Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Thomas Frank Compares Anti-Trump Media To "Cold War McCarthyism"


Recommended Posts

Interesting. Thomas Frank, author of "What's The Matter With Kansas?" and lifelong liberal, discussing media treatment of Donald Trump. I'm a passionate member of the anti-Trump crowd, but I also always noted how over-the-top and oppressive the media was in covering him.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1354249371676676096

Discuss.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I’m a 180 from this guy. The mainstream media’s normalization of Trump’s psychotic, infantile behavior these past several years is inexcusable. Never has a public figure been treated with kid gloves l

Well yeah, we do inhabit different worlds, that’s what we’ve been trying to tell people for like five years now. I agree completely with @CletiusMaximus.  In my view if the media was reporting

Seriously? What world are you inhabiting? If you can't see that the media was anti-Trump, there's really no jumping off point for any reasonable conversation.

He's spot on...

This ties right in to who controls the media and information......orange man bad becomes the mantra regardless of any actual policy or decisions.......add in the fact that Trump is easily unlikable all on his own, and you have screaming libs accusing people who voted for trump of being racist/white supremacist/etc.....

  • Love 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

 

Discuss.

I’m a 180 from this guy. The mainstream media’s normalization of Trump’s psychotic, infantile behavior these past several years is inexcusable. Never has a public figure been treated with kid gloves like this man was. He said and did things on a daily basis, day after day for years, that are completely unacceptable in any professional setting, and the media essentially stopped reporting it, I suppose out of fatigue more than anything. 

  • Like 16
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Is Thomas Frank someone important? Is that why his name is in the thread title?

2. I thought it was no longer de rigueur to post our Twitter feeds around these parts. Has the practice become cool again?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I’m a 180 from this guy. The mainstream media’s normalization of Trump’s psychotic, infantile behavior these past several years is inexcusable. Never has a public figure been treated with kid gloves like this man was. He said and did things on a daily basis, day after day for years, that are completely unacceptable in any professional setting, and the media essentially stopped reporting it, I suppose out of fatigue more than anything. 

If anyone else did any of the things Trump did at their job, they’d be fired long ago, yet there was a sizable swath of people willing to vote for him. I know I reached the point where I fully expected to hear a brand new crazy thing Trump did on a given day, but now I’m glad that’s over.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I’m a 180 from this guy. The mainstream media’s normalization of Trump’s psychotic, infantile behavior these past several years is inexcusable. Never has a public figure been treated with kid gloves like this man was. He said and did things on a daily basis, day after day for years, that are completely unacceptable in any professional setting, and the media essentially stopped reporting it, I suppose out of fatigue more than anything. 

Seriously? What world are you inhabiting? If you can't see that the media was anti-Trump, there's really no jumping off point for any reasonable conversation.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sea Duck said:

1. Is Thomas Frank someone important? Is that why his name is in the thread title?

2. I thought it was no longer de rigueur to post our Twitter feeds around these parts. Has the practice become cool again?

Yes, Thomas Frank is somebody important. He's a renowned author that tripped off of the lips of every well-meaning liberal for the past twenty years because he wrote a sorta famous book that a ton of people read and agreed with.

It's not just my Twitter feed. It's something I saw on there which has come back again because of the recent calls by Democratic congressmen to shut Fox News off of various outlets by writing "letters of inquiry" to cable and dish providers about their contracts with Fox News.

If you don't see this as news, or worthy of a thread, too bad.

Edited by rockaction
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

Seriously? What world are you inhabiting? If you can't see that the media was anti-Trump, there's really no jumping off point for any reasonable conversation.

This was my thought as well.  I don't even care for Trump, but he clearly was harassed from the get-go.  Some of it was self inflicted.......but just a couple examples...

Pelosi and the Dem leadership got a pass for early covid statements.....essentially the same response from Trump was ridiculed relentlessly.  The kids being separated at the border was something implemented in the Obama admin and is more about protecting kids.....yet with Trump it became about him putting kids in cages.....the list goes on and on

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rockaction said:

Interesting. Thomas Frank, author of "What's The Matter With Kansas?" and lifelong liberal, discussing media treatment of Donald Trump. I'm a passionate member of the anti-Trump crowd, but I also always noted how over-the-top and oppressive the media was in covering him.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1354249371676676096

Discuss.

Gosh, an offensive and stupid politician who deliberately antagonized the mainstream media, while dropping our national political discourse into the gutter, & lied all the time, didn't get favorable treatment from said media?   

  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Seriously? What world are you inhabiting? If you can't see that the media was anti-Trump, there's really no jumping off point for any reasonable conversation.

Of course the majority of the large media outlets were negative on Trump.  That’s not my point.  I disagree with Frank’s argument, his coined term “aghasticism.”  The media came to completely accept as normal his juvenile name-calling, the petty insults, the maniacal need for absolute fealty and the bizarre unhinged rants.

Here’s one small example: Trump had one of his cult rallies in my city a couple years ago. He went on a rant for several minutes about how toilets flush. It was the most bat-#### crazy thing. Maybe a bit funny at first, but then you start thinking maybe he’s having a stroke or something right there on the stage.  I later learned it’s one of his pet complaints - he hates water restrictors on flush toilets.  Not that it matters really, but my city is located on one of the largest lakes in North America. We could run water sprinklers 365 days a year and no one would bat an eye. It was just completely random in a strange and scary way. So the next day I’m listening to the NPR report about his speech and there’s no mention of his crazy moment. Nothing in our main paper. No one talking about it anywhere I saw other than a few fringe sources.  I think it’s a matter of fatigue because he did stuff like this multiple times a day every single day, and I think they just got tired of being amazed by the utter lunacy. For me, that’s an abdication of their duty. They normalized the crazy because they didn’t have the courage to name it. 
 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Of course the majority of the large media outlets were negative on Trump.  That’s not my point.  I disagree with Frank’s argument, his coined term “aghasticism.”  The media came to completely accept as normal his juvenile name-calling, the petty insults, the maniacal need for absolute fealty and the bizarre unhinged rants.

Here’s one small example: Trump had one of his cult rallies in my city a couple years ago. He went on a rant for several minutes about how toilets flush. It was the most bat-#### crazy thing. Maybe a bit funny at first, but then you start thinking maybe he’s having a stroke or something right there on the stage.  I later learned it’s one of his pet complaints - he hates water restrictors on flush toilets.  Not that it matters really, but my city is located on one of the largest lakes in North America. We could run water sprinklers 365 days a year and no one would bat an eye. It was just completely random in a strange and scary way. So the next day I’m listening to the NPR report about his speech and there’s no mention of his crazy moment. Nothing in our main paper. No one talking about it anywhere I saw other than a few fringe sources.  I think it’s a matter of fatigue because he did stuff like this multiple times a day every single day, and I think they just got tired of being amazed by the utter lunacy. For me, that’s an abdication of their duty. They normalized the crazy because they didn’t have the courage to name it. 
 

There are like 500 articles about trump complaining about toilets and how they flush.

Cnn

AP

NBC

NPR

Vox

ABC

usa today

Guardian (video)

NYT

Daily beast

Wapo

Slate

NYMag

Countless others, these were just the first google search results. They go on and on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the low-flush toilets, too. That was everywhere. Didn't that wind up on SNL? I mean, everywhere.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I’m a 180 from this guy. The mainstream media’s normalization of Trump’s psychotic, infantile behavior these past several years is inexcusable. Never has a public figure been treated with kid gloves like this man was. He said and did things on a daily basis, day after day for years, that are completely unacceptable in any professional setting, and the media essentially stopped reporting it, I suppose out of fatigue more than anything. 

post of the year

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rockaction said:

Seriously? What world are you inhabiting? If you can't see that the media was anti-Trump, there's really no jumping off point for any reasonable conversation.

Well yeah, we do inhabit different worlds, that’s what we’ve been trying to tell people for like five years now.


I agree completely with @CletiusMaximus.  In my view if the media was reporting consistently with the standards of every other Presidency, the front page of every newspaper for four years should have been a giant 9/11-type headline along the lines of “NATIONAL EMERGENCY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS MENTALLY DERANGED AND COMPLETELY DETACHED FROM REALITY.”  Every single day of the Presidency was an existential crisis.  The fact that those articles appeared sporadically, with less dramatic language, and not always on page one, is an indication to me that he received the softest treatment by the media of any President ever.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably didn’t help Trump’s case that he demonized the media at pretty much every opportunity he had to do so. Even then, the articles that focused on journalism did just that, reporting what he said without a rebuttal from the author.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Well yeah, we do inhabit different worlds, that’s what we’ve been trying to tell people for like five years now.


I agree completely with @CletiusMaximus.  In my view if the media was reporting consistently with the standards of every other Presidency, the front page of every newspaper for four years should have been a giant 9/11-type headline along the lines of “NATIONAL EMERGENCY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS MENTALLY DERANGED AND COMPLETELY DETACHED FROM REALITY.”  Every single day of the Presidency was an existential crisis.  The fact that those articles appeared sporadically, with less dramatic language, and not always on page one, is an indication to me that he received the softest treatment by the media of any President ever.

I'll join the club. However, when someone does something absolutely reprehensible 3 or 4 times a week and fills in the missed days doing things that are merely "not good" (and which would be headlines for any other president), it's difficult for the media to cover all the "not good" stuff. What I've never understood is the argument "Look how the media treats him with all those negative stories". When you do a lot of reprehensible things, you're going to get a lot of negative stories. Why is that the media's fault?

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to watch Jaimie Bailey, a Peruvian American  based in Miami who has a daily TV show.  As Bailey showed, there's no way you could honestly cover Trump without mocking him regularly. My Colombian friends said Trump was extremely unpopular there. So its not just the MSM in the USA.

It's fair to ask how would FOX have covered Obama if he had done the things Trump did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump was a uniquely terrible president, and he created a real challenge for the media.  Like others have said, it was always going to be very difficult to cover this administration with the same sense of detachment that you might try to maintain for other presidents because Trump's behavior in office was just so objectively bad.

There are lots of thing to criticize about the media, but I would not include "they were too anti-Trump" among those criticisms.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Well yeah, we do inhabit different worlds, that’s what we’ve been trying to tell people for like five years now.


I agree completely with @CletiusMaximus.  In my view if the media was reporting consistently with the standards of every other Presidency, the front page of every newspaper for four years should have been a giant 9/11-type headline along the lines of “NATIONAL EMERGENCY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS MENTALLY DERANGED AND COMPLETELY DETACHED FROM REALITY.”  Every single day of the Presidency was an existential crisis.  The fact that those articles appeared sporadically, with less dramatic language, and not always on page one, is an indication to me that he received the softest treatment by the media of any President ever.

That is all I got from this post.

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How else do you cover an over the top failed casino boss with no manners and no sense of decency?

If anyone wants to fill me in on how "McCarthyism" works here (😂) as a comparison, I'm all ears. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple observations here:

1.  It's always interesting to see the dozen or so "problem" media outlets brought up time and time again as if they make up the entirety of "our media" while ignoring dozens of other sources that are sympathetic to Trump and his "plight".  For every CNN there is a Breitbart.  For every MSNBC there's an Info Wars.  For every CNBC there's a OANN, but I NEVER see those sorts of things brought up in terms of "the media".

2.  I think the answer lives somewhere in the middle.  I think it's pretty clear this started back in 2014-15 where all of them FLOCKED to Trump and his insane Howard Stern like media events to cover him.  This was a primary reason I really gave up on any of our national media outlets.  Why?  Because they were covering him for the shock factor and then laughing at the things he was saying rather than raising the red flags.  I fully admit I was one that thought he was just pandering initially.  And honestly, I wouldn't blame any media outlet that thought the same thing.  To that extent I am with @CletiusMaximus.  They treated him like a cartoon character that was getting them eyeballs.  Had they been doing their jobs, he likely wouldn't have ever seen the nomination.  However, seeing the error of their ways (this might be wishful thinking on my part) and knowing their hand in helping get this clown elected, once he was in office a good many of them flipped to the complete opposite and criticized every little thing (no matter how stupid) in an effort to mock and belittle.  They dropped down into the mud with him to get their eyeballs.  To that extent I agree with @rockaction

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Commish said:

A couple observations here:

1.  It's always interesting to see the dozen or so "problem" media outlets brought up time and time again as if they make up the entirety of "our media" while ignoring dozens of other sources that are sympathetic to Trump and his "plight".  For every CNN there is a Breitbart.  For every MSNBC there's an Info Wars.  For every CNBC there's a OANN, but I NEVER see those sorts of things brought up in terms of "the media".

2.  I think the answer lives somewhere in the middle.  I think it's pretty clear this started back in 2014-15 where all of them FLOCKED to Trump and his insane Howard Stern like media events to cover him.  This was a primary reason I really gave up on any of our national media outlets.  Why?  Because they were covering him for the shock factor and then laughing at the things he was saying rather than raising the red flags.  I fully admit I was one that thought he was just pandering initially.  And honestly, I wouldn't blame any media outlet that thought the same thing.  To that extent I am with @CletiusMaximus.  They treated him like a cartoon character that was getting them eyeballs.  Had they been doing their jobs, he likely wouldn't have ever seen the nomination.  However, seeing the error of their ways (this might be wishful thinking on my part) and knowing their hand in helping get this clown elected, once he was in office a good many of them flipped to the complete opposite and criticized every little thing (no matter how stupid) in an effort to mock and belittle.  They dropped down into the mud with him to get their eyeballs.  To that extent I agree with @rockaction

1.  Agreed.

2.  I agree, those primaries and all...they covered his events more than others in the past.  They were circus's and drove ratings...some of which, imo, was people wanting to see the continued train wreck.  And what I believe it did, was bring even more people in to his way of thinking or they were already there and he just gave it a voice and convinced them he was just like them.  I also agree with some of each here.  Did the media get to be more critical of some things?  Sure, probably overload from the material given, and a natural reaction to his attacks on the media as well.  And that old stat of xxx%of the news was negative...well, when a high percentage of what you do is negative, you are going to have more negative news.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

1.  Agreed.

2.  I agree, those primaries and all...they covered his events more than others in the past.  They were circus's and drove ratings...some of which, imo, was people wanting to see the continued train wreck.  And what I believe it did, was bring even more people in to his way of thinking or they were already there and he just gave it a voice and convinced them he was just like them.  I also agree with some of each here.  Did the media get to be more critical of some things?  Sure, probably overload from the material given, and a natural reaction to his attacks on the media as well.  And that old stat of xxx%of the news was negative...well, when a high percentage of what you do is negative, you are going to have more negative news.

Based on what I see posted here, I genuinely believe there was a significant amount of overcompensation the OTHER direction from the primaries.  Personally, I see that as a good sign if it comes from some self reflection on their part in a "damn, we screwed up and need to get back on track" kind of place.  I'm pretty skeptical that's the reason though and one of the big reasons I continue to have very little use for our media outlets in this country.  It's just easier/better to go elsewhere for news these days IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Commish said:

A couple observations here:

1.  It's always interesting to see the dozen or so "problem" media outlets brought up time and time again as if they make up the entirety of "our media" while ignoring dozens of other sources that are sympathetic to Trump and his "plight".  For every CNN there is a Breitbart.  For every MSNBC there's an Info Wars.  For every CNBC there's a OANN, but I NEVER see those sorts of things brought up in terms of "the media".

2.  I think the answer lives somewhere in the middle.  I think it's pretty clear this started back in 2014-15 where all of them FLOCKED to Trump and his insane Howard Stern like media events to cover him.  This was a primary reason I really gave up on any of our national media outlets.  Why?  Because they were covering him for the shock factor and then laughing at the things he was saying rather than raising the red flags.  I fully admit I was one that thought he was just pandering initially.  And honestly, I wouldn't blame any media outlet that thought the same thing.  To that extent I am with @CletiusMaximus.  They treated him like a cartoon character that was getting them eyeballs.  Had they been doing their jobs, he likely wouldn't have ever seen the nomination.  However, seeing the error of their ways (this might be wishful thinking on my part) and knowing their hand in helping get this clown elected, once he was in office a good many of them flipped to the complete opposite and criticized every little thing (no matter how stupid) in an effort to mock and belittle.  They dropped down into the mud with him to get their eyeballs.  To that extent I agree with @rockaction

I wholeheartedly agree with number two. I think the breathless coverage he received during the primaries was a dereliction of duty. The second part, the mudslinging, was also the same dereliction.

I am sympathetic to those that declare that it should have been reported as a national emergency every day. I do not see how that is anything to be said about the tone and tenor of the coverage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just think about a couple of "scandals" from the past that come to mind.

1) During his Vice-Presidency, Dan Quayle judged a spelling bee and, failing to recognize that "potato" was misspelled on the answer sheet, told a kid the wrong spelling of potato.  This incident is probably the single thing Quayle is most famous for.  It played a significant role in his political career being considered a joke.  It was reported on and discussed for what seemed like weeks.  "Oh my god this guy is a heartbeat from the Presidency and doesn't know how to spell potato!"  

By contrast, on virtually every single day of his Presidency, Trump tweeted out embarrassing elementary-school spelling and grammar mistakes.  If each of those mistakes were treated in a similar fashion to the way Quayle's "potato" was treated, we would have been flooded every day with stories about Trump's failings with the English language.  But other than a few egregious examples like "covfefe," the media did not make a habit of even noting Trump's inability to write English at a middle school level.

2) During one of Obama's State of the Union addresses, some back-bencher Republican yelled out "you lie!"  This was covered ad nauseum.  "What about norms?  What about decorum?  What about respect for the office?"  

By contrast, Trump committed far more egregious norm-busting on virtually every day of his Presidency.  If each of those examples of Trump norm-busting were treated in a similar fashion to the "You lie" guy, we would have been flooded with stories every day about Trump's norm-busting.

The media could have spent 24 hours a day every day criticizing Trump and he STILL would have been getting off easier than any other politician ever.  He was just that bad.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And what it honestly sounds to me is that you are all more than willing to accept media portrayals of substantive issues as factual. For that, I guess I have no remedy and we're really past the brink of common ground when it comes to perceptions and media. No wonder the Trump right broke off and formed its own reality. You guys did, too.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockaction said:

And what it honestly sounds to me is that you are all more than willing to accept media portrayals of substantive issues as factual. For that, I guess I have no remedy and we're really past the brink of common ground when it comes to perceptions and media. No wonder the Trump right broke off and formed its own reality. You guys did, too.

I don't understand what you mean here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I don't understand what you mean here. 

It means that the overwhelmingly negative attention shaped your opinions and you felt it wasn't negative enough. What I saw was a media portrayal of a scandal everyday and that it far outpaced the President's capacity for egregiousness. Matt Tiabbi calls what the media did "bombholing." You all still believe the Russian collusion thing, never proven and always a false accusation against him. There are numerous examples of "bombholing," where the media would paint a fresh story about a scandal, run headlines that it was, in fact, true, and then never turned out to be so.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

At first I thought this thread was about "The Big Hurt"

The media used to run articles speculating that he did steroids, which he always denied. Oh, you mean that objective media? That ran with those stories like they did with Jeff Bagwell with absolutely no proof whatsoever?

That media.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

It means that the overwhelmingly negative attention shaped your opinions and you felt it wasn't negative enough. What I saw was a media portrayal of a scandal everyday and that it far outpaced the President's capacity for egregiousness. Matt Tiabbi calls what the media did "bombholing." You all still believe the Russian collusion thing, never proven and always a false accusation against him. There are numerous examples of "bombholing," where the media would paint a fresh story about a scandal, run headlines that it was, in fact, true, and then never turned out to be so.

What also shaped my opinions were watching Trump talk and reading what he said.  Those things aren't filtered by the media.  And those things alone were sufficient for me to determine that Trump was incompetent and dangerous.  I didn't need any media help for that.

And yes, I read the Mueller report and I believe that the Trump campaign at the very least: 1) were warned about Russian interference and failed to report it; and 2) engaged in repeated lies about their conduct involving Russia; and 3) obstructed the investigation into that conduct.  It was a more significant scandal than anything in the Obama administration by a wide margin.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

What also shaped my opinions were watching Trump talk and reading what he said.  Those things aren't filtered by the media.  And those things alone were sufficient for me to determine that Trump was incompetent and dangerous.  I didn't need any media help for that.

i agree with this. Which is why I hated him during the primaries. All I needed to hear as the last straw was him mocking the disabled reporter.

1 minute ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

And yes, I read the Mueller report and I believe that the Trump campaign at the very least: 1) were warned about Russian interference and failed to report it; and 2) engaged in repeated lies about their conduct involving Russia; and 3) obstructed the investigation into that conduct.  It was a more significant scandal than anything in the Obama administration by a wide margin.

That's fine you have that opinion. Nowhere do you address collusion. You address passive crimes and "gotcha crimes" by the Feds, a la Martha Stewart. I've long held that "gotcha crimes" fall well short of actual collusion. You seem to be blending whether or not they are impeachable offenses vs. what the media reported on as truth, which was collusion with Russian agents and active help in spreading disinformation. 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, rockaction said:

It means that the overwhelmingly negative attention shaped your opinions and you felt it wasn't negative enough. What I saw was a media portrayal of a scandal everyday and that it far outpaced the President's capacity for egregiousness. Matt Tiabbi calls what the media did "bombholing." You all still believe the Russian collusion thing, never proven and always a false accusation against him. There are numerous examples of "bombholing," where the media would paint a fresh story about a scandal, run headlines that it was, in fact, true, and then never turned out to be so.

The issue...is russian collusion is brought up far more often by those complaining about the left...than the left.  When was the last time anyone else here brought up russian collusion.  Yet it is posted about here by those acting as if the anti Trump crowd talks about Russia every day.

Often distorting what was actually discussed about Russia and Trump's involvment.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

The issue...is russian collusion is brought up far more often by those complaining about the left...than the left.  When was the last time anyone else here brought up russian collusion.  Yet it is posted about here by those acting as if the anti Trump crowd talks about Russia every day.

Often distorting what was actually discussed about Russia and Trump's involvment.

It's mainly used as an example to show that the media was often overwhelmingly accusatory about what Trump was doing, sensationalized their accusations, and then conveniently forgot about those accusations while moving on to other stories, never setting the record straight.

That this happened to him constantly is something one should be able to agree upon, but apparently we didn't focus negatively enough on the feeling one gets that he was an antidemocratic strongman for some. Which there is really no proof of, other than suggestive evidence to that point. (Suggestive evidence being the most flawed of evidence. It's not like he was ever able to curtail the press or people's actions like a dictator.) And I saw this repeatedly here and other places during his presidency. Behavior which would have been a scandal in any other administration gets bumped to Page 3, went the refrain. Well, it just shows how the knives were out for this guy.

Edited by rockaction
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night I heard a CNN panelist use the collective “we” when talking about a Democratic Party position.  I actually rewinded it to make sure I heard it correctly.  It’s stunning the extent to which CNN (and all media for that matter) have become partisan mouthpieces.  At what point do they have to be considered as in-kind contributions?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m kind of sick of talking about this but let me make two quick observations and then be done with it: 

1. The media focused on Donald Trump more than any other politician in American history because the ratings were so much higher. Trump’s followers loved hearing about him, especially when he pissed of the libs. Trump was the greatest of villains to those who opposed him. Trump used to brag that when he was no longer President all of the media ratings would go way down. He was right. 

2. Media attention was largely negative. I don’t think it was unfair at all. Trump was a clearly incompetent President who lied hundreds of times every day. Any honest portrayal would have to be largely negative. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

Last night I heard a CNN panelist use the collective “we” when talking about a Democratic Party position.  I actually rewinded it to make sure I heard it correctly.  It’s stunning the extent to which CNN (and all media for that matter) have become partisan mouthpieces.  At what point do they have to be considered as in-kind contributions?

If he wasn’t a news reporter then why is this a problem? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rockaction said:

It's mainly used as an example to show that the media was often overwhelmingly accusatory about what Trump was doing, sensationalized their accusations, and then conveniently forgot about those accusations while moving on to other stories, never setting the record straight.

That this happened to him constantly is something one should be able to agree upon, but apparently we didn't focus negatively enough on the feeling one gets that he was an antidemocratic strongman for some. Which there is really no proof of, other than suggestive evidence to that point. (Suggestive evidence being the most flawed of evidence. It's not like he was ever able to curtail the press or people's actions like a dictator.) And I saw this repeatedly here and other places during his presidency. Behavior which would have been a scandal in any other administration gets bumped to Page 3, went the refrain. Well, it just shows how the knives were out for this guy.

I think a big part of this is attributable to the Trump administration's penchant for lying.  The instinct for every reporter (and pretty much every person) is to assume that if someone is lying repeatedly about something, then there is something bad they are trying to hide.  When Jared Kushner submits his clearance forms multiple times and keeps leaving out stuff, the assumption is that he's leaving stuff out for a reason. The Trump administration was caught lying about stuff every single day.  Every time the media got wind of a lie, that felt to them like a foothold into a bigger coverup.

Now, it turns out that the Trump administration just loved to lie.  Sometimes they weren't hiding anything bad, the lie was just more of an "Eff you!"  And that confused the media.  But I have trouble blaming them for that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The General said:

When a bombastic, loud mouth president talks about not being able to flush his giant dumps it will get clicks.

Wasn’t this his whole strategy - not be low energy or sleepy?

Of course it will. That wasn't the example I used. CM said it wasn't reported on. It had made, either then or before, national news. That rebuts his point, and quite effectively. You've added to the rebuttal by knowing the story off-handedly. Think about that. We know stories about his flushing off-handedly. What does that say about the coverage of this President?

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Of course it will. That wasn't the example I used. CM said it wasn't reported on. It had made, either then or before, national news. That rebuts his point, and quite effectively. You've added to the rebuttal by knowing the story off-handedly. Think about that. We know stories about his flushing off-handedly. What does that say about the coverage of this President?

That it's normal?  If ANY President had made those remarks they would have been reported on.  And would likely have received much more media attention because any other President wouldn't have followed it up with something else stupid that the media needed to report on a few hours later 

ETA:  Here's a 5 minute rant on toilets and sinks and showers.   Are you seriously suggesting that if some other President had made this speech it wouldn't have made news?  These are the ramblings of a man who has no business being President.

Edited by fatguyinalittlecoat
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Of course it will. That wasn't the example I used. CM said it wasn't reported on. It had made, either then or before, national news. That rebuts his point, and quite effectively. You've added to the rebuttal by knowing the story off-handedly. Think about that. We know stories about his flushing off-handedly. What does that say about the coverage of this President?

The media covers outrageous stuff in large part because that’s what people click on. 

When interviewed and asked policy questions it was brutal. Go back and watch his early interviews. There should be punishments for women having abortions, I like my POWs to not be captured, the judge in my scam university lawsuit can’t judge me fairly because he’s Mexican.

Press practically did him a favor talking about this dumb stuff. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

That it's normal?  If ANY President had made those remarks they would have been reported on.  And would likely have received much more media attention because any other President wouldn't have followed it up with something else stupid that the media needed to report on a few hours later 

ETA:  Here's a 5 minute rant on toilets and sinks and showers.   Are you seriously suggesting that if some other President had made this speech it wouldn't have made news?  These are the ramblings of a man who has no business being President.

I'm not saying it wasn't newsworthy. CM said nobody reported on it when Trump gave a speech by where he lived. That might be true, but the implication they ignored that particular part of his ramblings is patently wrong.

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...