-
Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.
The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread
- Thread starter The Human Q-Tip
- Start date
- Status
Wrathe
Reverberate or you may not participate.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,581
- Reaction score
- 3,158
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 20,027
- Reaction score
- 49,800
- Points
- 148
The media will do anything to bash Trump — and now they’re hurting
By Michael Goodwin
June 27, 2017 | 10:38pm | Updated
It was many years ago, but the memory lingers of the first time I was embarrassed to be a journalist. It was a steamy summer afternoon and reporters and photographers were shoehorned into a small Manhattan apartment for a civic group’s announcement.
As we waited, a photographer wearing a “Press” card in his battered fedora picked up a bud vase from a table, pulled out the rose and drank the water in one gulp.
The hostess was horrified and shrieked, “What are you doing?” He looked at her as if she were nuts and said simply, “It’s hot in here and I’m thirsty.”
I laugh now at the outlandishness of the photographer’s behavior, but at the time I cringed and wondered: Do I really want to be a journalist and end up like that?
America should be so lucky now. Bad manners are the least of it.
In the sixth month of Donald Trump’s presidency, we are witnessing an unprecedented meltdown of much of the media. Standards have been tossed overboard in a frenzy to bring down the president.
Trump, like all presidents, deserves coverage that is skeptical and tough, but also fair. That’s not what he’s getting.
What started as bias against him has become a cancer that is consuming the best and brightest. In rough biblical justice, media attempts to destroy the president are boomeranging and leaving their reputations in tatters.
He accuses them of publishing fake news, and they respond with such blind hatred that they end up publishing fake news. That’ll show him.
CNN is suffering an especially bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, even trying to make a virtue of its hostility to the president. In doing so, executives conveniently confuse animus with professional skepticism, and cite growing audiences as proof of their good judgment.
The bottom line matters, and there is certainly an audience for hating Trump all the time. But facts and fairness separate major news organizations from any other business looking to make a buck, and a commitment to them creates credibility and public trust.
That’s how CNN sold itself for years — boring but trustworthy. Now it’s boring and untrustworthy.
For all its bravado, the network might be having doubts about its course. Its apology for and retraction of a story connecting a Trump associate to a Russia investment fund, and the resignation of three journalists involved, suggest the network fears it has lost control of its own agenda. It also issued a special edict barring all Russia coverage without approval from top bosses.
SEE ALSO
CNN faced $100M lawsuit over botched Russia story
That’s hardly a solution to a problem that starts at the top. The secret recording of a CNN producer by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas catches the producer saying that CEO Jeff Zucker relentlessly pushes stories on Trump’s ties to Russia even though, the producer says, the subject is “mostly bulls–t.”
Russia, Russia, Russia is a fixation for all the networks, with a new study by the Media Research Center showing 55 percent of Trump coverage on nightly broadcasts was related to the Russia investigation.
That adds up to 353 minutes of airtime since May 17, compared to 47 minutes on Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate pact, 29 minutes on the fight against terrorism and 17 minutes on the efforts to repeal and replace ObamaCare, according to the Daily Caller’s summary of the study. It said tax reform got a mere 47 seconds of coverage.
Too much coverage is far from the only problem with Russia reporting. Writing for The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald shows how reckless CNN, the Washington Post and others have been, and makes two key points.
First, that mistakes are “always in the direction of exaggerating the threat and/or inventing incriminating links between” Russia and Trump. Second, that all the false stories “involved evidence-free assertions from anonymous sources that these media outlets uncritically treated as fact.”
He’s right, and I would add another dimension: For all the focus on Russia, the media totally missed a key point. To wit, the Obama administration did nothing about Vladimir Putin’s attempt to interfere in the 2016 election even though the White House knew about it for months.
Of course, most media organizations spent eight years cheerleading everything Obama did, and it’s no secret that members of his administration, along with career Democrats, are the anonymous sources feeding the anti-Trump narrative.
Still, it is remarkable that, if it weren’t for the unproven allegations of Trump collusion, the media would have no interest in the Russia story at all. This despite the fact that leading officials, including both Democrats and Republicans, have called the interference an “act of war.”
But it’s a strange war — one that is important only to the extent Trump can be linked to it. Otherwise, who cares?
A similar selective outrage is happening with daily White House press briefings. Tired of being the mouse in a cat-and-mouse game of torture, Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, has kept the briefings basically intact but ordered live cameras and audio equipment turned off.
Predictably, the press corps has reacted as though Trump has shredded the Constitution, burned the Declaration of Independence and peed in their beer. Reporters are complaining bitterly and some murmur about a boycott, which would be like gouging out their last eye.
The White House Correspondents’ Association weighed in, saying, reasonably, that the briefings are important sources of information. But then it went off the rails, with its president, Jeff Mason of Reuters, saying televising them is “clearly in line with the spirit of the First Amendment” and that “doing away with briefings would reduce accountability, transparency, and the opportunity for Americans to see that, in the US system, no political figure is above being questioned.”
As Mason’s claims grew more grandiose, I flashed back to that photographer drinking from the bud vase so long ago. He was wrong, but honest and devoid of pretentious self-importance.
On the other hand, there is nothing honest about the claim that letting reporters perform for the camera in the White House keeps faith with the First Amendment. It’s just inflated self-interest hiding behind the Constitution.
And really, really embarrassing to those of us who love journalism.
By Michael Goodwin
June 27, 2017 | 10:38pm | Updated
It was many years ago, but the memory lingers of the first time I was embarrassed to be a journalist. It was a steamy summer afternoon and reporters and photographers were shoehorned into a small Manhattan apartment for a civic group’s announcement.
As we waited, a photographer wearing a “Press” card in his battered fedora picked up a bud vase from a table, pulled out the rose and drank the water in one gulp.
The hostess was horrified and shrieked, “What are you doing?” He looked at her as if she were nuts and said simply, “It’s hot in here and I’m thirsty.”
I laugh now at the outlandishness of the photographer’s behavior, but at the time I cringed and wondered: Do I really want to be a journalist and end up like that?
America should be so lucky now. Bad manners are the least of it.
In the sixth month of Donald Trump’s presidency, we are witnessing an unprecedented meltdown of much of the media. Standards have been tossed overboard in a frenzy to bring down the president.
Trump, like all presidents, deserves coverage that is skeptical and tough, but also fair. That’s not what he’s getting.
What started as bias against him has become a cancer that is consuming the best and brightest. In rough biblical justice, media attempts to destroy the president are boomeranging and leaving their reputations in tatters.
He accuses them of publishing fake news, and they respond with such blind hatred that they end up publishing fake news. That’ll show him.
CNN is suffering an especially bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, even trying to make a virtue of its hostility to the president. In doing so, executives conveniently confuse animus with professional skepticism, and cite growing audiences as proof of their good judgment.
The bottom line matters, and there is certainly an audience for hating Trump all the time. But facts and fairness separate major news organizations from any other business looking to make a buck, and a commitment to them creates credibility and public trust.
That’s how CNN sold itself for years — boring but trustworthy. Now it’s boring and untrustworthy.
For all its bravado, the network might be having doubts about its course. Its apology for and retraction of a story connecting a Trump associate to a Russia investment fund, and the resignation of three journalists involved, suggest the network fears it has lost control of its own agenda. It also issued a special edict barring all Russia coverage without approval from top bosses.
SEE ALSO
CNN faced $100M lawsuit over botched Russia story
That’s hardly a solution to a problem that starts at the top. The secret recording of a CNN producer by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas catches the producer saying that CEO Jeff Zucker relentlessly pushes stories on Trump’s ties to Russia even though, the producer says, the subject is “mostly bulls–t.”
Russia, Russia, Russia is a fixation for all the networks, with a new study by the Media Research Center showing 55 percent of Trump coverage on nightly broadcasts was related to the Russia investigation.
That adds up to 353 minutes of airtime since May 17, compared to 47 minutes on Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate pact, 29 minutes on the fight against terrorism and 17 minutes on the efforts to repeal and replace ObamaCare, according to the Daily Caller’s summary of the study. It said tax reform got a mere 47 seconds of coverage.
Too much coverage is far from the only problem with Russia reporting. Writing for The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald shows how reckless CNN, the Washington Post and others have been, and makes two key points.
First, that mistakes are “always in the direction of exaggerating the threat and/or inventing incriminating links between” Russia and Trump. Second, that all the false stories “involved evidence-free assertions from anonymous sources that these media outlets uncritically treated as fact.”
He’s right, and I would add another dimension: For all the focus on Russia, the media totally missed a key point. To wit, the Obama administration did nothing about Vladimir Putin’s attempt to interfere in the 2016 election even though the White House knew about it for months.
Of course, most media organizations spent eight years cheerleading everything Obama did, and it’s no secret that members of his administration, along with career Democrats, are the anonymous sources feeding the anti-Trump narrative.
Still, it is remarkable that, if it weren’t for the unproven allegations of Trump collusion, the media would have no interest in the Russia story at all. This despite the fact that leading officials, including both Democrats and Republicans, have called the interference an “act of war.”
But it’s a strange war — one that is important only to the extent Trump can be linked to it. Otherwise, who cares?
A similar selective outrage is happening with daily White House press briefings. Tired of being the mouse in a cat-and-mouse game of torture, Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, has kept the briefings basically intact but ordered live cameras and audio equipment turned off.
Predictably, the press corps has reacted as though Trump has shredded the Constitution, burned the Declaration of Independence and peed in their beer. Reporters are complaining bitterly and some murmur about a boycott, which would be like gouging out their last eye.
The White House Correspondents’ Association weighed in, saying, reasonably, that the briefings are important sources of information. But then it went off the rails, with its president, Jeff Mason of Reuters, saying televising them is “clearly in line with the spirit of the First Amendment” and that “doing away with briefings would reduce accountability, transparency, and the opportunity for Americans to see that, in the US system, no political figure is above being questioned.”
As Mason’s claims grew more grandiose, I flashed back to that photographer drinking from the bud vase so long ago. He was wrong, but honest and devoid of pretentious self-importance.
On the other hand, there is nothing honest about the claim that letting reporters perform for the camera in the White House keeps faith with the First Amendment. It’s just inflated self-interest hiding behind the Constitution.
And really, really embarrassing to those of us who love journalism.
Attachments
The Oi
Ahhhh chachachacha
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 50,835
- Reaction score
- 76,951
- Points
- 148
Funny thing is...describing the right wing as "outraged over commercial news media errors" seems a pretty wild mischaracterization to me.
How about "bemused by the uncovering of liberal media smear jobs" or "validated by the gradual unraveling of the Trump Russia collusion witch hunt."
I'm not sensing outrage from the right. More "I told ya so."
And in the center...a lot of people that are getting tired of hearing anti-Trump news, seeing anti-Trump stuff on social media and thus gradual Trump "support" from those who didn't support him before.
And yeah...they'll basically just keep him under investigation as long as they can.
Last edited:
Soda
Listen To The Kids!
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 15,063
- Reaction score
- 13,184
- Points
- 123
Agreed. Let's try this, though.
Ultimately, we will see what the FBI and Special Prosecutor have to say. Liberal outrage about inevitable commercial news media errors are irrelevant in the grand scheme.
Do you agree? I agree, but others would likely say I'm ignoring reality.
Wrathe
Reverberate or you may not participate.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,581
- Reaction score
- 3,158
- Points
- 113
Have to depict the other side as angry and hostile to justify your own hostilities. This is WAR!
"While many mainstream media outlets have cried foul over Donald Trump targeting outlets as "failing" or peddling "fake news," that sentiment is largely shared by a majority of Americans.
In its annual confidence poll, Gallup found that Americans' trust in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" reached its lowest level in polling history, with only 32 percent saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media."
http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/main-stream-media-continue-to-lose-the-publics-trust
If you have a fair or better amount of trust in the media, you have an opinion that is shared by less than 1/3 of Americans.
Right or wrong, more than 2/3's of Americans, which must include a large percentage of democrats, don't trust the mainstream media to report facts in a fair and accurate manner.
In other words, news articles from FOX/CNN/NBC are considered unreliable sources by the vast majority of Americans.
That's remarkable. Unless of course, this article by the WSJ is junk.
In its annual confidence poll, Gallup found that Americans' trust in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" reached its lowest level in polling history, with only 32 percent saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media."
http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/main-stream-media-continue-to-lose-the-publics-trust
If you have a fair or better amount of trust in the media, you have an opinion that is shared by less than 1/3 of Americans.
Right or wrong, more than 2/3's of Americans, which must include a large percentage of democrats, don't trust the mainstream media to report facts in a fair and accurate manner.
In other words, news articles from FOX/CNN/NBC are considered unreliable sources by the vast majority of Americans.
That's remarkable. Unless of course, this article by the WSJ is junk.
AZ_
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,702
- Reaction score
- 51,398
- Points
- 148
-Akronite-
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 10,996
- Reaction score
- 14,442
- Points
- 123
Cool. And so when are you going to hold the president to the same standard?
I will agree, as I've stated many times, that our press needs more accountability. It's a fucking shame the state our press was in going into this mess of an election. Is it any wonder the amount of crap that's out there given this shitshow of a presidency? Like I can see the many flaws in what gets reported, but it certainly doesn't help that on top of that we have a president that is a constant spout of lies with conflicting info from his own staff. And while people shit on the "mainstream media" (which seems to be whatever sources say things you don't like) and "fake news" (which has been co-opted from talking about deliberate misinformation campaigns to just mean whatever the fuck you want), Fox and Breitbart are almost literally state media at this point.
This is why I have felt for a long time that we need to shift away from having our journalism depend on profit margins. The transition to internet media has been explosive and we live in an age where information should be most accessible but get a Santorum-like mix of news, bias, and complete misinformation. It's a mess (Jeb!).
AZ_
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,702
- Reaction score
- 51,398
- Points
- 148
Looks like we're stuck with Obstruction of Justice, potentially nefarious financial dealings with Jared Kushner, multiple members of the administration lying on their security forms and whatever else they'll find.
I think too often people are copping out behind the word "collusion" as the only point by which Trump can be considered wrong.
Which has been admirably spun into the mainstream.
- Status