VIDEO LOSS

a kaleidoscope notebook about politics, the media, and culture
by tom bunting, a Real Journalist

Crisis In Our Backyards

  • How Craigslist Killed The Newspaper
  • Local News Consolidation: Explained
  • A Brief History of How The Internet Changed Journalism
  • How The City Is Covering New York As a Nonprofit
  • Inside The Battle For Better Local News
In first round of polling, only Sanders sees small bump from Harris exit

In first round of polling, only Sanders sees small bump from Harris exit

In first round of polling, only Sanders sees small bump from Harris exit

In first round of polling, only Sanders sees small bump from Harris exit
March 14, 2019 12:55 PM
Politics

Here’s something interesting: according to Morning Consult’s first poll following Kamala Harris’s departure, only Bernie Sanders saw a measurable bump in national support. He rose two percent, while Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren only rose by one percent. Pete Buttigieg saw no growth. The small bump puts Sanders in his best position nationally since April.

Sander’s growth nationally did not seem to translate to early primary states, where he only gained one percent. Biden and Warren actually saw stronger growth in the early primary states than Sanders, rising 2% and 3% respectively compared to last week. Buttigieg, plagued by questions around his transparency and ability to reach out to minority voters, saw his support erode by 4%.

Harris’ support nationally was expected to translate fairly evenly between the top three candidates, with a slight edge towards Warren. We’ll see if that initial prediction bears out in the coming weeks, but for now, it seems to be Sanders who is benefiting most.

In first round of polling, only Sanders sees small bump from Harris exit

Here’s something interesting: according to Morning Consult’s first poll following Kamala Harris’s departure, only Bernie Sanders saw a measurable bump in national support. He rose two percent, while Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren only rose by one percent. Pete Buttigieg saw no growth. The small bump puts Sanders in his best position nationally since April.

Sander’s growth nationally did not seem to translate to early primary states, where he only gained one percent. Biden and Warren actually saw stronger growth in the early primary states than Sanders, rising 2% and 3% respectively compared to last week. Buttigieg, plagued by questions around his transparency and ability to reach out to minority voters, saw his support erode by 4%.

Harris’ support nationally was expected to translate fairly evenly between the top three candidates, with a slight edge towards Warren. We’ll see if that initial prediction bears out in the coming weeks, but for now, it seems to be Sanders who is benefiting most.

In first round of polling, only Sanders sees small bump from Harris exit

Here’s something interesting: according to Morning Consult’s first poll following Kamala Harris’s departure, only Bernie Sanders saw a measurable bump in national support. He rose two percent, while Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren only rose by one percent. Pete Buttigieg saw no growth. The small bump puts Sanders in his best position nationally since April.

Sander’s growth nationally did not seem to translate to early primary states, where he only gained one percent. Biden and Warren actually saw stronger growth in the early primary states than Sanders, rising 2% and 3% respectively compared to last week. Buttigieg, plagued by questions around his transparency and ability to reach out to minority voters, saw his support erode by 4%.

Harris’ support nationally was expected to translate fairly evenly between the top three candidates, with a slight edge towards Warren. We’ll see if that initial prediction bears out in the coming weeks, but for now, it seems to be Sanders who is benefiting most.

Confidential documents reveal U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan

Confidential documents reveal U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan

Confidential documents reveal U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan

Confidential documents reveal U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan
/The Washington Post
March 14, 2019 12:55 PM
Politics
Stunning, important reporting from the Post. It’s interesting to see how modern “big stories” like this are packaged; here, we get interactive documents, a podcast, and video supplements.
Confidential documents reveal U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan

John Kerry endorses Joe Biden for Democratic nomination

John Kerry endorses Joe Biden for Democratic nomination

Learn How This Project Was Made

John Kerry endorses Joe Biden for Democratic nomination

John Kerry endorses Joe Biden for Democratic nomination

John Kerry endorses Joe Biden for Democratic nomination
Victoria McGrane/The Boston Globe
March 14, 2019 12:55 PM
Politics
With Harris out and the field narrowing, more high-profile establishment Democrats feel comfortable throwing support behind Biden.
John Kerry endorses Joe Biden for Democratic nomination
John Kerry endorses Joe Biden for Democratic nomination

Bernie splits from Warren with embrace of far-left foreign leaders

Bernie splits from Warren with embrace of far-left foreign leaders

Bernie splits from Warren with embrace of far-left foreign leaders

Bernie splits from Warren with embrace of far-left foreign leaders
/Politico
March 14, 2019 12:55 PM
Politics
An interesting (and under-covered) difference between Warren and Sanders.
Bernie splits from Warren with embrace of far-left foreign leaders
Bernie splits from Warren with embrace of far-left foreign leaders

Vice’s struggling cable channel to rebrand as Vice TV

The media company’s millennial-focused cable channel tries for a reset to resuscitate flatlined ratings

Vice’s struggling cable channel to rebrand as Vice TV

Learn How This Project Was Made

The media company’s millennial-focused cable channel tries for a reset to resuscitate flatlined ratings

The media company’s millennial-focused cable channel tries for a reset to resuscitate flatlined ratings

Vice’s struggling cable channel to rebrand as Vice TV

The media company’s millennial-focused cable channel tries for a reset to resuscitate flatlined ratings

Vice’s struggling cable channel to rebrand as Vice TV

Vice’s struggling cable channel to rebrand as Vice TV
March 14, 2019 12:55 PM
Politics
Vice’s struggling cable channel to rebrand as Vice TV
Vice’s struggling cable channel to rebrand as Vice TV

Report: Kamala Harris is dropping out of the primary

Report: Kamala Harris is dropping out of the primary

Report: Kamala Harris is dropping out of the primary

Report: Kamala Harris is dropping out of the primary
March 14, 2019 12:55 PM
Politics

Reporting from HuffPost indicates that California Senator Kamala Harris is dropping out of the Democratic presidential primary. The abrupt departure from the race before a single vote is cast bookends a stunning decline for the junior senator. The news has yet to be confirmed by the Harris campaign, although reports say she is currently informing her staff.

Plagued by indecision, Harris went from one of the primary’s front runners to a consistently second-tier candidate. The excitement from a massive announcement rally in Oakland gave way to a summer of fumbles; Harris publicly struggled with her support for Medicare-for-All, rolled out a myopic series of policy positions dubbed the 3 AM agenda, refused to reckon with questionable actions in her prosecutor past, and failed to capitalize on a cathartic performance in the first debate. These missteps, along with a campaign structure plagued with conflicting sources of power, led to a narrative among the press and voters that Harris’ candidacy was stilted.

In recent days, both the New York Times and Washington Post published long stories detailing the breakdown of her campaign, a traditional signifier in primary campaigns that things are dire. Harris was in the midst of refocusing her campaign on winning the Iowa primary, laying off staff in other states and devoting most of her time to campaigning in the state. Despite this focus, her numbers in Iowa failed to improve, and a poll published yesterday showed her national standing had been overtaken by New York mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Harris’ departure leaves the race without a female African-American candidate. All eyes will be on where her supporters go; whether towards another moderate like Joe Biden or another criminal justice advocate like Corey Booker remains to be seen. The other major candidate to drop out, Beto O’Rourke, has not yet endorsed one of this rivals, and there’s no indication yet that Harris plans to do so in the near future.

Report: Kamala Harris is dropping out of the primary

Reporting from HuffPost indicates that California Senator Kamala Harris is dropping out of the Democratic presidential primary. The abrupt departure from the race before a single vote is cast bookends a stunning decline for the junior senator. The news has yet to be confirmed by the Harris campaign, although reports say she is currently informing her staff.

Plagued by indecision, Harris went from one of the primary’s front runners to a consistently second-tier candidate. The excitement from a massive announcement rally in Oakland gave way to a summer of fumbles; Harris publicly struggled with her support for Medicare-for-All, rolled out a myopic series of policy positions dubbed the 3 AM agenda, refused to reckon with questionable actions in her prosecutor past, and failed to capitalize on a cathartic performance in the first debate. These missteps, along with a campaign structure plagued with conflicting sources of power, led to a narrative among the press and voters that Harris’ candidacy was stilted.

In recent days, both the New York Times and Washington Post published long stories detailing the breakdown of her campaign, a traditional signifier in primary campaigns that things are dire. Harris was in the midst of refocusing her campaign on winning the Iowa primary, laying off staff in other states and devoting most of her time to campaigning in the state. Despite this focus, her numbers in Iowa failed to improve, and a poll published yesterday showed her national standing had been overtaken by New York mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Harris’ departure leaves the race without a female African-American candidate. All eyes will be on where her supporters go; whether towards another moderate like Joe Biden or another criminal justice advocate like Corey Booker remains to be seen. The other major candidate to drop out, Beto O’Rourke, has not yet endorsed one of this rivals, and there’s no indication yet that Harris plans to do so in the near future.

Report: Kamala Harris is dropping out of the primary

Reporting from HuffPost indicates that California Senator Kamala Harris is dropping out of the Democratic presidential primary. The abrupt departure from the race before a single vote is cast bookends a stunning decline for the junior senator. The news has yet to be confirmed by the Harris campaign, although reports say she is currently informing her staff.

Plagued by indecision, Harris went from one of the primary’s front runners to a consistently second-tier candidate. The excitement from a massive announcement rally in Oakland gave way to a summer of fumbles; Harris publicly struggled with her support for Medicare-for-All, rolled out a myopic series of policy positions dubbed the 3 AM agenda, refused to reckon with questionable actions in her prosecutor past, and failed to capitalize on a cathartic performance in the first debate. These missteps, along with a campaign structure plagued with conflicting sources of power, led to a narrative among the press and voters that Harris’ candidacy was stilted.

In recent days, both the New York Times and Washington Post published long stories detailing the breakdown of her campaign, a traditional signifier in primary campaigns that things are dire. Harris was in the midst of refocusing her campaign on winning the Iowa primary, laying off staff in other states and devoting most of her time to campaigning in the state. Despite this focus, her numbers in Iowa failed to improve, and a poll published yesterday showed her national standing had been overtaken by New York mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Harris’ departure leaves the race without a female African-American candidate. All eyes will be on where her supporters go; whether towards another moderate like Joe Biden or another criminal justice advocate like Corey Booker remains to be seen. The other major candidate to drop out, Beto O’Rourke, has not yet endorsed one of this rivals, and there’s no indication yet that Harris plans to do so in the near future.

Editor At Newsweek Demoted After Trump Thanksgiving Article Mishap

Editor At Newsweek Demoted After Trump Thanksgiving Article Mishap

Learn How This Project Was Made

Editor At Newsweek Demoted After Trump Thanksgiving Article Mishap

Editor At Newsweek Demoted After Trump Thanksgiving Article Mishap

Editor At Newsweek Demoted After Trump Thanksgiving Article Mishap
March 14, 2019 7:13 PM
Media
Editor At Newsweek Demoted After Trump Thanksgiving Article Mishap
Editor At Newsweek Demoted After Trump Thanksgiving Article Mishap

Making Impeachment Matter

Making Impeachment Matter

Learn How This Project Was Made

Making Impeachment Matter

Making Impeachment Matter

Making Impeachment Matter
Alex Pareene/New Republic
March 14, 2019 12:55 PM
Politics
Alex Pareene writes an historical essay for the ages; weaving together two very different impeachments into a compelling call for legislative radicalism.
Making Impeachment Matter
Making Impeachment Matter

Introducing Flags

Introducing Flags

Learn How This Project Was Made

Introducing Flags

Introducing Flags

Introducing Flags
March 14, 2019 7:13 PM
Media

Starting today, you’ll start to see a new post type appear on Video Loss: Flags. Flags are meant to be a blogroll style link to articles that I find interesting or noteworthy. Unlike link posts, they only contain a few comments from me, with an emphasis on linking readers back to the original source article.

As I’ve said before, my goal with Video Loss has always been to create a evolving journal and guide to this bizarre, fascinating, and revolutionary time in American media, politics, and culture. To fit flags into this metaphor, imagine them as newspaper clippings glued into a journal.

Flags are part of a larger set of backend and visual updates coming to Video Loss over the next few days. More information on that will be coming soon!

Introducing Flags

Starting today, you’ll start to see a new post type appear on Video Loss: Flags. Flags are meant to be a blogroll style link to articles that I find interesting or noteworthy. Unlike link posts, they only contain a few comments from me, with an emphasis on linking readers back to the original source article.

As I’ve said before, my goal with Video Loss has always been to create a evolving journal and guide to this bizarre, fascinating, and revolutionary time in American media, politics, and culture. To fit flags into this metaphor, imagine them as newspaper clippings glued into a journal.

Flags are part of a larger set of backend and visual updates coming to Video Loss over the next few days. More information on that will be coming soon!

Introducing Flags

Starting today, you’ll start to see a new post type appear on Video Loss: Flags. Flags are meant to be a blogroll style link to articles that I find interesting or noteworthy. Unlike link posts, they only contain a few comments from me, with an emphasis on linking readers back to the original source article.

As I’ve said before, my goal with Video Loss has always been to create a evolving journal and guide to this bizarre, fascinating, and revolutionary time in American media, politics, and culture. To fit flags into this metaphor, imagine them as newspaper clippings glued into a journal.

Flags are part of a larger set of backend and visual updates coming to Video Loss over the next few days. More information on that will be coming soon!

Pete Buttigieg, struggling to gain black support, uses N.C. church visit to issue ‘moral call to unity’

Pete Buttigieg, struggling to gain black support, uses N.C. church visit to issue ‘moral call to unity’

Pete Buttigieg, struggling to gain black support, uses N.C. church visit to issue ‘moral call to unity’

Pete Buttigieg, struggling to gain black support, uses N.C. church visit to issue ‘moral call to unity’
Isaac Stanley-Becker/The Washington Post
March 14, 2019 12:55 PM
Politics
Inside Buttigieg’s attempts to improve his dismal relationship with black voters.
Against my wishes, Michael Bloomberg is really going to do this

Against my wishes, Michael Bloomberg is really going to do this

Against my wishes, Michael Bloomberg is really going to do this

Against my wishes, Michael Bloomberg is really going to do this
March 14, 2019 12:55 PM
Politics

Michael Bloomberg is many things; one of history’s great inept media barons, a passable New York City mayor (if you were white), a decent boss (if you were a man), and richer than anyone should ever be. And now, he’s can add most depressing Presidential candidates in history to his list of achievements.

Yes, friends, after weeks of trailballooning, Bloomberg officially announced his campaign for President. We’ve been living in a “Will Michael Bloomberg Run for President?” news cycle for a few weeks now, which gives us a window into the Bloomberg strategy: his team believes the Democratic primary is unsettled, that Biden running weaker than expected in the moderate lane, that Warren and Sanders cannot beat Trump, and that there is room for a pragmatic centrist to win.

That’s all sensical centrist political analysis—it’s pretty much what got Deval Patrick to enter the race last week—but what’s really depressing about the whole Bloomberg affair is how his campaign intends to win. Because he’s entering so late, Bloomberg is planning an unorthodox campaign strategy, one predicated almost entirely on using his personal wealth—shunning the kind of grassroots movement building campaigns traditionally rely on—and suffocating his opponents with his immeasurable resources. First, Bloomberg will be funding his campaign using only his own money, with no donations from voters. Self-funding means that unless the DNC fundamentally changes its qualifications, Bloomberg will not be in any televised debates. In another break from established norms, Bloomberg’s aides have hinted that the billionaire will skip both the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, the first battles in the primary calendar and a traditional breakout moment for competitive candidates. Party officials in Iowa and New Hampshire have already criticized the decision, yet Bloomberg presses on; seemingly uninterested in the retail politics required to compete in those states and aware that he’s unlikely to win after entering so late. Instead, Bloomberg plans to build momentum in the Super Tuesday states through shock-and-awe amounts of television and digital advertising. He is intending to spend more money on these ad buys than many campaigns have raised overall.

It bears repeating how antithetical to modern campaign this strategy would be to the organization and economics of modern primaries. Most campaigns build momentum through grassroots campaigning, use outside donations to pay for advertising, try to break out in Iowa or New Hampshire or the debates, and build up to be in a strong position by Super Tuesday. Bloomberg is essentially saying that since he has enough money independently, these expectations shouldn’t apply to him.

Even detached from Bloomberg’s questionable public history and flaccid centrism, this is a profoundly cynical campaign strategy. Bloomberg is banking on his personal wealth to carry him to victory, quite literally buying his way into a fighting chance for the nomination. That he is approaching the campaign this way without an ounce of self-awareness speaks deeply to his character. 

Against my wishes, Michael Bloomberg is really going to do this

Michael Bloomberg is many things; one of history’s great inept media barons, a passable New York City mayor (if you were white), a decent boss (if you were a man), and richer than anyone should ever be. And now, he’s can add most depressing Presidential candidates in history to his list of achievements.

Yes, friends, after weeks of trailballooning, Bloomberg officially announced his campaign for President. We’ve been living in a “Will Michael Bloomberg Run for President?” news cycle for a few weeks now, which gives us a window into the Bloomberg strategy: his team believes the Democratic primary is unsettled, that Biden running weaker than expected in the moderate lane, that Warren and Sanders cannot beat Trump, and that there is room for a pragmatic centrist to win.

That’s all sensical centrist political analysis—it’s pretty much what got Deval Patrick to enter the race last week—but what’s really depressing about the whole Bloomberg affair is how his campaign intends to win. Because he’s entering so late, Bloomberg is planning an unorthodox campaign strategy, one predicated almost entirely on using his personal wealth—shunning the kind of grassroots movement building campaigns traditionally rely on—and suffocating his opponents with his immeasurable resources. First, Bloomberg will be funding his campaign using only his own money, with no donations from voters. Self-funding means that unless the DNC fundamentally changes its qualifications, Bloomberg will not be in any televised debates. In another break from established norms, Bloomberg’s aides have hinted that the billionaire will skip both the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, the first battles in the primary calendar and a traditional breakout moment for competitive candidates. Party officials in Iowa and New Hampshire have already criticized the decision, yet Bloomberg presses on; seemingly uninterested in the retail politics required to compete in those states and aware that he’s unlikely to win after entering so late. Instead, Bloomberg plans to build momentum in the Super Tuesday states through shock-and-awe amounts of television and digital advertising. He is intending to spend more money on these ad buys than many campaigns have raised overall.

It bears repeating how antithetical to modern campaign this strategy would be to the organization and economics of modern primaries. Most campaigns build momentum through grassroots campaigning, use outside donations to pay for advertising, try to break out in Iowa or New Hampshire or the debates, and build up to be in a strong position by Super Tuesday. Bloomberg is essentially saying that since he has enough money independently, these expectations shouldn’t apply to him.

Even detached from Bloomberg’s questionable public history and flaccid centrism, this is a profoundly cynical campaign strategy. Bloomberg is banking on his personal wealth to carry him to victory, quite literally buying his way into a fighting chance for the nomination. That he is approaching the campaign this way without an ounce of self-awareness speaks deeply to his character. 

Against my wishes, Michael Bloomberg is really going to do this

Michael Bloomberg is many things; one of history’s great inept media barons, a passable New York City mayor (if you were white), a decent boss (if you were a man), and richer than anyone should ever be. And now, he’s can add most depressing Presidential candidates in history to his list of achievements.

Yes, friends, after weeks of trailballooning, Bloomberg officially announced his campaign for President. We’ve been living in a “Will Michael Bloomberg Run for President?” news cycle for a few weeks now, which gives us a window into the Bloomberg strategy: his team believes the Democratic primary is unsettled, that Biden running weaker than expected in the moderate lane, that Warren and Sanders cannot beat Trump, and that there is room for a pragmatic centrist to win.

That’s all sensical centrist political analysis—it’s pretty much what got Deval Patrick to enter the race last week—but what’s really depressing about the whole Bloomberg affair is how his campaign intends to win. Because he’s entering so late, Bloomberg is planning an unorthodox campaign strategy, one predicated almost entirely on using his personal wealth—shunning the kind of grassroots movement building campaigns traditionally rely on—and suffocating his opponents with his immeasurable resources. First, Bloomberg will be funding his campaign using only his own money, with no donations from voters. Self-funding means that unless the DNC fundamentally changes its qualifications, Bloomberg will not be in any televised debates. In another break from established norms, Bloomberg’s aides have hinted that the billionaire will skip both the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, the first battles in the primary calendar and a traditional breakout moment for competitive candidates. Party officials in Iowa and New Hampshire have already criticized the decision, yet Bloomberg presses on; seemingly uninterested in the retail politics required to compete in those states and aware that he’s unlikely to win after entering so late. Instead, Bloomberg plans to build momentum in the Super Tuesday states through shock-and-awe amounts of television and digital advertising. He is intending to spend more money on these ad buys than many campaigns have raised overall.

It bears repeating how antithetical to modern campaign this strategy would be to the organization and economics of modern primaries. Most campaigns build momentum through grassroots campaigning, use outside donations to pay for advertising, try to break out in Iowa or New Hampshire or the debates, and build up to be in a strong position by Super Tuesday. Bloomberg is essentially saying that since he has enough money independently, these expectations shouldn’t apply to him.

Even detached from Bloomberg’s questionable public history and flaccid centrism, this is a profoundly cynical campaign strategy. Bloomberg is banking on his personal wealth to carry him to victory, quite literally buying his way into a fighting chance for the nomination. That he is approaching the campaign this way without an ounce of self-awareness speaks deeply to his character. 

Cities, Ranked

Cities, Ranked

Learn How This Project Was Made

Cities, Ranked

Cities, Ranked

Cities, Ranked
March 14, 2019 7:13 PM
Culture
  1. San Francisco
  2. Vancouver
  3. Philadelphia
  4. Chicago
  5. Boston
  6. Seattle
  7. Washington DC
  8. Pittsburg
  9. Portland
  10. New York City
  11. San Jose


Cities, Ranked
  1. San Francisco
  2. Vancouver
  3. Philadelphia
  4. Chicago
  5. Boston
  6. Seattle
  7. Washington DC
  8. Pittsburg
  9. Portland
  10. New York City
  11. San Jose


Cities, Ranked

  1. San Francisco
  2. Vancouver
  3. Philadelphia
  4. Chicago
  5. Boston
  6. Seattle
  7. Washington DC
  8. Pittsburg
  9. Portland
  10. New York City
  11. San Jose


Correction for “Hillary Clinton’s Gabbard-Russia comment shows misinformation can fester anywhere”

Correction for “Hillary Clinton’s Gabbard-Russia comment shows misinformation can fester anywhere”

Correction for “Hillary Clinton’s Gabbard-Russia comment shows misinformation can fester anywhere”

Correction for “Hillary Clinton’s Gabbard-Russia comment shows misinformation can fester anywhere”
March 14, 2019 7:13 PM
Media

Last week, I published an article criticizing Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about Tulsi Gabbard and Russia. The crux on my piece hinged on the following statement by Clinton on the Campaign HQ podcast: 

They are also going to do third-party again, and I’m not making any predictions but I think they got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.

Because Clinton was previously talking about Russian interference in the 2016 election—and because she then spoke again about the Russians in the next sentence—I assumed that the initial “they” in this statement was Russia. This assumption was also shared by the New York Times, Politico, and the majority of mainstream news websites that covered the comments. (The host of the podcast, David Plouffe, also portrays her statement this way at the end of the show.)

However, according to Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill, the former Secretary of State was referring to the Republicans. As in: 

The Republicans are also going to do third-party again, and I’m not making any predictions but I think they got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate.

It’s linguistically sloppy on Clinton’s part, and I’d argue that she should be more specific when talking about allegations of this magnitude. However, I have no reason to believe Merrill is lying, and as such I’ve taken the article down. 

I apologize to my readers for contributing to a news cycle that was based partially on a misinterpreted statement. I will try to make sure an error like this doesn’t happen again. Misinformation can certainly fester anywhere. 

Correction for “Hillary Clinton’s Gabbard-Russia comment shows misinformation can fester anywhere”

Last week, I published an article criticizing Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about Tulsi Gabbard and Russia. The crux on my piece hinged on the following statement by Clinton on the Campaign HQ podcast: 

They are also going to do third-party again, and I’m not making any predictions but I think they got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.

Because Clinton was previously talking about Russian interference in the 2016 election—and because she then spoke again about the Russians in the next sentence—I assumed that the initial “they” in this statement was Russia. This assumption was also shared by the New York Times, Politico, and the majority of mainstream news websites that covered the comments. (The host of the podcast, David Plouffe, also portrays her statement this way at the end of the show.)

However, according to Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill, the former Secretary of State was referring to the Republicans. As in: 

The Republicans are also going to do third-party again, and I’m not making any predictions but I think they got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate.

It’s linguistically sloppy on Clinton’s part, and I’d argue that she should be more specific when talking about allegations of this magnitude. However, I have no reason to believe Merrill is lying, and as such I’ve taken the article down. 

I apologize to my readers for contributing to a news cycle that was based partially on a misinterpreted statement. I will try to make sure an error like this doesn’t happen again. Misinformation can certainly fester anywhere. 

Correction for “Hillary Clinton’s Gabbard-Russia comment shows misinformation can fester anywhere”

Last week, I published an article criticizing Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about Tulsi Gabbard and Russia. The crux on my piece hinged on the following statement by Clinton on the Campaign HQ podcast: 

They are also going to do third-party again, and I’m not making any predictions but I think they got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.

Because Clinton was previously talking about Russian interference in the 2016 election—and because she then spoke again about the Russians in the next sentence—I assumed that the initial “they” in this statement was Russia. This assumption was also shared by the New York Times, Politico, and the majority of mainstream news websites that covered the comments. (The host of the podcast, David Plouffe, also portrays her statement this way at the end of the show.)

However, according to Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill, the former Secretary of State was referring to the Republicans. As in: 

The Republicans are also going to do third-party again, and I’m not making any predictions but I think they got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate.

It’s linguistically sloppy on Clinton’s part, and I’d argue that she should be more specific when talking about allegations of this magnitude. However, I have no reason to believe Merrill is lying, and as such I’ve taken the article down. 

I apologize to my readers for contributing to a news cycle that was based partially on a misinterpreted statement. I will try to make sure an error like this doesn’t happen again. Misinformation can certainly fester anywhere. 

The significance of Ocasio-Cortez endorsing Sanders

The significance of Ocasio-Cortez endorsing Sanders

The significance of Ocasio-Cortez endorsing Sanders

The significance of Ocasio-Cortez endorsing Sanders
March 14, 2019 12:55 PM
Politics

At a massive rally today in New York City, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez formally endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders. The endorsement, which leaked earlier this week during the fourth Democratic debate, has been covered nationally, a rare moment of news cycle domination for a campaign that’s often struggle to get positive mainstream coverage.

There has been some skepticism about how significant Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement is. Sanders surrogate Jonathan Tasini told Politico that Ocasio-Cortez fans who didn’t already support Sanders “could fit into a booth at the local diner.” Former Clinton 2016 aide Jess Morales Rocketto questioned to the New York Times whether Ocasio-Cortez is “super influential to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.”

These are both fair critiques, but I think they are somewhat missing the point of the endorsement. Ocasio-Cortez’s support isn’t meant to jumpstart Sander’s flagging poll numbers in early states, it’s a media and base play meant to reset the narrative around the campaign and energize his supporters. For a campaign that often attempts to position itself outside of conventional political thought, I’m struck by how politically savvy Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement has been handled by the Sanders camp. 

Here’s why I think the endorsement—and its handling—matters:

- It resets the narrative around Sander’s campaign in the media. Even before a heart attack took Sanders off the trail for two weeks, his numbers in early states were going down amid a lot of media chatter around Warren’s rise. By leaking the endorsement right after a strong debate performance earlier this week, Sander’s camp practically guaranteed the media would be talking about his comeback rather than predicting his demise.

- Ocasio-Cortez isn’t the most influential or popular politician in America, but she’s one of the most-covered by the media.  Her endorsement was one of the most sought-after this cycle partially because of this; anyone who got her support was going to get a ton of press coverage for it. Sanders got that; while getting a ton of coverage about how the fight for the American left is still raging between him and Warren.

- Ocasio-Cortez is also wildly popular among Sanders base and liberals generally. Her endorsement seemed to reenergize his support among the Sanders faithful; which built directly into the massive rally we saw today. That rally was a tremendous show of force for the Sanders campaign and drove another positive media cycle for the campaign. Ocasio-Cortez is also expected to travel with Sanders to California, where I’d expect she’d be really useful at getting the campaign more media attention and turning out undecided liberals who like her and may have otherwise been leaning towards Warren.

- Ocasio-Cortez’s support dispels a common myth about Sander’s demographic support. We’ve know for a while now that Sander’s support cuts across generational lines rather than racial lines. Yet there’s a pretty accepted mainstream narrative that Sanders supporters are predominantly white and male. While it’s frustrating that a single prominent woman of color’s support would change that narrative, I do think it’s an optically important endorsement that will go a long way in dispelling that myth in mainstream political circles. 

While I don’t think AOC’s endorsement will do much to shift poll numbers (which I’d expect to continue to slide down as the news of Sander’s heart attack continues to reverberate), I do think it’s undeniable that her endorsement is a significant boon for the campaign. They’ve handled the rollout incredibly well, and I think it significantly shifts the narrative around their campaign in a way that will benefit them in the long run. 


The significance of Ocasio-Cortez endorsing Sanders

At a massive rally today in New York City, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez formally endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders. The endorsement, which leaked earlier this week during the fourth Democratic debate, has been covered nationally, a rare moment of news cycle domination for a campaign that’s often struggle to get positive mainstream coverage.

There has been some skepticism about how significant Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement is. Sanders surrogate Jonathan Tasini told Politico that Ocasio-Cortez fans who didn’t already support Sanders “could fit into a booth at the local diner.” Former Clinton 2016 aide Jess Morales Rocketto questioned to the New York Times whether Ocasio-Cortez is “super influential to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.”

These are both fair critiques, but I think they are somewhat missing the point of the endorsement. Ocasio-Cortez’s support isn’t meant to jumpstart Sander’s flagging poll numbers in early states, it’s a media and base play meant to reset the narrative around the campaign and energize his supporters. For a campaign that often attempts to position itself outside of conventional political thought, I’m struck by how politically savvy Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement has been handled by the Sanders camp. 

Here’s why I think the endorsement—and its handling—matters:

- It resets the narrative around Sander’s campaign in the media. Even before a heart attack took Sanders off the trail for two weeks, his numbers in early states were going down amid a lot of media chatter around Warren’s rise. By leaking the endorsement right after a strong debate performance earlier this week, Sander’s camp practically guaranteed the media would be talking about his comeback rather than predicting his demise.

- Ocasio-Cortez isn’t the most influential or popular politician in America, but she’s one of the most-covered by the media.  Her endorsement was one of the most sought-after this cycle partially because of this; anyone who got her support was going to get a ton of press coverage for it. Sanders got that; while getting a ton of coverage about how the fight for the American left is still raging between him and Warren.

- Ocasio-Cortez is also wildly popular among Sanders base and liberals generally. Her endorsement seemed to reenergize his support among the Sanders faithful; which built directly into the massive rally we saw today. That rally was a tremendous show of force for the Sanders campaign and drove another positive media cycle for the campaign. Ocasio-Cortez is also expected to travel with Sanders to California, where I’d expect she’d be really useful at getting the campaign more media attention and turning out undecided liberals who like her and may have otherwise been leaning towards Warren.

- Ocasio-Cortez’s support dispels a common myth about Sander’s demographic support. We’ve know for a while now that Sander’s support cuts across generational lines rather than racial lines. Yet there’s a pretty accepted mainstream narrative that Sanders supporters are predominantly white and male. While it’s frustrating that a single prominent woman of color’s support would change that narrative, I do think it’s an optically important endorsement that will go a long way in dispelling that myth in mainstream political circles. 

While I don’t think AOC’s endorsement will do much to shift poll numbers (which I’d expect to continue to slide down as the news of Sander’s heart attack continues to reverberate), I do think it’s undeniable that her endorsement is a significant boon for the campaign. They’ve handled the rollout incredibly well, and I think it significantly shifts the narrative around their campaign in a way that will benefit them in the long run. 


The significance of Ocasio-Cortez endorsing Sanders

At a massive rally today in New York City, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez formally endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders. The endorsement, which leaked earlier this week during the fourth Democratic debate, has been covered nationally, a rare moment of news cycle domination for a campaign that’s often struggle to get positive mainstream coverage.

There has been some skepticism about how significant Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement is. Sanders surrogate Jonathan Tasini told Politico that Ocasio-Cortez fans who didn’t already support Sanders “could fit into a booth at the local diner.” Former Clinton 2016 aide Jess Morales Rocketto questioned to the New York Times whether Ocasio-Cortez is “super influential to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.”

These are both fair critiques, but I think they are somewhat missing the point of the endorsement. Ocasio-Cortez’s support isn’t meant to jumpstart Sander’s flagging poll numbers in early states, it’s a media and base play meant to reset the narrative around the campaign and energize his supporters. For a campaign that often attempts to position itself outside of conventional political thought, I’m struck by how politically savvy Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement has been handled by the Sanders camp. 

Here’s why I think the endorsement—and its handling—matters:

- It resets the narrative around Sander’s campaign in the media. Even before a heart attack took Sanders off the trail for two weeks, his numbers in early states were going down amid a lot of media chatter around Warren’s rise. By leaking the endorsement right after a strong debate performance earlier this week, Sander’s camp practically guaranteed the media would be talking about his comeback rather than predicting his demise.

- Ocasio-Cortez isn’t the most influential or popular politician in America, but she’s one of the most-covered by the media.  Her endorsement was one of the most sought-after this cycle partially because of this; anyone who got her support was going to get a ton of press coverage for it. Sanders got that; while getting a ton of coverage about how the fight for the American left is still raging between him and Warren.

- Ocasio-Cortez is also wildly popular among Sanders base and liberals generally. Her endorsement seemed to reenergize his support among the Sanders faithful; which built directly into the massive rally we saw today. That rally was a tremendous show of force for the Sanders campaign and drove another positive media cycle for the campaign. Ocasio-Cortez is also expected to travel with Sanders to California, where I’d expect she’d be really useful at getting the campaign more media attention and turning out undecided liberals who like her and may have otherwise been leaning towards Warren.

- Ocasio-Cortez’s support dispels a common myth about Sander’s demographic support. We’ve know for a while now that Sander’s support cuts across generational lines rather than racial lines. Yet there’s a pretty accepted mainstream narrative that Sanders supporters are predominantly white and male. While it’s frustrating that a single prominent woman of color’s support would change that narrative, I do think it’s an optically important endorsement that will go a long way in dispelling that myth in mainstream political circles. 

While I don’t think AOC’s endorsement will do much to shift poll numbers (which I’d expect to continue to slide down as the news of Sander’s heart attack continues to reverberate), I do think it’s undeniable that her endorsement is a significant boon for the campaign. They’ve handled the rollout incredibly well, and I think it significantly shifts the narrative around their campaign in a way that will benefit them in the long run. 


Tulsi Gabbard responds to Clinton’s Russia accusation

Tulsi Gabbard responds to Clinton’s Russia accusation

Tulsi Gabbard responds to Clinton’s Russia accusation

Great! Thank you. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.

@TulsiGabbard

Something that always bears repeating: Tulsi Gabbard is a fucking weirdo. Clinton did nothing today but give Gabbard red meat to her similarly-weirdo base.

Tulsi Gabbard responds to Clinton’s Russia accusation
March 14, 2019 12:55 PM
Politics
Tulsi Gabbard responds to Clinton’s Russia accusation
Tulsi Gabbard responds to Clinton’s Russia accusation

Is USA Today’s print edition headed for the sunset as GateHouse and Gannett merge? Signs point to yes.

Is USA Today’s print edition headed for the sunset as GateHouse and Gannett merge? Signs point to yes.

Is USA Today’s print edition headed for the sunset as GateHouse and Gannett merge? Signs point to yes.

Bernie Sanders: We will make history

Bernie Sanders: We will make history

Learn How This Project Was Made

Bernie Sanders: We will make history

Bernie Sanders: We will make history

But let me relay to you an experience that I had lying in a hospital bed in Las Vegas after the heart attack. And I thought about a lot of things, but one of the things that went through my brain is what would have happened if I did not have the good health insurance that I have? And it made me feel even more strongly, the need for us to continue our efforts to end this dysfunctional and cruel system that leaves so many people uninsured, underinsured, causes bankruptcy, lowers credit scores, for people who owe medical debt. It's an insane, corrupt, bureaucratic system based on the greed of the health care industry. So I gotta tell you, that even as I sat and lied down in that hospital bed in Las Vegas, the issue of the struggle we are engaged in permeated in my mind. And I want all of you to understand that the day is gonna come when you’re gonna be talking to your kids and you’re gonna be talking to your grandchildren and say “you know what, I was involved in that struggle that finally brought health care to all Americans as a human right.”

- Bernie Sanders, in a video posted by his campaign on Youtube

A really inspiring and impressive rallying call from Sanders to his supporters, his first real statement after a heart attack took him off the campaign trail last week. It’s notable how effective Sander’s usual message of political revolution is when he ties it to personal experience. This is the first time I’ve really heard him talk about the future in these terms, it strikes me as a surprising acknowledgment of his own mortality for a candidate who hates talking about himself. 

I’ve seen some polling indicating that he’s taken a hit from this cycle and the speculation around his health. That makes sense, but I do believe he may have an opportunity to gain momentum if he keeps speaking like this. 

Bernie Sanders: We will make history
March 14, 2019 12:55 PM
Politics
Bernie Sanders: We will make history
Bernie Sanders: We will make history

Shepard Smith leaving Fox News is only a big deal for media observers

The battle for Fox News’ soul was never really a war

Shepard Smith leaving Fox News is only a big deal for media observers

Learn How This Project Was Made

The battle for Fox News’ soul was never really a war

The battle for Fox News’ soul was never really a war

Shepard Smith leaving Fox News is only a big deal for media observers

The battle for Fox News’ soul was never really a war

Shepard Smith leaving Fox News is only a big deal for media observers

Shepard Smith leaving Fox News is only a big deal for media observers
March 14, 2019 7:13 PM
Media
Shepard Smith leaving Fox News is only a big deal for media observers
Shepard Smith leaving Fox News is only a big deal for media observers

HBO is bringing back that boring Axios news show

HBO is bringing back that boring Axios news show

Learn How This Project Was Made

HBO is bringing back that boring Axios news show

HBO is bringing back that boring Axios news show

HBO is bringing back that boring Axios news show
March 14, 2019 7:13 PM
Media

In a relatively surprising bit of news, HBO announced yesterday that Axios on HBO will be returning for two more seasons. The deal weds the attention-deficit-disordered news source and the increasingly zombified prestige cable channel together past the 2020 election. 

You might remember that HBO killed their other outside-partner news show, VICE News Tonight, earlier this year. That show—which was much better produced and infinitely more useful journalistically—cost a lot to make and didn’t get a ton of attention. Comparatively, Axios on HBO, is cheaper, breaks way more mainstream news, and ties HBO to one of the few online media brand that isn’t currently on fire

A true shame, but it’s really all our faults for expecting more from our monolithic content providers. 

HBO is bringing back that boring Axios news show

In a relatively surprising bit of news, HBO announced yesterday that Axios on HBO will be returning for two more seasons. The deal weds the attention-deficit-disordered news source and the increasingly zombified prestige cable channel together past the 2020 election. 

You might remember that HBO killed their other outside-partner news show, VICE News Tonight, earlier this year. That show—which was much better produced and infinitely more useful journalistically—cost a lot to make and didn’t get a ton of attention. Comparatively, Axios on HBO, is cheaper, breaks way more mainstream news, and ties HBO to one of the few online media brand that isn’t currently on fire

A true shame, but it’s really all our faults for expecting more from our monolithic content providers. 

HBO is bringing back that boring Axios news show

In a relatively surprising bit of news, HBO announced yesterday that Axios on HBO will be returning for two more seasons. The deal weds the attention-deficit-disordered news source and the increasingly zombified prestige cable channel together past the 2020 election. 

You might remember that HBO killed their other outside-partner news show, VICE News Tonight, earlier this year. That show—which was much better produced and infinitely more useful journalistically—cost a lot to make and didn’t get a ton of attention. Comparatively, Axios on HBO, is cheaper, breaks way more mainstream news, and ties HBO to one of the few online media brand that isn’t currently on fire

A true shame, but it’s really all our faults for expecting more from our monolithic content providers. 

Vice News Sells Spotify Three Podcast Series

Vice News Sells Spotify Three Podcast Series

Learn How This Project Was Made

Vice News Sells Spotify Three Podcast Series

Vice News Sells Spotify Three Podcast Series

Vice News Sells Spotify Three Podcast Series
March 14, 2019 7:13 PM
Media
Vice News Sells Spotify Three Podcast Series
Vice News Sells Spotify Three Podcast Series