cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/8880496
cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/60192
To translate from the Murdochian, “hateful” here means being opposed to genocide, police brutality and rent-gouging (New York Post, 6/24/26).
The win by a number of progressive candidates in New York City primaries told us something about corporate media. Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post (6/24/26) surprised no one with a front page declaiming: “The Hateful Slate: Three Israel, Cop and Private Property Hating Mamdanites Win Democrat Congressional Primaries.”
(They might want to focus group “Mamdanite” again. It’s hard to say, much less shout angrily.)
But check also the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal’s references to New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani as a “kingmaker” because he endorsed some of the day’s winners. AP (6/24/26) referred to the “Mamdani slate” as showcasing his “rising influence.” The wire service called this a
potential headache for Democratic leaders, who fear that Mamdani and his loyalists may push the party too far left ahead of November’s midterm elections.
The barely concealed subtext is that voters didn’t elect these candidates because they vowed to fight for things their constituents want, like childcare, a billionaire tax and abolishing ICE; they’re just mindlessly following their new overlord. For these outlets, regular, working people are something to invoke, not people to actually listen to.
A New York Times headline (6/17/26) obscured the fact that the Goldman/Lander race was between two Jewish Democrats.
Of course, part of the upset around the upset is because New York City’s primary results show that uncritical material and ideological support for the state of Israel and its genocidal attack on Palestinians is no longer a requirement for electoral acceptance. That shift is real, and you can watch elite media struggle.
For instance, a New York Times story (6/17/26) on the contest between Dan Goldman and Brad Lander was headlined “A Jewish Democrat’s Support of Israel May Cost Him His NYC House Seat”—but might have just as easily been headlined “A Jewish Democrat’s Criticism of Israel May Win Him a NYC House Seat.” It all depends whose views you think are worth representing.
From FAIR via This RSS Feed.
Perhaps if voters hadn’t put a child rapist in the White House for a 2nd term it would be easier for everyone, including the press to see us as rational.
I mean voting machines put him in office. I’m not completely convinced it was voters
Have you even looked around and checked out other people? It’s more than believable.
You may be right, but IMO if voters were rational it would never have been close enough for voting machines to put him in office without tampering being detected.
Honestly hard to say
Whoa now, I know we call fox news a news station, but, new York post is no more press than the national enquirer.
While I agree with his policies, and think many people do actually know what they want, have you met most voters?
I made a bunch of people quite upset in a prior post of this article when pointing out that people really aren’t rational.
Hush, Gilfoyle.
j/k just doing my part
You’re not the first to compare me to Gilfoyle, and I’m sure you won’t be the last, but usually people make the connection after seeing me.
You can’t see me, right?
I’m not even sure about the reference, but you mentioned it and I’ve had you tagged with it ever since. Keep on giving people that impression irl.
Ha, I figured.
It’s from the HBO show “Silicon Valley.”
Inb4 polisci nerds offer specific definition of “rational” that renders everyone rational
Socialist policies are immensely popular, even getting majority approval amongst Republicans, as long as they don’t know that they are socialist policies…
as long as they don’t know that they are socialist policies…
Therein lies the irrationality
I think it’s ok and defensible to make the claim that voters (as a bloc) aren’t rational. Voters vote against their own interests all the time.
That they didn’t vote against their own interests this time this time, that doesn’t mean that the collective shout of thousands of people isn’t irrational on a regular basis.
deleted by creator
Most of the hit pieces on Mamdani read like inadvertently glowing endorsements. That’s how little self awareness those corporate shills have.
The barely concealed subtext is that voters didn’t elect these candidates because they vowed to fight for things their constituents want, like childcare, a billionaire tax and abolishing ICE; they’re just mindlessly following their new overlord.
They think like that, so they think everyone else does as well.
That’s all they do, imagine people are stupid emotionally reactive, and ultra receptive to rage bate, flock of sheep to control. They don’t understand people are capable of critical thinking and identifying the causes to their pain, because it’s all entirely projection.
I mean, the events of the last few decades would tend to validate the first part.
#NoKings was a primer for this btw
Given the behavior of voters in the last election, I think it’s probably understandable to see the voters as less than rational.
The Hopeful Slate—continue to press on, fellow commoners!
It’s the new york post, they have made an entire buisness model off of brain dead hot takes. What were you expecting?
