RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Nichols writes: "Major media outlets are now so obsessed with Trump's candidacy - and so addicted to the clicks and ratings associated with the spectacle it has created - that they can barely be bothered to cover the other candidates, and thus are neglecting the deeper issues and concerns shaping this electoral season."

Donald Trump in the spin room after the February 13, 2016 CBS News Republican presidential debate in Greenville, South Carolina. (photo: Rainier Ehrhardt/AP)
Donald Trump in the spin room after the February 13, 2016 CBS News Republican presidential debate in Greenville, South Carolina. (photo: Rainier Ehrhardt/AP)

How We Got Trumped by the Media

By John Nichols, The Nation

11 March 16


They’re so obsessed with the Donald that they can barely be bothered to cover the other candidates, much less the important issues.

he mainstream media’s obsessive coverage of Donald Trump is warping not just a Republican presidential race that is spiraling out of control, but a Democratic contest that is of equal consequence. And that’s not the worst of it. Major media outlets are now so obsessed with Trump’s candidacy—and so addicted to the clicks and ratings associated with the spectacle it has created—that they can barely be bothered to cover the other candidates, and thus are neglecting the deeper issues and concerns shaping this electoral season.

“Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, and Trump” is how veteran political observer Larry Sabato has summed up coverage of the campaign. By late February, the billionaire had, according to figures cited by The Economist, enjoyed 10 times as much attention on network evening newscasts as Florida Senator Marco Rubio. This overwhelming over-coverage of Trump’s candidacy has made “The Donald” the defining figure in the GOP competition. As Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! put it: “Trump doesn’t even have to go out on the road—he’s piped into everyone’s home.”

But Trumpmania has also redefined the Democratic race. The Republican front-runner has sucked up so much media oxygen that the Democratic contest is gasping for air. The GOP’s turnout is way up, while Democratic turnout is down. Only in a handful of caucus and primary states where the Bernie Sanders campaign has surged is turnout holding steady—or, in some cases, exceeding levels reached in the 2008 competition between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

On Super Tuesday, Democratic primary turnout was down roughly a third from 2008 levels. Barriers created by voter-ID laws and the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act were undoubtedly factors in several states. And it’s hard to compare the 2008 and 2016 Democratic races, since 2008 came after the catastrophic Bush years and was energized by the historic candidacy of Barack Obama. But the decline this year nonetheless has Democrats fretting. There are worries about reports from the Super Tuesday state of Massachusetts, where Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin noted that nearly 20,000 Democrats dropped their party registration in order to vote in the Republican primary.

These turnout patterns frustrate the Democrats. Their party has a serious race on its hands—as the March 8 upset win for Sanders in Michigan confirmed—between candidates who are engaged in a great debate about who better represents the progressive ideals of the grassroots activists who have forced open the current discussions about inequality, failed trade policies, mass incarceration, and climate change. Why isn’t a contest that features an insurgent candidate mounting a vigorous populist challenge to a former secretary of state with strong support from party leaders and key constituencies attracting more votes than a Republican contest where the candidates argue about the size of their… hands?

Anyone who understands how the modern media shape the narrative, as opposed to simply reporting on it, knows the answer. As of late February, the wrangling between Trump and his top two rivals (Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz) was given twice as much time on network TV as the Clinton-Sanders contest.

That’s especially unfair to Sanders, whose challenge to the billionaire class that owns so much of our media has been dismissed and neglected—even as his poll numbers have risen. In December, Eric Boehlert of Media Matters cited Tyndall Report data for 2015, which charted 234 total network minutes for Trump compared with just 10 for Sanders (despite the fact that the candidates were polling roughly equally in their respective contests) and declared that “the network newscasts are wildly overplaying Trump.”

What’s bad for individual candidates is even worse for the democratic discourse. The saturation coverage of Trump has obscured the real story of 2016: Americans are strikingly agitated not just about politics and governance, but about an economic “recovery” that never seems to reach them, about real under- and unemployment figures that far exceed the official numbers, about wage stagnation that has continued for decades, and about the prospect that they are one trade deal or economic downturn away from losing it all.

Grassroots Republicans and Democrats know that the deck is stacked against them. They recognize that the choices being made by Wall Street and Washington threaten to increase their burdens and narrow their opportunities. And they see too little evidence that social divisions and environmental challenges are being addressed.

No 2016 candidate polls as highly as the notion that the country is headed in the wrong direction. The latest Associated Press/GfK polls show that 68 percent of voters think the United States is off course. This is not a partisan view: Democrats as well as Republicans share a concern that the government isn’t making the right choices, let alone the right preparations, for the future. Yet the media fail to open up these deeper discussions about inequality and economic instability; nor do they encourage candidates or parties to speak realistically about how the digital revolution, automation, and globalization are making the “new economy” look an awful lot like the old Gilded Age.

The past 20 years have seen radical changes in the American media: the pandemic downsizing of newsrooms, sweeping layoffs of journalists, and a desperation for clicks and ratings that guarantees that civic and democratic values will always be trumped by commercial and entertainment demands. CBS chief Les Moonves says of the ratings and revenue bonanza associated with the Trump moment: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” Moonves is right: Media coverage that’s all about Trump, and misses the real story of 2016, is terrible for America. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+24 # sashapyle 2016-03-11 10:05
Can't have a circus without clowns.
+8 # JSRaleigh 2016-03-11 11:39
Quoting sashapyle:
Can't have a circus without clowns.

panem et circenses
+13 # HowardMH 2016-03-11 12:41
Isn't it rich?
Are we a pair?
Me here at last on the ground,
You in mid-air..
Where are the clowns?

Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approve?
One who keeps tearing around,
One who can't move...
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.

Don't you love farce?
My fault, I fear.
I thought that you'd want what I want...
Sorry, my dear!
And where are the clowns
Send in the clowns
Don't bother, they're here.
+46 # librarian1984 2016-03-11 10:29
It is pretty amazing that news outlets complain they have 24 hours a day to fill, yet somehow that coverage is almost exclusively about the horse race and the outrageous behavior -- and rarely about issues or comparisons of the candidates' positions, or the viability of a candidate's ideas.

I am a Sanders supporter. Critics say his plans can't succeed because they're too expensive, though Sanders always states where the funds are going to come from.

Why have I not seen ONE reporter tackle this. ARE the plans doable? As a news consumer I don't know if this is laziness, incompetence or lackeys following a corporate agenda.

More than 20 years ago outlets shifted their news departments to the entertainment division, laid off investigative reporters, closed down international branches and started treating the news like a commodity instead of a responsibility. It is just part of the fraying of the social contract in America -- a pivotal piece, for sure, but also part of a larger phenomenon.

It reminds me of politicians who complain about having to fundraise all the time, but they don't do anything to change the system. I imagine real reporters are disillusioned with their jobs too, but what incentive do the bosses have to change it?

Oh look! A squirrel at a Trump rally!
+4 # Radscal 2016-03-12 00:11
Yes, there have been disastrous changes to news media. First was the repeal of the so-called Fairness Doctrine under Reagan. But far more demonstrably disastrous was the Telecommunicati ons Act under Clinton that permitted monopolization, leading to some 90% of the news people see/read coming from 6 trans-national corporations. And often, the boards of directors of these "competitors" include the same people.

These corporations created the Drumpf.

And for those who believe this is all about ad revenues, bear in mind that both CNN and MS-DNC have broadcast hours of live coverage of Drumpf events, WITHOUT commercials.

The Drumpf infomercial after the last primaries was one of the most egregious. And how many of these "news agencies" have reported that most of the products Drumpf was peddling were not even Drumpf products?
+22 # reiverpacific 2016-03-11 10:37
So what's new?
"The fault I find with most American newspapers is not the absence of dissent. it is the absence of news. With a dozen or so honorable exceptions, most American newspapers carry very little news. Their main concern is advertising." Izzy Stone; THAT was in 1963!
Nowadays add electronic media and it's only gotten worse.
When I came here in the 1970's there were still a few decent reporters like Walter Cronkite but now they don't give a shit about anything but ratings, sensationalism, personalities, star-rating and huge sporting events in a monotonous hegemony of presentation, with pundits overanalyzing in pre-game and post-game shows.
And PBS isn't a Hell of a lot better since Michael Powell's time, with its "Grants" (commercials).
Thankfully, there is a large, excellent and growing "alternative" media -and of course the foreign sources- but only for those who care to search for it but they are in a huge, imbalanced minority. Ask anybody on the street if they've heard of Noam Chomsky.
The only time I am rather forced to watch the local franchise of the owner-media is at our local pub and it's interesting to see what people are fed in the name of news and public affairs-about as nutritious as junk food.
And of course as this article points out, Drumpf is Gawd's gift to such empty cans, as they are to him.
I have to say that Hillary Clinton is also fodder for their ratings although nowhere near Mr Ego.
It's like US wars and healthcare -just a racket!
+28 # Buddha 2016-03-11 10:38
Quoting John Nichols:
These turnout patterns frustrate the Democrats

The DNC puts forward a candidate they and all the media states is "certain to win the nomination" who has the worst favorable/unfav orable numbers of any Democratic Candidate in history, who is unarguably deep into the pockets of the Establishment that has rigged our political and economic system for their benefit, and whose campaign platform in essence is "let's only aim to get done whatever the Republicans already agree to do"...and they are frustrated that the traditional Democratic voter isn't excited to show up for that????

I bet you'd see far more Dem voters showing up if the Democratic Party from Day 1 threw its support behind Bernie Sanders and framed itself as rejecting "business as usual" corruption and the neo-liberal agenda...
+4 # lfeuille 2016-03-11 19:32
"I bet you'd see far more Dem voters showing up if the Democratic Party from Day 1 threw its support behind Bernie Sanders and framed itself as rejecting "business as usual" corruption and the neo-liberal agenda..."

I'd settle for neutrality.
+4 # Radscal 2016-03-12 00:14
I suspect that, even if the DNC and corporate media simply admitted that Sanders MIGHT win, the turnouts would be "Yu-age!"

The constant drilling into our minds that Sanders can't win, and HRC is the inevitable winner must be discouraging many from voting.

But as Sanders logs wins, and is within striking distance in pledged delegates, I expect voters to become more motivated.
+34 # librarian1984 2016-03-11 10:41
And it is a real pity that Al Jazeera, which has been a good source for international perspectives and news, has had to shut down its American outlet because companies are afraid to advertise on an Arabic network. Maybe they could do a kickstarter campaign.

The gradual degradation of society is the accumulation of many decisions like this.

Brave new world indeed, that must be overturned by a revolution -- a rising up of the populace and a new mindset.

You go, Bernie.
+20 # cmp 2016-03-11 10:48
We are also, talking about The People's Airwaves. The Fairness Doctrine applied from 1949 to 1987, in order to give We The People a (margin) of a chance, at our own - Ownership.
+7 # bmiluski 2016-03-11 13:45
HA!!! CMP....whenI was living in Tampa, there was no such thing as People's Airwaves. We had to pay $11.00 a month for JUST CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS to the local cable station.. The reason, because the tall buildings (both of them) caused interference. The cable station was jamming the air-waves. I'm sure someone was getting paid off for this sham.
I tried to explain to people that I was from Chicago, with many tall building, and I never had to pay for my basic tv stations. Their eyes glazed over and they walked away muttering.
+27 # Old Uncle Dave 2016-03-11 11:14
The only thing that would make the networks reduce their coverage of Trump is if a Kardashian entered the race.
+2 # Bourbaki 2016-03-11 16:56
True that Old Uncle Dave.
+28 # Charles3000 2016-03-11 11:21
The Dem DNC is at fault. They limited D debates to protect HRCs superior name recognition and in the process handed all the media attention to the Rs. It would have happened with or without Trump. Debbie Wasserman Schultz may lose both her chairwoman status and her seat in congress over her mistake.
+9 # librarian1984 2016-03-11 13:20
While true, this is now a systemic problem. There are many people at fault.
+8 # bmiluski 2016-03-11 13:49
Oh please you really think a few more debates would have made MSM tear themselves away from the clown car debacle?
Let's adult debate between two very qualified candidates. OR, a reality TV display of our worst impulses.
+1 # Bourbaki 2016-03-11 16:56
We can only hope you are right. DWS is nothing more than a hillary water carrier.
# Guest 2016-03-11 11:23
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
+17 # mh1224jst 2016-03-11 11:29
Read the new book by Nichols and McChesney, "People Get Ready." These two are really tuned in. The only thing they don't understand well enough is what nobody (almost) understands well enough -- how the economy works. Certainly, the media's concentration on sensationalism, which makes money for them, is killing us, and preventing needed discourse.

The thing is, inequality itself is the underlying problem.It slows down growth, reduces jobs and incomes, and worsens the impacts of international trade. Bernie is the only candidate that is on the right track. Hillary, giving her progressive commitment every benefit of the doubt, is getting bad advice from Paul Krugman, who tells her inequality is just a "political" problem, while the income and wealth of everyone below the bottom 1%, and in the bottom portion of the top 1%, is concentrating rapidly at the top.

This is unsustainable. As we all continue to learn about the the enormous destructive implications of inequality, Bernie has a plan with a chance to fix it. I am working every day to get this message out.
+19 # m... 2016-03-11 11:47
I sure hope we get an actual government again someday and that actual government breaks up the narrowly owned and operated Shareholders-Me dia Industrial Complex and brings back a Fairness Doctrine in the process so that Free Speech might flow more broadly and freely and the 'Free' Press is once again set FREE...
+25 # Realist1948 2016-03-11 11:48
Despite all the media's attention to Trump, the journalists and pundits appear to be missing one important aspect of the man: he shows signs of being delusional. Two of his recent pronouncements support this theory:

1. Not long ago, Trump insisted that large numbers of Muslims were celebrating in New Jersey when the towers fell on 9/11. Yet nobody is able to corroborate this story. He either imagined it or confused something he saw on TV with what was actually happening.

2. On March 8 at a "press conference" in Jupiter, Florida, Trump touted the wonderful Trump Winery in Virginia -- a winery he claimed was his. But this is an easily refuted claim: just look at the legal disclaimer on the TrumpWinery dot com web site. The winery has no connection to either Donald or the Trump Organization.

The above begs the question - why would Trump make such obviously false claims? Could it be that he has crossed the line from simple bragging and exaggeration, into the realm where he actually believes that his own fantasies are true?

The prospect of having a delusional individual as commander of the strongest NUCLEAR ARMED military in the world is terrifying.
+26 # librarian1984 2016-03-11 12:25
Dear GOP:

First you put Ronald Reagan's finger on the button. Remember in Reykjavik when he offered unilateral nuclear disarmament? Oh, that was a hoot, wasn't it? Then you put W & Cheney's fingers on the button. What a laughfest -- war, torture, surveillance, pillaging -- a whole suite of betrayals. And now you're trying to make up your tiny minds between a demagogue and a zealot. Really? How many times can we clean up your messes? I remember when you were grateful Obama was willing to take on the mess after 8 years of BushCo, but just like Wall Street you go right back to bad behavior. And you don't even say thank you.

You can't seem to figure out why people are so angry, at the same time you vote yourselves raises and decide you needn't do your jobs. Well THAT must be very nice for you. Good insurance too, I hear.

The GOP has systematically infiltrated government in order to dismantle it and I am well and truly sick of it. You spout platitudes about patriotism while you betray every principle you purport to hold dear.

You seem to feel no genuine love for this country or the Constitution, and your allegiances are obviously to personal power and wealth or ideological fervor, which magically also leads to personal power and wealth. You grab a Bible and wave a flag, but when the cameras go off you toss both aside. That is my interpretation of your behavior.

I am trying to decide if you are traitors, or just hypocrites.

DO YOUR JOB, you ridiculous wankers.
+6 # bmiluski 2016-03-11 13:51
Well said librarians.
+2 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-03-11 15:14
I don't know anything about a winery, but Alex Jones found the footage that Trump likely saw. It was from a local New Jersey station. The content of the coverage may have been inaccurate, but the coverage did exist.
+1 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-03-11 15:15
I look at a lot of different media and make up my own mind.
+1 # Radscal 2016-03-12 01:34
So, 8 Muslims were allegedly dancing on the roof with a model of the Twin Towers and binoculars, showing pre knowledge of the attacks. One would think that would have been big news, instead of a single mention on a single TV station if true.

Not that 8 dudes could be confused for the "thousands" the Drumpf claimed to have seen.

But what is true is that dozens of Israelis were arrested on, or within days of 9/11. Some of them were filming and clearly celebrating the attacks. The FBI developed film they confiscated from these fiends that included them high-fiving and even holding a lighter with the burning towers in the background while smiling.

Three vans with Israelis in them were stopped on 9/11, and NY and NJ police found explosive residue in one, enough explosives in another to take down the George Washington Bridge, and the third blew up after being stopped and the Israelis in it ran away (but were caught and arrested).

Even the NT Times admitted it:

CounterPunch went into more details:
+1 # Radscal 2016-03-12 01:35
The FBI were furious that the State Department made them release these suspects. One video they found was shown in the Moussaoui trial. It begins pointed down river, then an airliner enters the frame, the camera pans to follow it up river, then stops panning with the Tower center frame, and waits for the second plane to hit. Clear evidence of foreknowledge

Here are some of the FBI reports:
+1 # OtherName 2016-03-11 13:19
No, the truth is, reporters >GET WHAT'S GOING ON
+7 # tswhiskers 2016-03-11 15:14
I think MSNBC has dome a reasonably good job of covering Bernie, but they do have a bias toward Hillary, and of course the MSNBC ownership can't get enough of Trump. I get so annoyed at the sight of Trump that now I automatically hit the mute button when I see him, or switch to another channel. Every election season I think that media coverage can't possibly become any shallower, and I'm always wrong. Last night Lawrence O'Donnell showed a clip from Comedy Central in which Jordan Klepper had researched all the merchandise that Trump was peddling and he found that ALL of it had lost money, or was no longer available, etc.
+2 # Radscal 2016-03-12 01:41
MS-DNC has provided more live, uninterrupted coverage of Drumpf events than any other network.

It is true that, once Sanders had been drawing 10,000 to 25,000 supporters to rallies, MS-DNC began giving him some honest coverage.

I think you're 100% correct that they're in the bag for HRC. I've long suspected their coverage of the Drumpf was intended to motivate their largely Democratic audience to vote for HRC out of fear.
+5 # diamondmarge7 2016-03-11 16:17
Now let's talk about an honest politician-one of the few: BERNIE SANDERS. It makes my heart glad to be able to cheer for, support, and hope& pray for. Now THAT'S a "mensch."
OTOH, we've gotta do even more if we want this authentic, honest, wise, compassionate human being to be our President:
One powerful suggestion IMO is to take the pledge @ The purpose of the pledge is to signal leverage of big numbers when it comes down to pledges & all: BERNIE just may need such leverage @ the July Convention. Please add your name to the growing numbers pledged BERNIE or Green. Just do it!
0 # bmiluski 2016-03-13 17:45
Troll alert...Marge is a troll.
+5 # PABLO DIABLO 2016-03-11 17:00
"You can fool some of the people some of the time. And that's enough to make a good living" --- W.C. Fields.
Do you think the corporate owners of the media want us to focus on issues?
+2 # Candie 2016-03-11 18:17
Doesnt Trump hate the media, he has them beat up if they step out of their roped area and he often spews hatred against them. I wish they would just ignore the loud mouth blow hard.
0 # lfeuille 2016-03-11 19:38
He beats up the reporters, but it's the media execs that love him for all the ad revenue he generates. I don't think the execs really care about the reporters.
+1 # Radscal 2016-03-12 13:29
Theater. But I am certain at least some of the reporters don't know the role they're playing.

And again, some of these networks are broadcasting the Drumpf uninterrupted. No commercials. No ad revenue.
+5 # lorenbliss 2016-03-11 18:48
How many times must it be said before this unprecedentedly oppressive and grotesque reality sinks into the severely disabled Moron Nation political consciousness:

Mainstream Media is owned by the same people -- call them the One Percent, the Ruling Class, the corporate aristocracy, whatever -- who own most U.S. politicians and (therefore all U.S. governments) at every level.

In other words, Mainstream Media is the first for-profit, totally and forever privatized, all-government ministry of propaganda.

That means its endorsements, whether outright or obliquely (as by its apportionment of coverage), always reflect our overlords' intentions.

Ergo, it is obvious the One Percent has chosen Trump as its primary figurehead and Hillary as the alternate should Trump lose.

Nor should this surprise anyone who knows the history of USian fascism. It began with the failed Bankers Plot of 1934; bolstered itself by the post-World-War- II embrace of Nazi war criminals; eliminated its enemies via the purges and/or assassinations of all leading Leftists and liberals (Communists, socialists, Keynesians, intellectuals) during the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s; became the creeping, slowly boiled-frog fascism that began with Carter; and has now erupted into the rampaging fascism of today.

Mr. Sanders, meanwhile, is clearly the one candidate not owned by the One Percent. But he is not a politician. He is a social reformer -- the one person who might yet save us from ourselves.
+1 # lorenbliss 2016-03-12 03:43
Also, here's a Josef Goebbels speech, complete with English translation, for those who dismiss Trump's violent hostility to reporters and photographers as "just politics." Watch and listen -- if you dare -- and note the ways in which Goebbels' 1933 oratory is similar to Trump's today:

Coincidence? Not if Trump, in preparation for becoming the first USian Fuehrer, has been studying the speeches of Goebbels, Hitler and Mussolini.
-4 # Robbee 2016-03-11 20:38
pay attention! reiver? this is what happens when we neglect to ward them off! - rsn attracts GOP trolls! - # diamondmarge7 2016-03-11 16:17 "... the pledge is ... leverage ... BERNIE or Green ..."

GOP troll alert! on - # diamondmarge7 2016-03-01 00:13 "... I will vote for Dr. Jill Stein ... pledge (to write in) BERNIE or (vote) Green ... give him leverage"

marge, note that your pledge amounts to GOP catfishing for undemocratic progressives! - "leverage" bernie NEVER ASKED FOR AND DOESN'T WANT! DO THIS ONLY IF YOU INSIST ON RUNNING AND LOSING BERNIE'S CAMPAIGN FOR HIM!

outing false-flag ops! - our local hill-haters have been self-identifyin g here as GOP trolls for months and months! - # Inspired Citizen 2016-02-01 05:42 "Bernie needs leverage and Convention insurance (HE DETESTS; SO WE'LL DO IT FOR BERNIE, AGAINST HIS EXPRESS WISHES!) Have YOU taken the Bernie or bust pledge?"

- citizen, at long last! thanks! outs RAP! - Republicans Against Progress - says - # Inspired Citizen 2015-12-10 18:10 "It's going to be #BerrnieOrElse the GOP. That's RAP's promise!"

- and says - # jsluka 2015-08-30 17:22 "I will not vote for Hillary Clinton ... It would be better for a Rethuglican to get elected, and bring on the revolution!"
-4 # Robbee 2016-03-11 20:39
GOP trolls, pt. 2

- humbug! as says # Scott Galindez 2015-10-20 10:28 “Its not leverage; threats backfire, especially empty ones. Bernie will not run as an independent. Bernie needs enough delegates at that convention to win, not signers on a petition making an undemocratic threat.”

marge's is false-flag attack on hill! and false-flag support for bernie! - listen to bernie! - down with RAP! - down with GOP! - go bernie!
+1 # reiverpacific 2016-03-13 11:50
Quoting Robbee:
GOP trolls, pt. 2

- humbug! as says # Scott Galindez 2015-10-20 10:28 “Its not leverage; threats backfire, especially empty ones. Bernie will not run as an independent. Bernie needs enough delegates at that convention to win, not signers on a petition making an undemocratic threat.”
marge's is false-flag attack on hill! and false-flag support for bernie! - listen to bernie! - down with RAP! - down with GOP! - go bernie!

Fer Chrissake, take the needle out o' the groove before it wears through the record!
Then you'll maybe have to think of something new.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.