“We Have to Fight the Narrative”

What Narrative? The one(s) that jeopardize our country from within, which are not just blared daily by the likes of Fox News, but are lazily amplified by what are familiarly and collectively called the “mainstream media.”

The Narrative that is now spewing non-stop from Congress, where McCarthy’s Traitors in the People’s House are in charge of our important committees and, indeed, our national security.

The Narrative that is increasingly manifesting itself in threats and violence against public officials, such as the recent shootings in New Mexico orchestrated and carried out by a Big Liar protesting his loss in a state election by a mere 48 percent of the vote.

I think it’s important to discuss who the “We” are in this fight because one thing seems certain: the dominant “Narrative(s)” today do not reflect the views of the majority of Americans.

In the discussion I’m going to tell you about, the participants consider themselves “center/left.” But each of them also feels that America has an “exhausted majority” that can no longer be defined by “right v left,” or “liberal v conservative,” or “Republican v Democrat.”

Now, the opposing forces are those who believe in our democracy and want to strengthen it—against those who oppose democracy and want one party rule forever, which they strive to achieve either by chipping away at our democracy through voter suppression and gerrymandering or by overturning it—in the legislatures, the courts, or the streets.

And how do we fight the “Narrative”?

Surely, this is a multifaceted concern requiring many different approaches. One of them was the focus of the discussion I watched, titled “Countering the Right Wing Noise Machine.”

I understand that many people don’t share my enthusiastic partisanship as a Democrat. And I know many Democrats and unaffiliated people are skeptical about and critical of former Republican “never Trumpers.” I am too.

But I believe it’s clear to most people that at this time in our national life, we must support the Democrats’ efforts to protect our democracy because the Republican party has been overtaken by dangerous elements who at best do not have our country’s interests at heart and are not in sync with majority American views on important issues—and at worst want our nation to become a white, theocratic Christian nationalist entity.

“Countering the Right-Wing Noise Machine,” which you can watch here, was organized by Simon Rosenberg of NDN (New Democrat Network), who won plaudits and a great deal of attention for his accurate, trend-and-data-driven forecasts that there would be no red wave in last November’s elections.

Rosenberg’s message at that time was largely ignored or ridiculed by the likes of Nate Silver of 538, one of the supposedly most reputable polling organizations, who called Rosenberg’s views “hopium”—and by nearly all of the mainstream media.

But it was carried by the organizations created by the four participants in the discussion, who invited him to appear on their platforms and explain why he was right and so many others were wrong.

An inveterate networker, Rosenberg saw the value of bringing together these people who represent non-mainstream media and have common goals. Their shared message in this discussion was that by using, encouraging, and telling others about the growth of newer information sources that are dedicated to factual delivery of content—and the building of a community of people who shun conspiracy theories and care about strengthening our democracy—we can rise above the noise and counter the lies, misrepresentations, and negativity that are undermining efforts to achieve the progress that the majority of Americans want.

Two of the participant groups: TheMeidasTouch YouTube channel and Resolute Square, showed the discussion on their networks.

All four of the speakers Rosenberg introduced agree that the right wing in our country—the MAGA world—though numerically smaller than those who want to protect democracy—are louder. Worse still, their influence has been growing through media organizations that seek to engage the millions of Americans who get their news simply by skimming online headlines.

These speakers want to build a community that amplifies the voices of those of us who represent the majority.

Rosenberg opened by stating that we need to become much more effective for 2024 and beyond. He viewed the 2022 midterms as two elections. It was bluer inside the battleground states where the Democrats controlled the messaging and were well-funded. But in the redder states, as well as in California and New York, “we have to work much harder at winning the information war.”

We do that by becoming “Information Warriors” every day.

The Speakers:

Ben Meiselas, a civil rights lawyer who founded MeidasTouch with his two brothers, explained they were motivated by their growing frustration with the traditional media. In addition to the “right-wing fascist network” (Fox), they were angered by the “both-sideism” and false equivalencies of the large media networks.

To which I say: Ditto!

Two years ago, they began developing and airing content to “see what happens.” They now draw about 60 million viewers each month to their YouTube channel and podcasts—sometimes more viewers than Fox.

Meiselas said they’re “giving agency to people who have felt abandoned.” Example of the mainstream media’s failings: “Jim Jordan on the Judiciary Committee is accepted as normal.” (Rep. Jim Jordan, a far-rightist who now chairs the House Judiciary Committee, has vowed to investigate the “weaponization of the federal government,” which is shorthand for the investigations into all the wrongdoing by Trump et al–including the Insurrection.)

There’s nothing conservative about all this, Meiselas stressed, confirming one of my personal bugs about the continued abuse of the word “conservative.” “I’m more conservative than they are; I want to conserve democracy. We’re loud and proud about that.”

MeidasTouch is building a community among the “exhausted majority” who he said love democracy, our country, and the Constitution—and need and desire more content. “We give information rapidly and accurately,” he said. “The cavalry is here; your voice will be championed by a new wave of media.”

Tara McGowan founded and runs Courier Newsroom, which delivers local news with a left-of-center perspective. The organization began by purchasing existing digital news services in Virginia, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and is now expanding as The Courier Network.

I was delighted to learn about Courier Newsroom because some far right entities have been moving into this area as traditional local news sources have found it economically nonviable. Local news is, as McGowan stressed, the source that Americans trust the most.

McGowan said that Democrats haven’t had the ability to reach enough people because they’ve relied on paid advertising and have never been able to gain the narrative—while the right wing is skilled at creating the national narrative by sowing mistrust, hate, and violence.

The result is that news coverage has a “massive gap on what the Democrats stand for—and even more dangerous, they’re not incentivized to talk about the good government does.”

She and her colleagues are trying to reach the roughly 14 million “passive news consumers” who don’t watch Cable TV or listen to talk radio.

They use a three-step process:

—locating these readers through their trusted local news organizations;
—distilling good information into graphics and delivering it in a readily accessible format similar to what they’d see on social media and e-mails;
—measuring the impact.

Based on the data they’ve gathered, they concluded that this approach worked during the 2022 midterms when they provided information about abortion. They increased turnout among their target audience and found these people voted for the Democratic candidates.

“We don’t tell them who to vote for,” she emphasized, “and we don’t endorse candidates.”

Joe Trippi and his colleagues built Resolute Square, which he stresses is pro-democracy, fighting authoritarianism, cult movements, and those who want to wreck democracy.

“We’re for democracy and against its enemies,” he said.

Trippi described how the right wing, funded by billions of dollars, fuels an outrage machine that drives the national narrative.

“Fox starts talking about crime; two weeks later, MSNBC and CNN are doing the same,” he said, reminding us of a talking point that was “hot” pre-election but has since then mysteriously disappeared from the Republicans’ list of concerns and the national conversation.

But, Trippi said, no one is investing billions to reveal that phenomenon to the public. Resolute Square is a platform to help others who want to do that.

“Empowering all these people who felt powerless. It’s not just fighting at the ballot box. we have to fight the narrative. We should be laser-focused on MAGA: its origins, backers—and take democracy away from its enemies.”

David Rothkopf is a national security expert and the former Editor and CEO of Foreign Policy Magazine. His DSR (Deep State Radio) Network has had an in-depth podcast for eight years.

He described his focus: bringing experts to engage in fact-based discussions that people will listen to for forty-five minutes.

“The biggest advantage we have is telling the truth and the ability to persuade so that people help America become better—vs those who want less progress.”

He stressed that the rapid growth of social media (whose dangers we’re aware of) is an important opportunity for individual empowerment.

“Eight to ten Americans get their news from social platforms every day; that’s going to continue.

“That’s empowering to us. Distribution is free now. Each and every one of us can reach thousands of people with opportunities to counter the right wing with grass roots media agents.”

Rothkopf envisions a network of podcasts involving like-minded people.

“We’ll be busy in 2024, 2028, and beyond—mobilizing grass roots media activists. Citizens can be amplified to be loud too.”

“The new media is about relationships, we need to keep that in mind when doing it.”

But he warns against time wasted on this approach: “I’m pissed off and need to vent my spleen.”

In essence, the joint message is: be louder, enhance innovation, build community to control the daily discourse, court the fact-based public, and provide content that informs and encourages people who may be confused by all the noise.

How are these groups funded? In various ways, and I’m not sure I’m getting the full picture.

*McGowan has large donors that are helping her expand her network. She has been criticized for having an agenda “intended to manipulate unwitting readers.” Her response is that her organization won’t provide “balanced” content because “balance doesn’t exist anymore.”

*Rothkopf offers his podcasts for free—in part. Then the podcasts end for non-subscribers, while subscribers receive more in-depth coverage. Subscriptions start at $5 per month.

*Trippi’s Resolute Square, whose founders include former Republicans from the “never Trumper” Lincoln Project, features “free and paid newsletters, articles, podcasts and video livestreams, offering three tiers of membership subscriptions ranging from $60 to $200 per year.”

*Meiselas’ MeidasTouch has a SuperPAC that was active in 2022 and received criticism from Rolling Stone for lacking transparency in an article that went into an esoteric attack surrounding “gross ratings points” in advertising that didn’t seem relevant to me. The group appears to attract a great deal of small donor money and receives funds from subscribers to its YouTube channel.

My Questions to You, Dear Readers:

Do you feel that groups like these, which strive for accuracy but are decidedly biased, play an important role in our nation today? Stuart Stevens, one of Resolute Square’s founders, says the group doesn’t call itself a “news organization” because it doesn’t want to be obliged “to tell both sides of a lie…We’re going to proudly declare we’re all bias, all the time. All bias of democracy. One of the slogans we’re using is ‘We’re right, they’re wrong.’”

Are you discouraged by the mainstream media’s “both-sidesism?” and false equivalencies? Do you agree with the “all hands on deck” premise of joining with others with whom you may disagree on some issues to promote the larger issues our democracy faces today?

Are you interested in amplifying your voice by joining groups such as these?

Or–if you agree with the premise that we must fight the narrative, but disagree with all the above–do you have any thoughts about how else to expand public awareness and protect our democracy?


36 thoughts on ““We Have to Fight the Narrative”

  1. If you’ll pardon my cynicism, I think it would help combat indifference to “Right Wing Noise” if SOMEONE would prosecute Trump sometime this century for the crimes he has gotten away with for his entire life, making a mockery of “No one is above the law.”

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Consider your cynicism pardoned, mm, though I think today was a good day. The man who said only criminals plead the fifth did so 400+ times today. He looked drained and sounded weak. I’m furious at Garland, though. Apart from the delays, even if he felt compelled to appoint a special counsel re: Biden, he didn’t have to anoint a movement conservative Republican who can rummage around and build nothing into something. Inexplicable!

      Liked by 3 people

  2. Solutions? All problems resolve themselves if you wait long enough.
    Comments from Denise were not the only ones to go awry. “Politics = stories, so where’s the line?”
    Tim O’brien writes in the preface to his classic on the Vietnam War “All stories are true. All of the stories in this book are true. Some of them did not happen.”
    Fact and fiction can be the same thing. The narrative is true even if the events are fiction.
    Fighting the narrative is the same as spitting into the wind. I found it iluminating how many times in you essay that you used the adjective “mainstream” to describe media. One does not boat across a river, one works his boat constantly upstream and lets the river carry them across. The hardest work is in the mainstream. It is only made harder when you resist the flow.
    When the narrative is they tell a lie, so I tell every they said is a lie all the while repeating the lie, then the “media” broadcast both sides of the lie and all anyone hears is a lie. We maybe should stop doing that.
    We need to learn to sail. What do you do when you must go North and the wind only blows southerly? You tack repeatedly and often, throwing yourself with great enthusiasm into the hard and dangerous work and then you give copious thanks to the wind because the only bad wind is no wind at all. If you don’t like their narrative you must tell a better one then wait for the market to agree.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. This is a fascinating take on the state of affairs. Is it okay to be shamelessly, indeed proudly, partisan in the delivery of content — including news? Even though some don’t call themselves news stations as the view is so profoundly skewed? Yes, I think it’s great. It’s advocacy, cheerleading, button holing, community building . . . “we’re right; they’re wrong” conversation. It’s how elections are won, town meetings are run, and school budgets pass. Thanks for the resources. As always, your work is eye opening. I will check them out.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Great, Denise—and if you like what they’re doing, I hope you’ll spread the word.

      PS: Did you notice that your comment on my previous post went awry and I had to copy and paste into the post. Another gremlin—don’t know why I’m surprised.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I’m very much in favor of truth-tellers like Resolute Square doing what they can to combat the lies spewed by Fox “News,” Trump, and their sycophants. What should be front and center is convincing the many lower middle class people who vote for extreme right wingers who stress tax cuts for the rich and doing awry with Obamacare is that they’re very much voting against their best interests.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yeah; that’s a tough nut, Gail. The trouble is that people don’t believe they’re voting against their interests—certainly not when some “woke” liberals tell them they don’t understand. That’s why I like the Courier Newsroom approach. They focus on the issues without the labels. It’s homegrown sources showing events in different ways.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Excellent information, Annie! I’ve been a fan of “Meidas Touch” and “The Lincoln Project” for some time now, but until today hadn’t heard of the others. I fully agree and share your frustration with the mainstream media these days … on a couple of counts. 1) they work so hard to tell “both sides” of a story that they often tell a side that didn’t even exist. 2) they are keeping Trump in the news … his picture and words are splashed even on The Washington Post and New York Times multiple times every day. Let him go! Yes, we need to be kept aware of things he does that could affect the nation, but frankly at this point there is little he can do that would affect the nation. And his silly posts on ‘Truth Social’ do not matter, yet you’ll see his words everywhere you turn. Let him fade … it’s the worst punishment, at least in his mind, we could inflict!

    I have mixed thoughts on these sources that admit to being left-biased … isn’t that rather the same thing as Fox, NewsMax and others being right-biased? I think facts and logical, intellectual explanation of those facts is the better way to go. Two wrongs don’t make a right. However, these are not normal times … my concern is that far too many people in this country are not deep thinkers, do not have the ability to understand the ramifications of what is happening, and we need to be able to reach those people on their own sphere. I will be checking out the sources you mention in the next day or two and I’ll let you know what I think. Thanks for this very informative, thought-provoking post, Annie!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks, Jill. I appreciate your comment and look forward to hearing more after you’ve checked out the sources.

      As to your question, “ isn’t that rather the same thing as Fox..?,” I say emphatically “No!” Enormous differences: 1) these folks are providing factual information; there are no “alternative facts” in their presentations; 2) they are upfront about their orientation, which the far-right sources are not; 3) their views are reflective of the majority on issue after issue—abortion; gun safety legislation; etc. They are reflecting, I believe, a need that has arisen because the Republican Party has collapsed under the weight of its most extreme elements—truly traitorous, anti-democratic, indeed—fascistic elements—and much of the media has not found a way to deal with this internal threat.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Do you feel that groups like these, which strive for accuracy but are decidedly biased, play an important role in our nation today?

    Whether or not they’re what we want, they’re what we’re going to get. At least when a news source takes an explicit viewpoint, the reader can take that into account in assessing what they report. So long as they’re factually accurate, the fact that they’re supporting one side in a dispute doesn’t disqualify them as sources of information. Sources that don’t care about accuracy, but are just trying to whip up perpetual outrage to maximize page views, are usually pretty easy to spot (things like Gateway Pundit, for example).

    do you have any thoughts about how else to expand public awareness and protect our democracy?

    The onus is really on the reader. Since almost every information source has some kind of slant, the only way to get an accurate picture is to regularly read sources that come from a range of viewpoints. In basically-honest sources, the most common way that bias manifests itself is not distortion, but omission — stories that don’t fit the preferred narrative are simply not mentioned. So a person who reads only sources that all have basically the same viewpoint will just be unaware of a lot of what’s going on. I know that if I didn’t take care to stay exposed to a range of viewpoints, I’d miss a lot of important news. Of course there are people who flat-out refuse to do this — that’s how we end up with people believing in things like “the election was stolen from Trump” — but they’re a minority.

    By the way, I think it’s important to be clear on the meaning of “exhausted majority”, so that it doesn’t degenerate into just another synonym for “centrist”. Most of the people covered by the term aren’t centrists or moderates or even people who reject the left-vs-right divide. They come from all across the political spectrum. What they have in common is rejection of the extreme polarization, the demonization of opponents, which has become endemic in US politics. It’s actually a positive development. It’s horrifically toxic to have politics dominated by opposing camps which view each other with fear, loathing, and incomprehension, refusing to listen to anything that doesn’t fit their existing narrative. The most important message to get out is that those opposing camps don’t speak for everyone, or even for the majority.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. If you view the mainstream as a filter that advances or subsumes the narrative, I see two problems. One the stream is exceptionally narrow at the moment and the conservatives have learned to “flood the zone” with BS that periodically overloads the system allowing the untreated waste through. If liberals adopt this tactic can it result in a positive change? I have my doubts having ruined a perfectly good filter, now relying on a fragile backup. What needs to be done is widen the mid-channel with anti-trust to better filter the BS from both sides. Is a narrative “true” if you don’t hear it?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Richard, I’m sure I responded to this comment; I don’t know where it went. I am interested in hearing from you some examples of what you call BS from the center-left, which is where these four groups reside.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. The internets just swallow things up episodically. 🙂 The metaphoric river is an agglomeration of all the narratives accelerated or not by the mainstream. Information move back and forth. A person is a drop of water and the narrative streams begin as one which are easily crossed in two and threes up to seven or so. (I’m three degrees from Kevin Bacon). The bigger the community the greater the information stream to be crossed either direction. Doesn’t matter where you stand on the left-right line your message has to cross the stream. I believe that there are truths held in my position and there are truths in those I don’t agree with as well. We all put our truths in a boat of BS and send it across. With AM radio and Fox style news they have constructed a huge boat that can alter the stream. I’m telling you that your four groups will need a much larger boat and better BS to build a narrative that doesn’t break up in the treacherous currents. The problem with this media is that readers and writers appear to be in decline. If they do intend to destroy the books we should have a plan.


      3. Lots of different threads to this comment, Richard. I will simply say my experience with social media is mixed, but I don’t see the adulteration process you describe. A person can be just as clear or unclear in social media as any place else.

        Book banning is an entirely different and very alarming phenomenon that we must all vocally oppose.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I agree that the responsibility is on the reader, Infidel. Unfortunately, most people don’t have–or make–the time to seek out a wide range of views. I do feel, however, that in the present environment, where much of the misinformation is deliberately injected into the national conversation by the far right, there is a need for groups such as the ones I covered who are pro-democracy and in no way extreme.

      I also agree with your assertion that groups who are open about their orientation often omit information that doesn’t support their views. Part of the problem is that the pendulum of national dialogue has swung so very far–and positions taken on the floor of Congress by extreme individuals are reported in a way that normalizes them. That is very dangerous, and they must be challenged, and I don’t think fact-based efforts to do that should be viewed as an example of polarization.

      But I do take seriously the information you linked to about the “Hidden Tribes of America,” and I plan to spend more time perusing the reports’ findings–as well as its data. There is just one reference to the sampling, which seems quite small to back up such ambitious groupings. Yet any efforts to address polarization and “counter the forces of fracturing and fragmentation” are worth exploring.

      I’m wondering if the use of the phrase “exhausted majority” in the discussion I heard suggests that the speakers were familiar with this report–or not. These folks are using it to describe people who care deeply about democracy and fairness but otherwise express some of the other attitudes you mention.

      Note to other readers: I welcome anyone else’s views on the report, “Hidden Tribes of America” by the group “More in Common” that Infidel has linked to in his comment.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I definitely consider myself a member of the “exhausted majority”, and I don’t really regard myself as a centrist. Politics isn’t really a simple left-to-right spectrum. For example, I believe I’m being logically coherent by being strongly pro-choice on both abortion rights and gun rights, whereas the left and right are incoherent in their inconsistent views on those issues. I view the current Democratic party as far too weak on labor-rights issues — I’d align much more with Bernie Sanders than with Biden in that area. But what I share with other “exhausted majority” people of all viewpoints is a desire for the end of the scorched-earth, dead-end polarization and demonization that dominates politics. Part of what I look for in politicians, activist groups, and even bloggers is a genuine interest in why the “other side” feels the way it does, a willingness to give credit where due when someone from the “other side” shows moderation, a recognition of areas where common interests can exist — and above all, refraining from tarring everyone on the “other side” with the brush of that side’s worst extremists.

        The real radical crazies are irredeemable, but they’re a minority. Ultimately the sane people on both “sides” have to find a way to take the country back from them, instead of allowing themselves to be herded into opposing camps that view each other with hatred and incomprehension.

        I am interested in hearing from you some examples of what you call BS from the center-left

        I realize you were addressing this question to Ryinger77, but since his response did not cite any specific examples, I will venture to offer one — the dismissal of public concerns about violent crime in the last couple of years as not real, or as a “Republican talking point”. In 2022 my city, Portland, had the highest number of homicides in its entire history. The crime and violence downtown have gotten so bad that businesses are closing down and moving out, because they cannot function with the constant vandalism and robberies, and their employees don’t feel safe there. People are not just imagining this. It’s the main reason why Oregon, usually a reliably blue state, came very close to electing a Republican governor last year. If all that the left has to offer is dismissal or minimization of people’s concerns about this, they will naturally tend to vote Republican out of frustration.

        The left in general these days is very much stuck in all-lecturing-no-listening mode. They need to stop reacting to inconvenient popular issues with “you’re wrong to be concerned about that because blah blah” and do more listening to the people whose votes they need.


      2. Infidel, I agree with you that the right/ left paradigm is unhelpful, and that’s one reason I found these center-left groups worth discussing. I think they take in a much larger swath of Americans than you do.

        I do not see inconsistency in supporting both abortion and gun safety measures—including removal of assault weapons and large magazines. Women the world over throughout history have sought abortions. “Gun rights”—I’m not sure how you define them—are a phenomenon peculiar to the US and a few other countries, including several authoritarian ones. And unlike abortion, the harm to others is enormous. We don’t have gun rights: we have a growing, carefully nurtured gun culture that should be—as many physicians believe—treated as a public health issue. And though I fear we can’t turn back as far as I would like, I can show you examples of legal articles stating how wrongly this Second Amendment interpretation—which occurred in our lifetimes, in Heller—is. But even Scalia said there should be limits on some kinds of weapons.

        As to your example of crime as a BS issue, the relationship between crime and gun violence is well documented. The states that have the most lax gun safety laws have the highest crime rates. I appreciate your concerns as a Portland resident, but that is the larger picture. The Republicans use crime as a tactic to scare people about immigrants and Black people. Now in office, they don’t discuss it.

        I agree with your final paragraph.


      3. Well I fell down the rabbit hole and I have thought but I must walk the master. Confucius says “things in actual fact should be made to accord with the implications attached to them by names, the prerequisites for correct living and even efficient government being that all classes of society should accord to what they ought to be”. Tribe is way to amorphous a word to be used as in this very interesting study.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Tribes is the brand BS that built this boat. Tribes is not the proper name for what they found and misleading in that regard. This is BS from the left. Maybe not their fault since tribes does not seem to have a firm definition which is often a tell for good BS. Good story and I assume some useful information nonetheless. I was shocked to find myself a Progressive Activist with a -8 understanding of Dems and a 38 point gap in belief that Repug could be that bad on the perception gap. I’m just a thief on the watchtower but what we see is just a spark in a totality. Wikipedia quote “Since the 1990s, however, contrary to common misconception,[8] crime in the United States has declined steadily, and has significantly declined by the late 1990s and also in the early 2000s.” Indeed it is lower now than at the birth of the nation. Just saying?
        All respect Ms Annie for this forum and Wiki says Courier is “pink-slime journalism”.
        In the quiz I said I was trusting of others. Maybe I just trust them to be wrong. 🙂


      5. Richard, I am trying to link to two items in response to your “Wiki says Courier is ‘pink-slime journalism.'” The first is a Washington Post story by the guy who coined the term, describing the dreadful situation that prompted the development of Courier Newsroom. The second is a link to a Courier Newsroom video about the Republicans’ plan to abolish the tax code and replace it with a 30% sales tax. The Courier video doesn’t seem slimy to me. I welcome your thoughts. (You may have to copy and paste links, though I hope not.)


        Liked by 1 person

      6. I’m happy to report that I have no real knowledge of CN. That is the danger of this media. I sit and read because I’m literally tied to the machine lol. I go looking for things that might interest me at a puff. Wikipedia is a principle trail head. Pink- slime is derogatory for sure but it could be from jealousy and even pink -slime is meat of a sort.
        Turns out infidel’s quiz puts me in with the Progressive Activists. We are the most secure and safest feeling tribe. We think we can handle poisonous snakes but everyone else should use caution. Fear mongering from the left which probably doesn’t help. Colonel Nathan Jessup had nothing on me in the way of arrogance but I’ve been working on it.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. Southwest Ohio is crisscrossed with Honeysuckle thickets lining every highway and bikeway surrounding every field and fence line. What many people do not know is that inside these thickets are animal highways I call deer tubes because well scat. Ace and I follow them often as they lead to always interesting, sometimes exciting and wonderful places few if any visit.
        Into the aperture! As usual pink slime journalism (PSJ) was from the fevered conservative mind but is now just a slur for all small town papers online offerings. Implies shoddy work done by novices networked to a wider audience by unknown groups. As usual the Dems are far behind. Courier Newsroom has a network of eight sites. I was able to sample them all. Left leaning and darkly funded which is why probably the label PSJ. I enjoyed the trip but I’m no judge of writing I’ll read anything and have. I’m flattered that you believe this troglodyte can copy and paste links but it’s you site 🙂
        Seriously a high school class on PSJ. Our children need not be and probably are notas dumb as their elders. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/classroom/2022/10/lesson-plan-how-to-spot-pink-slime-journalism-misinformation-in-once-trusted-local-news/
        Columbia University is looking into it and boy howdy is there a lot to look into.
        These guys drew a map.
        These people print up the street from me.
        and these people are a classic
        Maybe I over did it. Sorry

        Liked by 1 person

      1. Saw gym (i saw nothing in the showers) jordan on cspan holding a ommittee hearing and same old same old. Accusatory questions i.e. “when did you start working for the chicoms?” and not allowing answers before he is off on another rant.
        Why do thuglicans alwy’s need “rebranding” (maligant loser, Jordan, mtg becoming mainstream et.al) but it is the D’s who are accused of being wishy washy?
        With new information D’s may change (Biden on Gay’s ) not try to rebottle old wine in a new bottle like the thuglicans or any “conservative” judicial appointment who trip over themselves during hearings to repudiate all of their passt writing.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. How about the far right owners of Hobby Lobby in an effort to rebrand “jesus” an effort that leads to aan ad during the game on SuperBowl sunday.
    Jut goes to show that the rights adoptation and embrace of an icon of religion so besmirches the legend that even”jesus” needs rebranding.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. You touch upon one of my bete noirs.
        Why do so called cristians spend so much time using the old testament (the Jewish Bible)?
        According to my years in Catholic schools the whold point of the myth of jesus was to retire the past view of a vengeful angry god head and replace it with a loving, forgiving, peaceful godshead.
        If one is speaking as aa self proclaimed christian please try to keep some internal consistency and use the new testament, speak of the Beautitudes not the 10 commandments’
        This flagrant example of cognitive dissonance always strikes a raw nerve on me, same as when anti choice claim to be pro life -Who’se life? at what cost? But that is another rant.


  8. I am now looking for your next blog on Fox News! 🙂
    I haven’t watched Fox news lately ( I try to occasionally to see what the other side is consuming) and I am wondering if they are reporting on their being sued for their damaging fake news. Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham all acknowledged in emails the attempts and lies by the Trump admin. to claim the election was stolen…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi, Cinda. Good to hear from you! From what I’ve read, Fox is not covering the Dominion suit at all. Although its media reporter said he felt he should, he noted that he was told he could not.

      I’ll cover it again only if I find something to say that isn’t widely reported. Thanks for your comment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s