NY Times:
For Fact-Checking Website Snopes, a Bigger Role Brings More Attacks
The last line of defense against the torrent of half-truths, untruths and outright fakery that make up so much of the modern internet is in a downscale strip mall near the beach.
Snopes, the fact-checking website, does not have an office designed to impress, or even be noticed. A big sign outside still bears the name of the previous tenant, a maker of underwater headphones. Inside there’s nothing much — a bunch of improvised desks, a table tennis table, cartons of Popchips and cases of Dr Pepper. It looks like a dot-com on the way to nowhere.
Appearances deceive. This is where the muddled masses come by the virtual millions to establish just what the heck is really going on in a world turned upside down.
HuffPost:
Tucker Carlson messed with the wrong person.
The Fox News host was blasted by Teen Vogue writer Lauren Duca on his show Friday, after challenging her over her tweets about Ivanka Trump. It did not go well for Carlson, who ended his segment with an egregiously sexist remark after the interview devolved.
Carlson started by firing shots at Duca for tweeting that Ivanka Trump has “sinister complicity in aiding the most aggressively anti-woman candidate of our time.” Duca stood by her statement and parried his attacks by calling him out for interrupting.
“You’re shouting over me every time I speak. It’s incredibly unprofessional,” she said. “You’re actually being a partisan hack who’s just attacking me ad nauseam and not even allowing me to speak.”
Carlson moved to personal attacks, grinning and guffawing as he pointed to Duca’s other entertainment stories in an apparent attempt to devalue her as a political pundit. He didn’t win that battle either, and cut off his segment with the last word: “You should stick to the thigh-high boots. You’re better at that.”
The interview went viral over the weekend, with celebrities and pundits from across the board praising Duca for standing up to Carlson.
The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.
Catherine Rampell/WaPo:
Trump is being handed a great economy. What happens when it goes south?
So, what happens when the numbers turn against him?
Three consequences seem likely.
One, the administration will start searching for scapegoats other than Trump’s own party and its choices. Immigrants, minorities, Fed officials: Watch out.
Two, assuming Trump will have already signed a major fiscal stimulus package during an expansion, there won’t be much powder left in the keg when Keynesian stimulus is actually needed. That is, fiscal tools available to mitigate the recession will be unusually limited.
And three, the numbers will become suspect once again, and Trump may even try to mess with the official government numbers to suit his narrative. This — and not a recession, blame-gaming or impotent policy response — would cause the most enduring damage to our democracy.
Here are stories about the rotten cabinet members we are going to be stuck with. Confirmation hearing are a time to highlight policy issues, something we don’t talk enough about. (This election was about politics, not policy, but it will take policy to oppose Trump, and I expect confirmation hearing to be a chance to hit them on policy).
NY Times:
How a Budget Chief Can Wreak Havoc
NY Times:
Trump’s Health Secretary Pick Leaves Nation’s Doctors Divided
mlive.com:
How the DeVos family has helped shape education policy in Michigan
WSJ:
Jeff Sessions and Civil Forfeiture
The AG nominee should be asked about an abusive practice.
Sessions is arguably the worst of a bad lot, but there are a lot of contenders (including State, HUD and others not mentioned here)
Jonathan Capehart/WaPo on not forgetting about reader responsibility:
Erlanger is right. A free press applies to all kinds, the responsible and the deplorable. Gowing is right. That free press now includes and competes with other platforms and sources — Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, etc. — that are disrupting not only how people get their news but who they trust to give them their news. But what neither demands is an end to the passivity of the news consumer. In our current Wild West news landscape where the Internet and social media have eliminated gatekeepers and eroded confidence in once-trusted sources, there is only so much hand-holding a journalist can do to ensure the public is informed. If the public is duped by fake news or irritated by what news has become, it shares in the blame.
People who believe fake news do not get a pass. It’s their fault they believe it, and they want to believe it. It’s a classic case of ‘see what you believe, not believe what you see’.
Business Insider reminds us that things you think we know you really don’t (could be a pundit defining trait):
An examination of the exit polls in three key states that helped swing the election Trump's way revealed that the economy was by far the most important issue to votes. But those who reported the economy as their top issue — at least in the abstract — believed that Clinton had a stronger message.
In Michigan, 52% of voters said the economy was "most important issue facing the country," compared to 60% of voters who said the same thing about the economy in 2012. This year, Clinton won by 6 points among people who reported that the economy was the most important issue, while Obama only won on that issue by 3 points.
In Pennsylvania, Clinton won by 4 points among the 56% of voters who reported that the economy was most important issue facing the country. In 2012, Romney won by 5 points among the 61% of voters concerned most about the economy.
The results were even more stark in Wisconsin. While about the same percentage of voters said the economy was the "most important issue facing the country" in 2016 and 2012 — 55% and 56%, respectively — Clinton won those voters by 11 points, while Romney won on the issue by a single point in 2012.
Change mattered more. The message/messenger didn’t matter. And yet she almost won anyways (and did win the popular vote). Thank you, Jim Comey, for giving us Donald Trump.