J.C.MacSwell

I'm not a fan of G W Bush either, but wasn't Fox News more of a "normal" conservative news source at that time? Not questioning the premise that Fox could have made the difference foe Bush also, but if replaced by another conservative news source I don't think it is quite as clear.

The term already is in use as something other than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest

Useful or important to the public. There is no implication in the term that they would be interested, or need or wish to know or not know. It could be in the best interest of the public that they don't get to know, for some security reason or such thing. You can work in the best interest of someone in a coma. Same idea.

Finally someone who wants to do something about climate change...about time

Some of his statements sounded like he was trumpeting the Democrat horn in a way that added nothing new. I actually not just wondered about that (or getting parole early), or even still working for Trump...the rational being that he could be hiding stuff he knows while seeming to be saying everything possible against him. "see how much I hate Trump, I must be singing everything I know", when in fact he is only singing what is known that he knows. It seems silly...but if he eventually pardons Cohen on the way out of office ("see how magnanimous I am, I'm not just pardoning all my friends...) OK...it is silly...but the thought came to mind while Cohen added well known anti-Trump talking points where he really had no more to add than what was already out there. Did he say anything else that is actually legally damning to Trump? I hadn't heard the portrait thing before...which essentially I think was theft of money he himself anonymously donated. Was that already known?

The hilarious part of this is that Trump would not even see that he did anything immoral when he did that, and believe it should be "no harm no foul" legally, which of course it is not.

I'm not, but if a lady named Yin runs, he'd make a great running mate... ...and I'll see myself out...

I think it's because I took the extreme view that it wouldn't hurt Booker and Harris with Democrats, that Republicans would make more of it than it really deserved, and that Harris and Booker might learn something from it...a totally preposterous position even if exactly true (though I claim it as opinions not facts) given that hate crimes of the alt right are on the rise, and Trump does much worse than what Harris and Booker did, and on a much more regular basis (both of which pretty much everyone agrees with).

I said they rushed to judge. I didn't say their error was directed at a specific person. It was asked if it would hurt them. My stance is not for the Primaries with Democrats but possibly beyond that with others. Does that not seem possible? Personally I don't think it is a big deal on it's own. Smollett sucked them into it. I'm not saying that any hurt it may cause them would be fully deserved.

They rushed to judge the two white MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters in Smollett's almost certain narrative.. They were not aware the two did not actually exist.

Which is in part why it won't hurt them with Democrats, and, again in part, rightfully so. But only in part. Their rush to judgement however, isn't absolved by not making further mistakes. Did it hurt them with you? No doubt they will overplay it, or try to make it to be more than it is. Republicans are far from unique in doing that type of thing for political gain. If it was was an isolated case of believing the victim to the fullest extent (Both Harris and Booker called it a "modern day lynching") due to the nature of the narrative (which it almost certainly turns out that it is) it would be relatively minor on it's own. Beyond that it is less clear. How will they react next time something comparable comes up? What will they have learned from it? Will they still speak up immediately? Almost certainly...and they should...but hopefully not rush to judgement on the specific case.

It won't hurt them with Democrats.

Can you give an example of a change? I am surprised sometimes what is allowed (or seems to be) and what is not, but I would be very cautious when adding any limits. Now three...

Well one is a start, but I don't think it will get far on it's own.

I don't think you will get everyone to agree on exactly what this should mean, never mind agree or make the personal decision to uphold it.

How would you propose this be brought about?

So what would you suggest be done to avoid it?

If we agree the alt right is a concern, what reasonable steps can be made to reduce that concern?

First off I agree with most of this whole post so +1. The extreme right sexist/racist element should be disowned. They aren't going to reject themselves, but everyone else should reject them, at least with regard to those topics, and overall they do, though often not enough, or not clearly enough. Unfortunately many (not all) that do reject them most strongly support sexism and racism in reverse, which of course is the same thing even if immediately less dangerous, and additionally supports the justification of the very thing they believe they are rejecting. The problem needs a solution, but not just any solution that might seem to help. We at least agree somewhat on identifying the scope of the problem.

You say there is not a left equivalent of a Limbaugh, or of a Jones, or of a Bannon. What would their equivalents appear as if they were to exist? The media, left and right, are not symmetrically distributed. This could be defined such that the bulk of it is on the left, with more extremes on the right. (or the opposite but I doubt many would define it that way) An arbitrary centre can be chosen where it can be considered balanced, or not, depending on that choice of centre.

What might left versions of these three appear to be like? I think most would acknowledge that they are different, though they might not agree on the scale of the problems of each. Acknowledging some of the problems would be a start, but it is much harder (as it should be) to find ways to make real improvements.

I indicated they definitely should not be responsible to in their reporting of stated Democrat leaders...as per what you asked. I would be happy to see both sides of the media change both content and tone toward a more accurate and civil discourse. I'm not sure how this can be achieved, without placing further limits on free speech.

Dangerous Political Climate for Democrat Leaders is a much better title if you wanted to limit it to that. I was on topic otherwise. Not a direct one. Definitely not. There may be extreme media that I am not aware of. Legally no. Morally yes. But you're getting what was advertised.

There is nothing philosophical about 100+ million deaths in the 20th century due to totalitarian regimes. (actually over that on the "left" alone) That's the risk. Not just the work of isolated nut jobs on the current fringes of America. But go ahead, let me know what limits you think are reasonable to consider. How bad do you think it can get, and what stops it from getting worse?

What change specifically around 40 years ago?