Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Veritaserum, Feb 16, 2016.
It’s good that there is a gay candidate in the race, it’s a shame he is a neoliberal nightmare.
His husband is cute
A Republican would be uncomfortable with a politician for being overtly religious and militaristic? That's really the reaction that Republicans would also have?
I love that a gay man [couple] got the cover; that's wonderful and I hope it makes a difference to some kid sitting in a pediatrician's office in Indiana. I don't love that it's him specifically, but you take what you can get.
Also, it's Time magazine. Let me know when Breitbart is highlighting gay couples. Sorry if that's cynical, but it's not like we don't know liberals control most American media.
I mean, I get it. It’s an impactful cover in the context of American politics at large, especially with the pivot to far right around the world threatening to regress LGBTQ rights. It makes a difference. I guess I just... don’t personally feel like white gay representation is all that exciting, and that’s the bubble my head is in. It makes me really sad that he isn’t a better candidate for queer and/or marginalized folk in general.
My thoughts exactly. It's like, okay, so that's what's acceptable now...great. It's just a recapitulation of old ideals. The rolled up sleeves, the J. Crew shirts, the brown belts, the chinos, the very "American" home behind them, the huge "Family." That's not the progress I (and others) survived and fought for.
I don't even have a problem with the cover per se, what I have a problem with is the text "(The) First Family," when Pete hasn't even won the nomination yet, let alone the election. It just shows the complete disregard that the media has for the democratic process, as well as the danger inherent in glamourizing politics. It's all about turning politicians into celebrities and putting image and identity before substance.
Also, there is plenty of positive gay representation in the media today. It's not like we're in the 90's and we should just be happy with whatever sliver of gayness happens to slip through, however problematic it might be. I'm sure the gay kid in middle school will be just fine watching Drag Race or stanning Troy Sivan another mess for another day but at least he's not running for political office while the rest of us are spared this ham-fisted attempt at a "gay president" who doesn't even have a gay agenda yet and whose stances on everything from healthcare to foreign policy would make the Heritage Foundation proud.
The only thing in common most of the controllers of media in the US have is that they are billionaires.
Alternative facts much?
I'm talking about reporters; maybe I could have worded that more clearly.
What it demonstrates is that Time readers are taking note of a Black Swan candidate. Showcasing a candidate is something news magazines have been doing for decades. It's not new, it's not a conspiracy. It's laughable to suggest it is.
Politicians as celebrities (and the inverse; celebrities as politicians) - that's Trump. You've got the wrong guy.
I'm not up-to-date on his most recent policies but a quick google search of articles and just taking a quick look at his Wiki positions on policy debunks what you say.
Is it too much to ask to have informed opinion in this thread?
I know I'm going to be called a concern troll, and, of course I welcome good economic news (while realizing that headlines don't necessarily cover the subtleties of the average working person's 'real economy'), but with the gp largely moving on from the Mueller Report and this kind of incredibly positive economic news, I think enough of the electorate will hold their noses and vote him back in. Ugh. I know, I know. November 2020 is a long way off.
There are a lot of news outlets that aren't just WaPo, NYT, CNN, MSNBC and Fox. For example: the Sinclair Broadcast Group is a very conservative, influential and huge group of TV stations in the US that have some of their editorial policies dictated by their conservative owner (in much the same way Murdoch and his managers are alleged to dictate editorial positions).
Reporters, anchors etc (as a general rule) keep their political affiliations very quiet. I'd love to know how you know something that even their viewers or readers don't?
Nah. This is a bad take. Obama understood the power of politician as celebrity. So does Beto. So does Pete.
It was obviously hyperbole. Buttigieg has shown very clearly that he would be another warhawk with a military boner. He's a centrist candidate who favors incrementalism and rescinded his support for single-payer healthcare. He's said a lot of questionable things, highlighted in this thread, then backtracked when prodded.
Also, you're not up to date on his recent policies because he doesn't even have a policy page on his website.
Politician as celebrity is the time we’re in. You may think it’s good, you can think it’s bad but ultimately it’s just reality.
I get where you're coming from but Trump is a true celebrity x 1000. The guy tweeted the word 'covfefe' and it was front page news over the world. What Obama did and what Beto and Pete are doing seem antiquated and restrained by comparison. That's not to take away from the idea that politicians act like celebrities - but that's what's called 'stagecraft' or 'optics' in politics.
In some good news here is another ruling that districts are unfairly drawn this time in Ohio. This is a big one and I'm glad to see the increase in these rulings the past few years.
Great news for the House and presidential elections. Ohio's gerrymandering is ridiculous.
Yes, there are plenty (plenty) of non-left-leaning news outlets, and Sinclair is a terror, but are any of these conservative outlets singularly as influential--setting aside Fox News--on national mainstream culture and politics than those sources you just listed? There's a reason every J-school grad jumps at the chance to get a byline in the New York Times, Washington Post, or any number of magazines that cluster the New York or D.C. media scene. They hold outsized influence.
Local media is a tough nut to crack in study because everything is more fragmented than it has ever been. And rapidly changing. When local news even exists anymore. (Thanks, Facebook.) But it's worth noting that local TV news has not fared well in recent years and continues to decline in ratings. Maybe that's why Sinclair is buying up sports networks now.
All the same, my point was to say that it's not surprising (to me, anyway) that a national magazine like Time would be supportive. And I really don't think it is. The mainstream magazines we see around us, at the drug store, the supermarket, the doctor's office, etc., are almost always products of people who live in the overwhelmingly Democratic New York and D.C. The National Review sure ain't getting that spot in the checkout aisle where Vanity Fair and Rolling Stone have made a home.
I really... don’t see the Democrats getting themselves together enough to dethrone Trump in 2020. If the economy stays healthy and this primary gets as nasty as I suspect it will... it’s game over.
Separate names with a comma.