony in that?
Learn to love Alaska
Fuck the trend. Die.
You do not fire, restructure company in first place when you want to convert them to digital. You have to let it happen naturally.
First of all, new owner should start developing new platforms and products which would enable everyone to be more productive, more accessible. But instead trying to push people to do it (which is bad way), he should propose tools were the can be more productive and more reachable.
In practice it works the way, that basically new development happens completely separately but in the same room, so that there's enough time for journalist to be swallowed by it in natural way.
Simply one journalist will start publish quality stuff because he has tools and publishing platform, others would follow.
But what you should not do is to distract them from writing.
well cold fjord, learning something about the subject matter might help you instead of just moaning about the 'hard left'. the New Republic crusaded in favor of the Iraq war in 2002-3, harshly criticizing anyone on the left who was against the war. That's hard left? The New Republic published a huge piece in favor of Charles Murray's 'The Bell Curve' when it came out - that's hard left? The New Republic published a huge piece by Betsy McCaughey agains the Clinton health reform in the 90s - that's hard left?
Answer - no, it's not and never was a 'hard left' journal. It was a center left journal that expended considerable energy attacking those on the 'hard left'. The Nation is a journal for the hard left. Very different audiences and content.
Please, stop ranting ignorantly about things you know little about.
Just a Silicon Valley Douche. An entire staff doesn't just up and quit over something trivial. The buzzword quote pretty much sums it up.
In Gitmo?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Every news outlet has programming for conservative viewers.
I'm a conservative. What MSNBC show should I be watching.
takeover of resources of a sovereign [Iraq] based on (obvious, at the time, and proven later) lies.
This is categorically false. American troops in Iraq were exposed to chemical weapons during the second Iraq war. At least six American troops were wounded in incidents between 2004 and 2011. When Bush said that Saddam's government retained caches of pre-1991 chemical weapons that he was supposed to destroy under the UN mandate that ended the first Gulf War, this is what he was talking about.
Here's a story from the arch-conservatives at the New York Times story from October of this year on the issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
The rest of the planet veered far left sometime after the Great War, and most of America hasn't chosen to follow. That just means the rest of you are far left, not that America doesn't have a left.
Sullivan (a Brit) self-identifies as a conservative, which he translates into Democrat in the US.
Wasn't always so. Sullivan used to self-identify as a Republican. Self-identifying as a Democrat today, when that party is moderate Conservative, while the Republicans have abandoned Conservatism for a race to the fringes of radical right-wing wing-nuttery is absolutely what any honest thinking Conservative would do.
It is significant, I think, that the last public turn that honest thinking Conservative William F. Buckley took before his death was to reflect with satisfaction on his role in running the radical right-wing wing-nuttery of the John Birch Society out of Republican politics. He lived to see the reincarnations of the John Birch Society take over the Republican Party in the early 1960s.
Needless to say, the implicit rebuke went unnoticed on the right.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
I don't think you know what fascism is if you're conflating 'conservative' with fascist.
Save your comments and focus on not actually introducing more fascist states into the world.
I was under the impression this was a joke post about Zuckerberg proposing to create a grand clone army..
And it's harder to sell something which represents "liberal values." You can't sell them gold, or bomb shelters... They aren't as fear-motivated. I'm sorry, but it's the truth.
Mostly right on, but the rich are largely Democrat voters and Democrat policies highly favor them...
If only that were a fact, rather than that staple of the right, a lie made up on the spot. In fact the available evidence shows that not is the truly rich heavily Republican, that they even more heavily favor Republican economic and policy prescriptions than party ID would indicate.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Heh, only someone whose politics is on the extreme right would consider TNR a "far left wing liberal rag".
And I'd say that anyone who has just written what you have written - calling someone far right - without any other evidence is probably on the far left of the spectrum.
Apparently you do not have the mental objectivity to seek further information before jumping to a two bit conclusion.
I am pretty sure that TNR would describe itself on the left. Of course, those on the extreme left who see the center of politics way out to the left might see TNR as the middle or even right of center. It all depends on perspective.
Well MSNBC tried to do the reverse Fox thing. It's harder to accomplish. Liberals just aren't as loyal to a big tv network. They like NPR, because they are really critical of corporate America. You won't get that from MSNB C.
Here, here!
For nearly 40 years I have read TNR off and on, trying to divine why it was regarded as a thought leader among Liberal/Left/Progressives. All I could conjecture was that is was a combination of their culture writing, and left-over reputation from an earlier era before I was old enough to read it, which it was gliding on. It's articles about economics, and social and foreign policy were fairly consistently disturbing and decidedly right-wing.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
So they tap into your anger then?
...
You don't have a single right wing outlet in Europe. Even the most right leaning is way into the political left in the US. You've got so used to extreme left as central, you cannot see you're living in a fascist state.
If you think Europe is facist, you don't know what the word means. And as I've pointed out elsewhere, Obama is to the right of Nixon. The GP is correct, there is no significant "left" in the US. The Republicans and Democrats have everyone fighting over wedge issues and the oligarchs are laughing all the way to the bank.
Of course Europe is fascist, and the US is moving in that direction very quickly. Fascism is simply a method of implementing totalitarianism - one that involves partnerships between government and big business. When the banks decide how governments will spend their money, and governments decide how and what companies produce, that's fascism, and Europe is steeped in it.
Of course extreme right and extreme left (as described in most outlets these days) are both paths to totalitarianism. Europe has simply chosen the far-left form of totalitarianism. There are very few places in the world moving away from totalitarianism these days - and none are in Europe or North America.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Oh, the irony is.... delicious... why you've never seen such irony... as this
1990s of course.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
with the classic and pulp science fiction eras.
Because when they are, they realize that all bad things come from placing tech above people.
Yeah, 1975, that's about the time I lost interest in it. The quality of the writing went to hell and the rag just became a loud mouthpiece for a mumbo jumbo of political ideas. Dialog ceased (the same thing has happened to the Atlantic and Harpers although the Atlantic seems to be making a comeback). The only place you'll find cutting edge ideas and good writing is in the indie press. Unfortunately the indie press doesn't pay. I fear for out civilization.
Another liberal useful idiot.
A guy who uses the word "narrative" has no business complaining that someone else is using "mumbo jumbo buzzwords".
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
yes the rest of the world is moving to the right, however the US, already fairly extremely right wing, is moving right even faster, I suspect a Godwin Singularity is coming
They must not know yet that the SV kiddies have all the answers to society's woes.
Fleecing conservatives of their money is in fact a market. Those guys will open up their wallets if you say all the right sweet things. Even better they'll go around repeating it. There is an entire eco-system in right wing political systems doing this. Since a lot of these people trend to being older, they are both susceptible to fear and they have money. The young, can also be susceptible, but they don't have money so there is no market.
They need to create an index for conservatives.
Fleecing liberals and progressives of their money is in fact a market. Those guys will open up their wallets if you say all the right sweet or scary things. Even better, they'll go around repeating and reposting it. There is an entire eco-system in left wing political systems doing this. Since of a lot of these people tend to be older, they are both susceptible to fear and they have money. Some will even direct corporate donations to help the cause. The young can also be susceptible, but the poor results of their own policies has left many of them without jobs and dependent on the government and their parents. They believe the cure for bad outcomes form government programs is even more government programs. The noose grows ever tighter.
They need to create an index for progressives and liberals.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
not informative
http://indianshelf.com
I can only imagine how right wing it must be, and therefore find it hysterically funny that it is going to be ruined by a clueless webrepreneur who probably self identifies as libertarian and innovative.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
What FB should have is an "I sympathize" button.
None at FB, but some as Obamas 2008 social media manager. This abrupt change of company direction probably could have happened better.
I heard a talk from the Washington Post managing editor at Denver University last month. Like the New Republic, Bezos is pushing hard for an "all media" platform. But the WP workers sounded happier, probably becuase Jeff is also pouring money into it and hiring instead of firing.
Doesn't anyone watch "The Newsroom" on HBO?
Bad news: "the rich" includes more than the top 1%. Nice try, though.
Do you have ESP?
I only read it occasionally, but it was good, and has been for a long tim.
I think the editors and staff and contributors should get together, scrape up some money (hell, I'd buy a subscription), and start a new magazine. Perhaps it could be called "The Old Republic", given our new oligarchic collective mind Emperors....
mark "A more wretched hive of scum and villany (and I don't just mean Facebook)"
My dreams were trashed by Bush Jr, so I had no expectations. Also, are you a prophet? I was completely unaware that the Repubs already won the 2016 election! Sounds to me that you Hoping for Some Change. Where have I heard that before....
Worse - they don't even need to hear much of what they're being sold. I've seen plenty of instances where donations were merely a prick waving contest to see who could 'out charity whom'. I watched the presentation that a benighted neighbor was giving (I was renting a unit that was underwater next to million dollar plus lofts 'on the cheap' after the realestate meltdown) and the thing was the most unfocussed grab for money I'd ever seen. I'm sure he made off with quite a bundle from the donors / investors.
Sorry my candidates don't shoot roses from their loins like yours do.
If I get a level of reasonably competent government with a level of theft less than the democrats I will be very pleasantly surprised.
I didn't say that Obama or Hillary wasn't in the pocket of business - though he's less so than mainstream Republicans (let alone the far right wing) are.
And, if by 'that UVA rape thing', you mean political correctness run amok, that's dumb, but it's not crazy. Making policy based on a literal belief in Noah's arc is crazy. Believing that 90+ percent of scientists are perpetrating a hoax on climate change is crazy. And, by the way, some more mainstream beliefs - like that lowering taxes always raises revenue, or that cutting corporate taxes will produce a lot of new jobs - are pretty crazy too. Evidence matters - or at least it should...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...