You're not wrong about "regime" - it's used to belittle governments that someone doesn't agree with. It doesn't even apply just for dictatorships, i.e the previous Iraqi administration was (and still is by The Economist) referred to as an "authoritarian regime" by some even though it is a multi-party representative democracy with almost full autonomy in the North with peaceful transitions of power across all areas of government.

If someone were to call the current American government a regime then they're likely dog whistling[0] and it reflects the editorial slant of the writer and/or the publication. But it's worth keeping in mind that Gizmodo is just another tech blog and, having worked for one before, I can say that the focus is on churning out more clickbait crap rather than producing anything with substance. The person who wrote it probably has no real understanding of journalism and doesn't understand the implications of the words chosen - they got the job just because they have some half-decent level of grammar. And the editor who approved it probably focused more on the title than the content. So don't think too much about it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

Also calling Tucker Carlson a white supremacist is quite a stretch (he is anti-immigration). Disclaimer: not a fan of either Trump or Carlson.

Regime means "Mode or system of rule or management; character of government, or of the prevailing social system." so it is a fitting use of the word in my opinion. The comments about fat people / etc he actually said and give a broader view of his speech.

Sorry, I may be wrong - I am not a native English speaker, although read and communicate a lot in English. I do not hear often the use of “regime” with “good” countries and leaders - say, Obama regime, Merkel regime.

You’re right. Regime carries a negative connotation and it’s generally why we don’t hear about a Merkel or Obama regime, though technically speaking they are all regimes. Normally we call them “administrations”: Obama administration, Trump administration, etc.

You are completely right. "regime" has clear bad connotations.

Gizmodo is a left-wing outlet so this kind of snark is to be expected.

It's probably because President Obama and Angela Merkel don't/didn't generally do things we associate with regimes. President Obama on numerous occasions at the start of his first term attempted to work cross party. I think it's generally used more when talking about a dictatorial style of government. President Trump, regardless of whether you like him or not, is not a consensus builder. His style is that of directions from the top, no compromises, everyone is either with him or they are potential enemies. I think this is why you would see it used more. I don't know that it demoted a bad or good government more than any other word, nor would I read into it that way. It's quite possible that it was intended to be read exactly the way you're describing.

In Germany, I see “Merkel’s regime” used predominantly by the media that are associated with far-* ideas.

It's definitely a possibility that the intention is there, but I don't know that it's always intentional. I see it far more used by the type of organization than the specific political leaving of that organization. For example in American politics Mitch McConnell is in charge of a portion of the same party at the President. He often agrees with the President and has defended on numerous occasions. Despite this his office isn't generally described as a regime. He governs by consensus. I think that most western cultures tend to view dictatorial, non consensus governments as bad, which means a word associated with these might get a bad rap. In some quick research it appears that your belief that the connotation had shifted appears to be fairly correct. Usage has become more common for heavy handed governments, the word itself doesn't have that as part of the established long running definition however.

Your point about "regime" is dead on. I never heard the phrase "Obama regime"; it was always "administration". Our media has a sickeningly blatant leftward bias, unless you go to fringe conspiracy sites which are no news at all. There are a few good ones, but not many.

This is a political opinion. Whether the presidency is doing something good or bad is one. Half the nation disagrees with you. By expressing this in an implicit sense in media, the media is biased.

Also, you're wrong: obama was Mister "I've got a pen and a phone". One party spent eight years centralizing power in the executive, then complains when the other side gets elected and uses it.

I'm not American, but I don't recall anything similar. Feel free to post specifics, rather than generalities.

Again, I'm not seeing any specific measures been cited there.

Oh, while we are on the whole regime thing. How many members of his family did he appoint to substantial executive roles in the Whitehouse? That's another mark of a regime, I think.

This seems pretty "regime" like to me.

>Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled al-Aulaqi, al-Awlaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي‎ Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; April 21/22, 1971 – September 30, 2011) was a Yemeni-American imam. U.S. government officials allege that, as well as being a senior recruiter and motivator, he was centrally involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda,[7][8][9][10][11] but have not pointed to evidence to support this claim.[11] Al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and killed by a U.S. drone strike without the rights of due process being afforded.[12][13] President Barack Obama ordered the strike.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

The Moonie Times?

I don't want to get into politics much here but I have to respond to this. I'm not American but from where I stand I see that Trump is trying his best to turn his presidency into a dictatorship. He also admires and enjoys the company of actual dictators. So using this word as a form of criticism is not unfounded.

Also, it's not the general rule, most articles I see use 'administration'.

And I don't think it's the media who has a leftward bias, rather the Republican Party has moved way way out on the fringe. If you look globally, the average Democratic office holder would be a right wing politician in most other countries.

> And I don't think it's the media who has a leftward bias

Leftward bias has been repeatedly demonstrated in the literature.

Your belief that there is no media bias may in fact be evidence of your own biases. This too is supported in the literature. I.e., there is evidence that media which confirms our beliefs is viewed as higher quality than that which disconfirms.

> Leftward bias has been repeatedly demonstrated in the literature.

No, it hasn't, and if it had, the Right wouldn't keep spinning findings of a predominance of Democratic Party membership among media employees as if it were the same thing as a finding of leftward bias.

> No, it hasn't

This was a 2 minute search of Google Scholar:

^1 "...the mainstream press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs... only a narrow band of liberal thought is supported by the press"

^2 "Our results show a strong liberal bias"

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jim_Kuypers/publication...

[2] https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/120/4/1191/192...

The sad thing about left or right bias is that it is all the same thing. The left doesn't care about what the right says, and the right doesn't care about what the left says.

Unfortunately, there is no more compromise in today's world. People just want to win because even giving up even a small amount of ground to an opponent is considered a complete failure.

I personally blame social media for a lot oft this. Mob mentality has been a problem since forever, but Twitter has created a nation-wide 24/7 mob which is angrier than ever and never disbands. I blame that for the elections of President Trump, Congresswoman Ocasio, and other such divisive figures. I also think it's responsible for the phenomenon of each "side" seeing the other as morally wrong, inuhame, and almost not people. It's been known for a while we're meaner on-line because we can't see any one on the other side; I think that's a significant part of the problem.

This, of course, begs the question: how do you fix it? I don't know.

I think his point is that what's considered "leftward" in the US is actually not really leftward for the rest of the word, so for him, the "left bias" is actually a "normal bias".

When you say the rest of the world, I assume you mean that Europe is much further left than America? If so, that has no bearing on how we judge American media. Other nations are farther left or right; we judge bias based on the political center of the respective nation. American media does not have a "normal" or "center" bias just because politics in your nation are farther left; American voters determine where the American center is (not those in europe).

Sure, but the shift is also within the U.S. over time. To support a strong public education system and hold a sensible position on gun control used to be something Republicans did as far as I can tell.

There has been a definite shift to the fringe. Both in the plutocratic direction, with the one-dollar-one-vote philosophy, and also in just a general nutcase direction (see the NRA).

That's not a fair assessment. Your opinion of a "sensible position" on "gun control" is almost certainly different from mine. I would take the perspective that people openly supporting socialism is a much further-leftward lurch than any thing on the right. [0] You also brand the NRA as "fringe" and as "general nutcases", which is again unfair. Your political opinion is not the single source of truth or the center of the political spectrum. Your implication here is that the right has become fringe, but the graph linked above shows otherwise.

[0] https://qz.com/1580091/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-how-far-left...

>That's not a fair assessment.

Fair point.

>Your opinion of a "sensible position" on "gun control" is almost certainly different from mine.

A sensible position can be anywhere on a broad spectrum. It does not include arming teachers and does not include selling guns to diagnosed mentally unstable people.

>I would take the perspective that people openly supporting socialism is a much further-leftward lurch than any thing on the right. [0]

I would have to disagree. I think for-profit prisons, money-is-speech, on-your-own healthcare are three examples of extreme individualism and anti-social-ism that it seems the Republicans are proud of.

>You also brand the NRA as "fringe" and as "general nutcases", which is again unfair. Your political opinion is not the single source of truth or the center of the political spectrum.

The NRA is fringe, it has recently been shown how it has been hijacked over the course of a decade or more by the Russians to sow discord and destabilize your country. That's why I chose to use such inflammatory words.

>Your implication here is that the right has become fringe, but the graph linked above shows otherwise.

This may be true, I honestly did not have time to read the whole article. I don't disagree that the left has a bunch of issues and idiotic positions, hyper-sensitivity and a general vicious lack of tolerance for momentary lapses in judgement being the main ones in my opinion.

> I would have to disagree. I think for-profit prisons, money-is-speech, on-your-own healthcare are three examples of extreme individualism and anti-social-ism that it seems the Republicans are proud of.

I'm guessing your frame of reference is left-of-center; mine is somewhat right. There is no "one true anchor" for who is where, so the best thing I can think to do is use the general center of American politics when we discuss America. I'd take many positions you'd generally disagree with, but others would call them sensible. Other opinions of mine are not generally regarded as sensible by most, and that's fine too.

> The NRA is fringe... it has been hijacked... by the Russians

The NRA operates with the approval of many Americans. I wouldn't call it's positions fringe, though the organization certainly has its failings. At some point, the Russians supported the election of a president; it's hard to call a figure such as that fringe. I'm not sure an endorsement by the Russians should damn and organization or person; the same thing is now happening to Tulsi Gabbard (non-interventionist policy is amenable to the Russians).

> This may be true, I honestly did not have time to read the whole article. I don't disagree that the left has a bunch of issues and idiotic positions, hyper-sensitivity and a general vicious lack of tolerance for momentary lapses in judgement being the main ones in my opinion.

Fair enough. The important part is the box-plot graph mid-way through the article, which shows a huge leftward lurch in the past few years. I would have linked directly, but the page overlays text on an image so it can't be linked.

> I never heard the phrase "Obama regime"

That's seems to be a sign of either extremely limited reading (biased to left-wing sources out of the mainstream) or extremely selective memory (rejecting or inventing facts to fit a right-wing narrative).

While both “Obama regime” and “Trump regime” seem to be used mostly originally by outside-the-mainstream media (the right and left fringes, respectively), the uses of the latter don’t even seem to get quoted much in mainstream sources, while the former (though not particularly frequently) do, at least from reviewing and, in the case of mainstream results, reading through results from the obvious phrase searches on Google News.

Please, using your favorite search engine, search for "Obama regime" and see how often it was used. You will find that it was used a lot more than you remember.

I did. And the top results are from Obama critics, or quoting Trump said that. There is also that web page https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-obama-administrat...

You're implying that treating two politicians from the left and the right differently is intrinsically a symptom of "sickening" political bias, when in fact truly unbiased objectivity will always make one of those people look worse than the other. What I find more sickening is how often people hide behind the idea of neutrality when, hypocritically, expressing their hatred for the media and people of the opposite political party. I think it's a much worse problem.