To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
The Washington Post column Dana Milbank has promised to eat. (He says he's going through with it.)
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank (10/2/15) said he would eat the page on which his column was printed if Donald Trump gained the Republican nomination. "The entire commentariat is going to feel a little silly when Marco Rubio wins every Republican primary," tweeted the New York Times' Ross Douthat (9/25/15).
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank (10/2/15) said he would eat the page on which his column was printed if Donald Trump gained the Republican nomination. "The entire commentariat is going to feel a little silly when Marco Rubio wins every Republican primary," tweeted the New York Times' Ross Douthat (9/25/15). "Trump Will Still Lose. Here's How," said Bloomberg News (1/7/16). "No, Donald Trump Won't Win," lectured David Brooks (New York Times, 12/4/15). And on and on.
These experts, it would seem, were wrong--and confidently, arrogantly, condescendingly so. But as noted by Glenn Greenwald and Zaid Jilani, who corralled many examples for The Intercept (5/4/16), they will pay absolutely no price for it. And that's a problem. It isn't that journalists should never make predictions; or that they're expected to always be right. But you do have to wonder why so much energy is devoted to crystal-ball gazing when nothing seems to be learned when pundits are way off target.
"At the very least," wrote Greenwald and Jilani,
when a profession that touts its expertise, collectively, is this wildly wrong about something so significant, more needs to be done than a cursory, superficial acknowledgment of error -- or casting blame on others -- before quickly moving on, in the hope that it's all forgotten.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank (10/2/15) said he would eat the page on which his column was printed if Donald Trump gained the Republican nomination. "The entire commentariat is going to feel a little silly when Marco Rubio wins every Republican primary," tweeted the New York Times' Ross Douthat (9/25/15). "Trump Will Still Lose. Here's How," said Bloomberg News (1/7/16). "No, Donald Trump Won't Win," lectured David Brooks (New York Times, 12/4/15). And on and on.
These experts, it would seem, were wrong--and confidently, arrogantly, condescendingly so. But as noted by Glenn Greenwald and Zaid Jilani, who corralled many examples for The Intercept (5/4/16), they will pay absolutely no price for it. And that's a problem. It isn't that journalists should never make predictions; or that they're expected to always be right. But you do have to wonder why so much energy is devoted to crystal-ball gazing when nothing seems to be learned when pundits are way off target.
"At the very least," wrote Greenwald and Jilani,
when a profession that touts its expertise, collectively, is this wildly wrong about something so significant, more needs to be done than a cursory, superficial acknowledgment of error -- or casting blame on others -- before quickly moving on, in the hope that it's all forgotten.
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank (10/2/15) said he would eat the page on which his column was printed if Donald Trump gained the Republican nomination. "The entire commentariat is going to feel a little silly when Marco Rubio wins every Republican primary," tweeted the New York Times' Ross Douthat (9/25/15). "Trump Will Still Lose. Here's How," said Bloomberg News (1/7/16). "No, Donald Trump Won't Win," lectured David Brooks (New York Times, 12/4/15). And on and on.
These experts, it would seem, were wrong--and confidently, arrogantly, condescendingly so. But as noted by Glenn Greenwald and Zaid Jilani, who corralled many examples for The Intercept (5/4/16), they will pay absolutely no price for it. And that's a problem. It isn't that journalists should never make predictions; or that they're expected to always be right. But you do have to wonder why so much energy is devoted to crystal-ball gazing when nothing seems to be learned when pundits are way off target.
"At the very least," wrote Greenwald and Jilani,
when a profession that touts its expertise, collectively, is this wildly wrong about something so significant, more needs to be done than a cursory, superficial acknowledgment of error -- or casting blame on others -- before quickly moving on, in the hope that it's all forgotten.
