The Media Industry

[Horns11]

Then Trump shouldn't have been a tool when he said "you oughta see this guy" when he was mocking Kovaleski's "nonretraction" from the NYT. Why tell a rabid audience that they should "see" someone, as if with their eyes? Oh, right, he's only speaking in the metaphorical sense of the word "see," as successful businessmen are want to do. And for someone who immediately countered Kovaleski's claim that they had met dozens of times with the fact that he has "one of the all-time greatest memories," then maybe don't tell an audience something that you completely fabricated from a source that you claim is "going down the toilet."

If you really think it's presidential to poorly imitate people with flailing motions, whether it's reporters or candidates or anything else, then fine.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Confirmation bias is one hell of a drug. No one disputes he met that person for only one day 27 years ago. Also, have seen the other videos where Trump does the same motions when imitating other people? Finally, the reporter does not wave his arms around like Trump does - he only has the wrist issue - not loss of motor control. Stop being a tool.

I'm surprised we are having this conversation. He was clearly mocking this reporter but let's assume he wasn't mocking the reporter but mocking disabled people in general. How is that any better?

 

[mchammer]

I'm surprised we are having this conversation. He was clearly mocking this reporter but let's assume he wasn't mocking the reporter but mocking disabled people in general. How is that any better?

He was mocking people who he thinks are groveling before their rulers. An exhaustive take on the issue: https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/

 

[mchammer]

Then Trump shouldn't have been a tool when he said "you oughta see this guy" when he was mocking Kovaleski's "nonretraction" from the NYT. Why tell a rabid audience that they should "see" someone, as if with their eyes? Oh, right, he's only speaking in the metaphorical sense of the word "see," as successful businessmen are want to do. And for someone who immediately countered Kovaleski's claim that they had met dozens of times with the fact that he has "one of the all-time greatest memories," then maybe don't tell an audience something that you completely fabricated from a source that you claim is "going down the toilet."

If you really think it's presidential to poorly imitate people with flailing motions, whether it's reporters or candidates or anything else, then fine.

Trump says "you ought to see this guy" all the time in his stump speech.

 

[Seattle Husker]

He was mocking people who he thinks are groveling before their rulers. An exhaustive take on the issue: https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/

So, he used a similar motion for Ted Cruz criticism yet when talking about this specific writer he enlisted a crooked hand that absolves Trump from mocking accusations?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I'm surprised we are having this conversation. He was clearly mocking this reporter but let's assume he wasn't mocking the reporter but mocking disabled people in general. How is that any better?

Because I couldn't give half a **** who gets mocked, or why. Practically everybody on the planet has, at one point in their life or another, deserved to be mocked. A lot of people deserve to be mocked continuously, and everybody under the age of 50 needs to grow a thicker skin.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

And you damn kids get off my lawn!!!

 

[Brad Austin]

Im shocked. Some in the mainstream are calling it like it is to the detriment of HRC.

CNN today..."Don't blame Comey for this mess"

"James Comey is not primarily responsible for the political mess caused by the recent discovery of more emails that may be relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. These newly uncovered emails were not written, sent or received by Comey. He didn't store them on his computer, and it wasn't his fault that they were not reviewed many months ago during the initial investigation. In fact, Comey never even knew these emails existed until now.

That's the problem. Neither Comey nor the FBI had the opportunity to review these emails before making the decision not to charge Hillary Clinton. Discovering them now, so close to the election, has caused a political maelstrom that may pose a problem for Hillary Clinton's apparently smooth ride to victory in the last days of this campaign. But this problem wasn't created by Comey."

 

[mchammer]

Im shocked. Some in the mainstream are calling it like it is to the detriment of HRC.

CNN today..."Don't blame Comey for this mess"

"James Comey is not primarily responsible for the political mess caused by the recent discovery of more emails that may be relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. These newly uncovered emails were not written, sent or received by Comey. He didn't store them on his computer, and it wasn't his fault that they were not reviewed many months ago during the initial investigation. In fact, Comey never even knew these emails existed until now.

That's the problem. Neither Comey nor the FBI had the opportunity to review these emails before making the decision not to charge Hillary Clinton. Discovering them now, so close to the election, has caused a political maelstrom that may pose a problem for Hillary Clinton's apparently smooth ride to victory in the last days of this campaign. But this problem wasn't created by Comey."

Some in the media will turn on Clinton as at some point they are embarrassed to have been seen supporting her.

 

[Brad Austin]

Some in the media will turn on Clinton as at some point they are embarrassed to have been seen supporting her.

Nothing til now has shown the least bit of embarrassment for lacking morality during their propaganda firestorm to steal the election for HRC. This is def a new direction.

 

[Joe Fan]

Some people blame this on technology
But I prefer to blame it on the writing

 

[texas_ex2000]

Guys...after last night, the media will never be trusted just because they are the NYTimes, CNN, Washington Post, etc. The NYTimes, the paper of record, became a no holds barred dyed in the wool blue propaganda rag for the Clintons.

Everything they were reporting - the priority of their time, space, and resources...all were either incorrect or completely out of touch as far as newsworthy-ness and the framing and context of facts.

While an awakening of the public to this is certainly a good thing, these journalists have damaged the institutions of news and media to such an extent that it may not even function anymore.

 

[horninchicago]

Now that Trump has won, they will start doing journalistic stuff and questioning his every decision, unlike they have done the last 8 years.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Now that Trump has won, they will start doing journalistic stuff and questioning his every decision, unlike they have done the last 8 years.

They'll try, but they have no credibility anymore.

 

[horninchicago]

They'll try, but they have no credibility anymore.

Well, he will fight back, too, if they do try.

 

[Brad Austin]

I took a peak at post-election Yahoo news after months of boycotting due to bias. First story was "Trump not shielded from legal woes despite win". The permanent boycott is now in place.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[texas_ex2000]

Headline on CNN right now is "Trump backs off key pledge."

Of course, CNN is lying to you:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Health_Care.htm

I remembered this:

Q: Senator Rubio, you said that Mr. Trump thinks part of ObamaCare is pretty good. Which part?

RUBIO: The individual mandate. He said he likes the individual mandate portion of it; I don't believe that should remain there. We need to repeal ObamaCare completely and replace it with a system that puts Americans in charge of their health care money again.

TRUMP: I agree with that 100%, except pre-existing conditions, I would absolutely get rid of ObamaCare. I want to keep pre- existing conditions. It's a modern age, and I think we have to have it.

Source: 2016 CNN-Telemundo Republican debate on eve of Texas primary , Feb 25, 2016

 

[UTChE96]

I think one of the key takeaways from this election is that the MSM has lost much of their influence. I suspect this trend will continue in the future with more options for digital news outlets. The big 3 news networks will be rapidly shrinking as cord cutting options expand. Print media is rapidly becoming extinct.

 

[texas_ex2000]

This is what these snowflakes are seeing on social media and sharing with each other, but passed off as news. My friends actually believe this.

http://usuncut.com/news/trump-supporters-brutally-attack-gay-man-california/

Trump supporters shouted slurs at a gay man from Canada who was in a Santa Monica, CA bar Tuesday night watching Trump win the Presidential election, and upon leaving the bar, the man says, these supporters attacked him.

Calgary filmmaker Chris Ball said that he was watching the election results when supporters of the Republican candidate began to lob epithets. ‘We got a new president you ******* faggots,” they said, Ball told Metro Calgary.

When Ball left the bar alone later in the night, Trump supporters followed him to an alley way and assaulted him, Ball said. The last thing he remembers before awaking bloody on the pavement was having a beer bottle smashed over his head. Friends took him to the hospital.

1) I can totally believe that a gay Canadian filmmaker would be at bar in Santa Monica watching the election. Suggesting there were Trump supporters, much less psychopathic violent thugs targeting gay men, at a Santa Monica bar is as believable as Mother Teresa at the Mos Eisley Cantina. It's ludicrous and defies all common sense.

2) It's a huge coincidence that the photo/makeup (ridiculous pose and all that "blood" but none on his expensive Apple Watch) and ludicrous story is exactly what a bad uncreative student filmmaker living in Los Angeles would come up with.

and

3) ...Really?

 

[Joe Fan]

Have we ever heard the US media use the term "non-college-educated black voters?"

Why do they do it for whites?

 

[iatrogenic]

This is what these snowflakes are seeing on social media and sharing with each other, but passed off as news. My friends actually believe this.

http://usuncut.com/news/trump-supporters-brutally-attack-gay-man-california

1) I can totally believe that a gay Canadian filmmaker would be at bar in Santa Monica watching the election. Suggesting there were Trump supporters, much less psychopathic violent thugs targeting gay men, at a Santa Monica bar is as believable as Mother Teresa at the Mos Eisley Cantina. It's ludicrous and defies all common sense.

2) It's a huge coincidence that the photo/makeup (ridiculous pose and all that "blood" but none on his expensive Apple Watch) and ludicrous story is exactly what a bad uncreative student filmmaker living in Los Angeles would come up with.

and

3) ...Really?

With apologies to SH for encroaching on his non-sequitur turf, every time I hear Canada mentioned I think of an old National Lampoon magazine cover from the 80s that said:

"CANADA, THE GIANT RETARD ON YOUR FRONT PORCH"

They had some of the greatest humor ever created by genius potheads, but, sadly, their style would never work in today's PC atmosphere ....

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Mr. Deez]

Have we ever heard the US media use the term "non-college-educated black voters?"

Why do they do it for whites?

I've wondered the same thing. They never make any distinctions among black voters. It's pretty much assumed that they all think alike.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I've wondered the same thing. They never make any distinctions among black voters. It's pretty much assumed that they all think alike.

And that is easily among the ugliest forms of racism.

 

[mchammer]

Darn straight.

 

[Joe Fan]

With apologies to SH for encroaching on his non-sequitur turf, ....

lol

 

[Mr. Deez]

A journalist who doesn't get it. Link. He laments the lost faith people have for journalism and that the media never had a chance to sway public opinion. He also says the media failed to "educate the electorate" (and therefore convince them to vote for Hillary) because they were afraid of not being fair and balanced.

What this dolt misses is that people used to listen to the media until it became clear that they weren't "fair and balanced" and obviously were trying to sway their opinion. The same allegations they threw at Trump (some accurately and some not), they've thrown at every conservative nominee even when it was obviously not true. After hearing the "racists, sexist, homophobe" charges thrown around haphazardly for decades regardless of what the truth was, I think millions of people tuned them out. I think many in the media felt the need to "double-down" on the charges with Trump, but rather than getting voters to believe them, I think it made many voters even more dismissive of the media. By going to Breitbart, Fox News, and Alex Jones (which this guy laments), they did hear a lot of garbage, but it at least wasn't the same garbage.

If journalists really want to regain the public's respect, they need to recognize that you can't be fair and balanced while trying to sway public opinion. Those goals are in conflict with each other. If you are a journalist who wants to advocate liberalism, then you can't hide behind a cloak of objectivity. So you can do one of two things. You can actually be fair and balanced, which will make the public take you seriously when you do cry wolf, or you can be a blatant propagandist who does nothing but serve as a liberal echo chamber.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Deez,

Everything this guy wrote is off in left field:

Journalists — print, TV, online, etc. — were in uncharted territory thanks to Donald Trump. At first, his candidacy was written off as a joke.

Who written him off as a joke? Is that the media's job to write people off as jokes? Wouldn't your job be just to report the facts? If you want to editorialize, that's fine. But be transparent about who is a pundit and who is a journalist/reporter (I'm looking at you Martha Raddatz).

Then he gained some steam, and was thus worth our time to cover. When it became clear he would be part of the national conversation for the long haul, we began to scrutinize him.

He was only "worth your time" when he gained steam? I can understand if we're talking about who ever the nameless sacrificial lambs were in the Democratic primaries, but Trump, a reality show billionaire birther...he was only worth giving serious coverage when he gained steam? And when you did start to cover him as a serious news story, it was to scrutinize him? Again, I don't think most people care about what pundits say. If pundits want to rake candidates, that's fine. But journalists should report and scrutinize the facts, not scrutinize his politics.

And then when it looked like he had a legitimate shot at the presidency, many of us did everything in our power to warn the American people to reject his message. We all know how that went now.

We sure do...because when it comes to politics, your job as a journalist isn't to warn people to reject anything. Your job is to report. When journalists start warning people about politics, it becomes propaganda.

It was an impossible situation to navigate. Cover Trump too harshly, and his supporters would complain that he was receiving unfair treatment. Try to balance reporting about him with Hillary Clinton's baggage, and a good portion of the public would yell at you for equating their scandals. How do you find balance when one candidate is due in court for allegedly raping a 13-year-old?

Easy....you just report the facts, your job. That way you don't have to think about how to navigate "impossible" situations. Your job is not to care about what a good portion of the public would tell you or what Trump supporters would complain about. Why do you even f'in care and think about that? Like the Law, the institution of Journalism should blindly be devoted to the value of integrity. If the facts to an allegation of child rape meets centuries long journalistic standards, then damm right your report that. But the allegation was complete and utter bull$%ht. The fact you bring that up in this pathetic excuse of an article when pontificating on journalistic "balance" is everything wrong with the media.

Frankly, I had no problem with unbalanced coverage during the 2016 cycle. Our job first and foremost is to educate the public and help them make informed decisions. Trump was and is a dangerous man ideologically, and so many in the media abandoned any concerns about bias in order to portray him as the threat he is.

No...that is not your job. If you want to be Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity, fine. But they aren't journalists. A journalist's job is integrity.

Another problem was the legitimization of comedic satire as real "journalism" and even as serious editorial.

 

[Mr. Deez]

We sure do...because when it comes to politics, your job as a journalist isn't to warn people to reject anything. Your job is to report. When journalists start warning people about politics, it becomes propaganda.

Superb points all the way around. I think you draw the line well. I've heard that there is a conflict in journalism circles about whether a journalist's job is to report both sides of an issue or political race and let the public decide or whether it's to report the "truth" (as the journalist sees it). In the literal sense, I think a journalist should report the truth and call BS on a candidate who tells a falsehood. He or she shouldn't allow something that is factually false to go unchallenged.

However, there are two problems with this mindset in the context of political reporting. First, the modern media doesn't know what a "fact" is anymore. They will deem certain things to be facts that are actually opinions that are simply unquestioned by political elites or just unverifiable. Politifact (or Politifiction as I sometimes call them) is notorious for this.

Second, the media usually applies a double standard in how they report the "truth" and how they characterize a falsehood when they do call one. Hillary wasn't held to anywhere near as high of a standard for honesty as Trump was. Furthermore, when she was caught in a falsehood, it was usually framed as a "misstatement," an "inaccuracy," or an "inconsistency." What term was usually used to describe Trump's alleged false statements? They were routinely called the far more judgmental "lies."