Comments from memo readers in response to our letter protesting the lunatic(s) who proposed censorship at The Landings:
These people should realize that they are refugees not missionaries from progressive environments
+++
P---- and I completely agree with your sentiments. That message was horrible and the writer is an ugly person. We wish we could say this person was the only one but we know it's not true.--
+++
DISPATCH WYOMING Where voters here will decide who represents them in DC—not outsiders
JACKSON HOLE, Wyo. — Jerry Adams has no hesitation saying who will earn his vote for this western state’s lone congressional seat in the Republican primary come August.
It’s the same person he’ll vote for in November, if she survives the primary.
“I’ve voted for Liz Cheney before, and she’ll get my vote again. She has done a lot of good for Wyoming since she has been in office,” said Mr. Adams, who works in both the tourism and construction industries.
The 55-year-old South Dakota native, who has lived in this Teton County town for over 30 years, wasn’t alone when he supported Ms. Cheney two years ago; statewide, a whopping 69% of Wyoming voters voted for her in the 2020 election.
At the same time, the man at the top of the ticket — Donald Trump — earned 1 percentage point more. Here in Teton County — one of only two blue counties in the state — Joe Biden trounced Mr. Trump 67% to 30%. In this Democratic county, Ms. Cheney outperformed Mr. Trump by nearly 7 points.
Mr. Adams said Mr. Trump was never his cup of tea: “Could never vote for him, knew he was trouble,” a position that was a rarity here before the 2020 election.
Ms. Cheney’s race for re-election this year will certainly garner plenty of national attention — not for any potential to tip the balance of power in Washington, but because of the perception that Mr. Trump will play an outsized role in the outcome. The question is this: Are there enough Jerry Adamses out here to pull Ms. Cheney over the finish line?
Or is Mr. Adams simply an outlier?
Eighteen months ago, Ms. Cheney was in the catbird seat in both her home state and in Washington. Within two years of being elected to the House in 2016, her Republican colleagues picked her to be the House Republican Conference chair, which made her the caucus’s top communicator and the No. 3 Republican in the chamber, behind House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Minority Whip Steve Scalise. Eighteen months ago, Ms. Cheney was one of the most powerful Republicans in Washington, and Republicans in Wyoming liked that.
Ms. Cheney’s fortunes began to unravel in the weeks and months after the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; as one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump for inciting the mob, Ms. Cheney was soon ousted from her leadership position, and her state party voted to censure her.
It would be an understatement to say that Ms. Cheney faces an uphill battle here in Wyoming — and it would be an overstatement to say that her win or loss would have any impact on the balance of power here: Republicans outnumber Democrats nearly four to one. Someone with an R after their name will almost certainly win this seat.
Partisans, pundits and the national media in Washington, however, view this race as one of the most important in the country because they view it as a morality test for Republican voters regarding Mr. Trump’s influence: If Ms. Cheney wins, then there’s hope that Republicans are redeemable; if she loses, then Republicans are unsalvageable, and deserve nothing but disdain and worse. And they will happily dissect and drone on about it for the next two years.
Yet here in Wyoming, many voters will tell you this race is not about Ms. Cheney herself — or Mr. Trump himself — but rather about who represents this big state with a not-so-big population best in Washington. Livelihoods here depend predominantly on rural issues that have little influence or traction in Washington: energy, agriculture and tourism.
Ms. Cheney gets that, which is why she said in our interview that her focus will be to remain committed to supporting those issues in her re-election bid: “I will be continuing to fight for the people of Wyoming, continuing to fight for the economic policies, the energy policies, the defense, national trade policies,” she said.
But she also said one of the main foundations of her congressional race will be a very clear distinction between her and the one candidate in the race who has earned the endorsement of the former president: “The place for the people of Wyoming will be, are you going to vote for somebody who has pledged their loyalty and allegiance to one person, or are you going to vote for the representative who’s fighting for Wyoming and is going to be loyal and faithful to the Constitution?”
Last fall Harriet Hageman, of Cheyenne, became that candidate who received the blessing of the former president; the natural resources and constitutional law attorney, and 2018 Republican primary candidate for governor, said that, rather than sitting back and running on Mr. Trump’s endorsement, she immediately hit the road to introduce herself to voters.
“One of the things that I was just adamant about after I started this in September was to make sure that I made it to every single county — and some places several times — before the end of the year and listen to and really understand what voters’ concerns are,” Ms. Hageman said.
She said she drove a total of 9,042 miles in that quest, which she called a job interview with the voters. “I’m asking them to hire me to represent them in Washington, D.C. I believe in our foundational Constitution and our constitutional republic,” she said, with a subtle jab at Ms. Cheney’s assertion that Mr. Trump’s endorsement means fealty to him over the Constitution.
Ms. Hageman’s Trump endorsement shrank the primary field considerably, although not completely. State Sen. Anthony Bouchard is still in the race.
One of the nuances I’ve learned covering American politics nationwide post-Trump is that voters can like his policies and appreciate his willingness to go the mat for them, yet still be equally willing to vote for whomever they believe is best for their community — even if that person does not have Mr. Trump’s support.
It’s too early to say who will win in Wyoming in August, but one thing is clear: The national press may have decided that this race is about one thing, but that doesn’t mean the people who actually vote here agree.
In short, while the national media attempt to make all local races national, voters in places like this have a way of reminding them that all politics really are local
Click here for the full story.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The author of the book I am reading about how mass media undermined Democracy, begins the 5th chapter discussing the digital revolution. Initially he believed, as most others, the internet would herald a new kind of journalism that would be a force for democratization.
Lo and behold, the internet created "information bubbles and echo chambers." Rather than revive populist journalism, AKA Pulitzer, it had the opposite effect... Elitist journalists used it to drill down on their subjects and exposed them to the the fact they could generate income by reaching as many readers as possible by supplying material they wanted because it reinforced their own thoughts.
By using journalist content the newspapers created "customer engagement funnels" that were able to offer trending articles on Twitter and You Tube Thus, the rationale for why Amazon's Bezos purchased WAPO.( In my personal opinion I believe Bezos purchased WAPO to have political power to protect his empire) Specialization became important to advertisers and helped save newspapers. The goal of selling newspapers at a stand morphed into getting someone to stay on your website as long as possible. Thus, newspapers pivoted to digital subscriptions.
Digital media jobs involve little journalism and favors young journalists who became intent on creating "personal brands." The barrier between journalist and consumer melded as the back and forth between Twitter and news influenced journalism and the number of clicks became critical.
Rather than diversity, pursuit of group think began to drive journalism. Facebook and Twitter make money off journalist's content. Much of my memo content is derived from posting articles written by op ed writers and embellished with my own commentary. However, over time the Twitter's and Facebook's, of the world, changed their technology whereby content from newspapers lessened and companies like VOX became the new reference point in the digital age.
In Chapter Six, the author discusses how the NYT's pivoted to digital and along with Trump saved themselves from economic ruin. The NYT's designed a subscription-first business model and digital journalism began to revive the newspaper business and journalism.
The divide between journalism and business ended and the need for subscription revenue drove that evolution. This led to a "two way relationship" with readers so they could engage with journalists. This resulted in "user generated content." Journalists were encouraged to collaborate more closely with the business side, ie. advertisers etc.
However, nothing lifted the newspaper industry as did Trump. Consequently, Trump began to receive more coverage than any one person. The more outrageous he became the more the honey and milk of free advertising flowed his way. Giving him attention became synonymous with profitability.
Trump was accused of testing the norm of journalism's objectivity. The more he was attacked the more they played into his hands and solidified his support among the "Trumpites." Meanwhile the role of separating fact from fiction went out the window. Journalism malpractice proved profitable. Nevertheless, it continued as the wall between business and editorial strategy disappeared. In the end, The NYT's did not need third-party data because it had enough of it's own first-party date to offer advertisers.
The NYT's also launched "Project Feels" which was designed to understand and predict emotional impact of articles. The paper now sells insights gained to advertisers. In essence they monetize emotional responses in relation to brand ads. In a bizarre twist, the NYT's has returned to Pulitzer's sensationalism as it disengaged from it's more staid approach geared toward affluent and sophisticated readership.
The unhealthy downside of Trump coverage resulted in a continued obsession regarding white supremacy and racism. In essence journalists concluded voters did not choose him because of economic anxiety but because they are racists. Whether intended or not, this factually unsupported position has led to further societal division and helped give validity to such dangers as the 1619 project, CRT, BLM etc.
A study done by Musa al-Gharbi reveals many white voters for Trump previously voted for Obama both in 2008 and 2012. Furthermore, al-Gharbi reveals Trump got less white turnout than Mitt Romney but did better with Hispanics and Asians than Romney and won the largest black vote since 2004. Obviously, Trump turned off white females by his vulgarity etc.
What appealed to white voters, regarding Trump, was his promise to appoint conservative Justices, his anti-abortion stance, commitment to religious liberty, his antiwar position and America's disastrous trade deals which hurt blue collar workers.
As for urbanite journalists, they did not know any Trump supporters so they were more prone to easily characterize them as racists. They suffered from the same problem Republicans have when it comes to feeling comfortable among black voters. The media has a long history, the author writes, of pitting poor white and black Americans against each other.
Finally, just about every voter group are opposed to open borders except liberals and radical progressives who want to flood our country in order to cause chaos.
My next review begins with Chapter 7.
++++++++++++++++++++
Sent by a friend:
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment