I don't think it's this. I think the relevant decision makers are conservatives who agree with Donald Trump, think he would be a better President than Harris would and want him to win because they prefer him to be President for ideological reasons bsky.app/profile/cris...

Joe Kahn gave so much away when he said Trump would merely be a “disruptive” president; the possibility that he could end the American experiment is unfathomable to these cosseted wankers.

The simplicity of this construction is deeply soothing to me. No more struggles to guess, understand, interpret, or rationalize. Just the recognition that what I see happening is really happening, and that the most obvious answer is the true answer.

Everyone seems weirdly insistent that it's impossible that it's just that there are people who control the media who like Trump and think he's good. "I like Trump and think he's good" is actually a very commonly held opinion! It's not that unusual for people to hold this view!

Maybe, but istm both these explanations have a higher burden of proof than the more routine explanation: the day-to-day incentives of editors are 1. to normalize Trump (so as not to appear biased) and 2. to dramatize the story (to move units). Note the three explanations are not mutually exclusive.

Yep. It doesn’t even have to be, as your next skeet puts it, “I like Trump and I think he’s good.” It’s probably more like “At least this asshole will give me the tax breaks I want, and fuck those minorities anyway.”

I think you give the press "decision makers" too much ideological credit. Too much belief in smoke filled rooms and a right wing conspiracy. They just tend not to have the confidence to go against the faux-masculinity of the "daddy party". I think it's more FOMO than fascist curious. IMO.