this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
508 points (95.4% liked)

politics

19125 readers
2883 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Scott Pelley recapped the Cabinet picks of President-elect Donald Trump in the “60 Minutes” opening Sunday, enraging MAGA supporters despite the segment’s recitation of facts. (Watch the video below.)

The summary “is exactly why no one respects the legacy media anymore,” one person complained on X, formerly Twitter.

“Pure Democratic propaganda,” griped another.

Pelley, a correspondent, began by noting “some nominees appear to have no compelling qualifications other than loyalty to Trump.”

He pointed out defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth’s lack of government experience and recent gig as a Fox News morning host; the investigation into attorney general nominee Matt Gaetz’s alleged sex with a minor; and the vaccine skepticism of health and human services nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“It’s up to the new Republican majority in the Senate to decide whether these nominees are equipped to represent the American people,” Pelley concluded.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] takeda 239 points 5 days ago (10 children)

Why are we accepting reporting on tweets as a journalism?

Yeah MAGA reacted to the 60 minutes, but so what? One can find similar reactions on any topic, there's nothing new that we learn by reading this. It just manufacturers outrage on the other side.

[–] Breadhax0r 44 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Twitter is the official mouthpiece of the trump administration though.

[–] newthrowaway20 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Seems to be the mouthpiece of anyone trying to argue anything nowadays. you can always find a tweet supporting any argument you wanna make.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago

That's the whole point: Bread & Circuses, Part Duh©

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago

For now. It will be state sponsored media shortly

[–] finitebanjo 17 points 5 days ago (1 children)

This could very well be one of the first times a large swath of cable tv viewers and MAGA heard about Gaetz allegations of giving hardcore drugs to child prostitutes, so seeing their reaponse is interesting.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

MAGA people avoid all mainstream media except 60 minutes on CBS?

[–] finitebanjo 17 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

A large number of Americans prefer to get news from Cable TV. Especially the elderly and poor.

The biggest cable news network by a huge margin is Fox News with more than double the second place, MSNBC, views.

CBS isn't on Cable, it is a Broadcast TV network but it is among the highest rated broadcast channels, even higher than Fox News, due to CBS also covering sports.

So while CBS is less popular as a news network, 60 Minutes is the most popular News Program in the USA.

In 2013 Pew Research said "About one- quarter of American adults, (24%) watch only Fox News, 23% watch only CNN and 15% watch only MSNBC."

And here's some additional graphs for further enrichment of your contextual info

You're welcome for the free sociology lesson.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

So, my point was, the first time they would've heard about Matt Gaetz was 60 minutes, not the regular news?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 days ago

Probably. Considering how little air time his sex trafficking has received and it being an almost non-existent topic on fox.

[–] finitebanjo 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

There is a high probability that 60 minutes was the first time many MAGA heard about the Gaetz Allegations. Because there is a high probability that they only watch Fox News and Social Media News as their primary news sources.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

So, you're saying they're watching Fox News all day every day, but tune into 60 minutes every week, which is the only thing they watch on CBS, and this is the first time there's a 60 minutes episode that clashes with their MAGA worldview?

You think this is more likely than this just being the classic manufactured right wing outrage machine that spins up every week about whatever the right wants their base to be angry about?

[–] finitebanjo 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You saw the statistics dude idk what you're confused about.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago

Your statistics don't show that MAGA true believers would be watching 60 minutes, they just show stats for the general population.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Right. Cherry-picking kool-aid enthusiasts spreading their knee-jerk reaction on social media isn't journalism. These people are likely not valid representatives of public MAGA opinion, to say the least.

The anti-mainstream media comment in particular turns this whole post so many levels of irony that it's actually challenging to unpack it in a succinct way.

[–] Passerby6497 6 points 5 days ago

Lol their feelings don't care about your facts

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago

They barely reacted. These maga types aren’t going to watch some video critical of their beliefs which are more akin to religious than political these days

[–] enbyecho 2 points 4 days ago

Why are we accepting reporting on tweets as a journalism?

Are we? It's on huffpost.com. Since when is that journalism?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I want to agree, but there is something to be said about the influence of social media on an average person. One reason I was really anxious about the election was whenever I saw shitload of likes on tweets that were straight up lies.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The problem with this garbage type of reporting is that you can create any narrative you want. Social media is so big that it's not hard to find a handful of posts, like what is being posted in their story, saying almost anything you need them to. Always going to be some insane person in some corner of the internet saying something completely batshit.

The article is really "we found some people on social media saying these things" and it's being framed as "maga meltdown." It's fucking garbage.

I agree that social media has a large influence, but how does garbage journalism like this do anything other than add more fuel to the fire of "traditional media is now trash"?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

Oooh, i misunderstood you at first. I 100% agree, I have unsubbed from some subreddits before because they kept posting tweets of “haters” as if that’s noteworthy in any way.

[–] Eatspancakes84 1 points 5 days ago

Then stop upvoting this stuff! During election time every damn article upvoted here was about i.) horse race reporting or ii.) Trump outrage. We have to stop clicking these links and sharing the articles.

[–] Clent 1 points 5 days ago

Huffington Post is has been clickbait trash for a while now.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

Whooo boy, let me introduce you to gaming and popular culture 'journalism', where these 'journalists' do almost nothing other than write op eds about the vibes they're getting from Twitter in the past 48 hrs.