Media credibility in the age of Trump


Guest Godless

Recommended Posts

Guest Godless

I stumbled across a very well-written article on Yahoo News, of all places, that does a great job of breaking down the hostility between Trump and the media. It asserts that while Trump indeed fits many of negative characterizations made of him, the media both empowers him and cripples themselves with the way they cover him. Probably not a new idea for anyone here, but it's refreshing to see this viewpoint from a left-leaning journalist. As much as I dislike Trump, the best way to defeat him is with honest impartiality and integrity. Otherwise, you're just feeding into his ego. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Godless said:

I stumbled across a very well-written article on Yahoo News, of all places, that does a great job of breaking down the hostility between Trump and the media. It asserts that while Trump indeed fits many of negative characterizations made of him, the media both empowers him and cripples themselves with the way they cover him. Probably not a new idea for anyone here, but it's refreshing to see this viewpoint from a left-leaning journalist. As much as I dislike Trump, the best way to defeat him is with honest impartiality and integrity. Otherwise, you're just feeding into his ego. 

As a lefty, I was very disappointed in the reporting of CNN and NBC. Both networks suggested that There was a strong case for impeachment which anyone with an understanding of the process knew to be highly unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Godless Thank you for posting. Great article. Great suggestions in article. The media needs to calm down. Armageddon is declared on a daily basis. 

I sometimes wonder what goes on in those media offices. Have you ever seen the comedy sketch about a rock star arriving for a business meeting with his record company? As the rock star enters the building, he is in a rage, swearing and spitting. When he arrives in his manager’s office, the door closes and the rock star suddenly transforms into a normal person. He and the manager calmly discuss finances and other practical matters and end by exchanging pleasantries. The rock star leaves the office and immediately returns to being a swearing and spitting thug.

Is something similar going on in newsrooms? Is there a director coaching the media stars to behave more and more aggressively? Make more spurious allegations? Has tv news become a circus with a lion tamer demanding frenetic behaviour from the news stars? I can’t listen to a lot of us news any more. I do not believe that the world is ending. I am tired of the hysteria.

Mind you. I once had a job compiling news clippings. The Canadian equivalent of the Wall Street Journal made many completely erroneous predictions and was routinely totally off base. The predictions never came to pass and the paper never excused/apologized or ever adddressed their past mistakes. The paper repeatedly lionized companies that fell into bancrupcy a year later and adored tycoons who went to jail a year later. The articles were so routinely off base that you could have made good money short selling any company that the paper championed. 

Do you remember Mark Twain’s short story about journalism? Very apt! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I’m not talking about the weirdness on cable channels. I’m talking about the best newspapers and websites in the country, which present almost every mundane act by this administration in dramatic tones beyond all proportion, as if the mere act of Trump trying to govern constituted an existential threat.

Guess what? By definition, they are not "the best newspapers and websites in the country".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article is a bald-faced, almost hilarious undisguised hypocrisy. 'We don't owe Trump any apology, because we were right. Doesn't matter whether the Mueller report agrees with us. Trump is icky, so we were justified. The problem is that we came off looking bad, and for that we need to take responsibility." Hah, hah.

I find it both interesting and scary how, as time goes on and Trump continues to reveal just how Trumpian he is, I find myself more and more in support of him. Truly this is a battle of the lesser of two evils, and truly Trump was the lesser evil compared to Clinton. But compared to the press? Yup. Terrifying. I trust Donald J. Trump more—a very great deal more—than I trust CNN or the New York Times. I don't even like the guy. I find him somewhat repulsive. But he is so vastly much better less slimy and disgusting than the Democrats or the mainstream media that I'm left in his corner by default.

Whatever his manifold faults, Trump will not bring down America. I definitely cannot say the same for the Democratic Party and the MSM.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
47 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

As a lefty, I was very disappointed in the reporting of CNN and NBC. Both networks suggested that There was a strong case for impeachment which anyone with an understanding of the process knew to be highly unlikely.

I still think there may be an objective case for impeachment. A lot of it hangs on what's in the Meuller report, which we don't know yet. We just know what AG Barr has told us, which would be akin to a 2 year investigation into Obama ending with Loretta Lynch telling everyone that there was nothing conclusive. You think the Fox & Friends crowd would buy that?

Right now, I feel like the question is shifting from can we impeach to should we. And I'd say the answer is no. Media hysteria has demolished the public's faith on them, even for some of us on the left. That, coupled with the administration's response to it, has left the country severely divided. Impeachment proceedings, especially with a lack of objective reporting to cover it, will only make that worse.

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Guess what? By definition, they are not "the best newspapers and websites in the country".

I would argue that anti-Trumpism has morphed some otherwise decent publications into sensationalist nonsense. I think that's the point he was trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
11 minutes ago, Vort said:

I find it both interesting and scary how, as time goes on and Trump continues to reveal just how Trumpian he is, I find myself more and more in support of him. Truly this is a battle of the lesser of two evils, and truly Trump was the lesser evil compared to Clinton. But compared to the press? Yup. Terrifying. I trust Donald J. Trump more—a very great deal more—than I trust CNN or the New York Times. I don't even like the guy. I find him somewhat repulsive. But he is so vastly much better less slimy and disgusting than the Democrats or the mainstream media that I'm left in his corner by default.

And that's exactly the point the author is trying to make. The MSM has turned Trump into a sypathetic figure in the eyes of many Republicans who probably had reservations about him 3 years ago. Trump has exposed the media's bias and weaponized it. I've seen a lot of GOP never-Trumpers change course over the past couple years, and while I don't doubt that current economic conditions have played a significant role, I think that the MSM's relentless vitriol has pushed them away from anti-Trumpism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

BTW, I strongly feel that Fox News had a similar effect on some Democrats who may not have been sold on Obama. When the loudest detractors are people like Hannity and O'Reilly, it suddenly becomes easier to overlook any shortcomings Obama may have had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think impeachment is off the table. Impeachment is a political process. The reprentatives from both parties would have to vote for impeachment. There will never be sufficient support for impeachment. 

So the left is stuck with Trump for at least the rest of his term and...possibly for another term. Trump has support. Regardless of his behaviour, people prefer him to the democrats. 

I wonder if the Democrats might gain more support if they moved closer to the Center? 

One of the challenges is getting the left voters to the polls. As I understand it, US employers are not required to allow workers sufficient time off to vote. Voter registration seems to require effort on the part of voters rather than the government handling the process as occurs in Canada. However, changes to laws that increase voting among lower incomes is unlikely to occur under the Republicans. The US may be Red for sometime to come...unless a right wing 3rd party candidate appears. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Godless said:

And that's exactly the point the author is trying to make. The MSM has turned Trump into a sypathetic figure in the eyes of many Republicans who probably had reservations about him 3 years ago. Trump has exposed the media's bias and weaponized it. I've seen a lot of GOP never-Trumpers change course over the past couple years, and while I don't doubt that current economic conditions have played a significant role, I think that the MSM's relentless vitriol has pushed them away from anti-Trumpism.

Yet look at this absolutely shameless hypocrisy from CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/03/28/reality-check-donald-trump-political-opponents-evil-sot-vpx-avlon-newday.cnn

CNN, who has been calling conservatives evil for more than a decade, now decides that's not nice and that Republicans shouldn't do it. The "shocking" 42% of people who describe members of the opposition party as "evil"? Hah hah. That's been the Democrat norm for at least twenty years. If the Republicans are doing that now, they have a long way to go to catch up with the Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. CNN has not behaved well as the Yahoo article makes clear. Over the top exaggerations and wild speculations not based in reality. 

Mind you, the CNN business model has been a financial bonanza. CNN’s market share has increased dramatically.

Edited by Sunday21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sunday21 said:

I think impeachment is off the table. Impeachment is a political process. The reprentatives from both parties would have to vote for impeachment. There will never be sufficient support for impeachment.

It's far more than this, Sunday21, though as a Canadian you might not see that. The US is no European democracy. Impeachment is not a vote of no-confidence. It is for high crimes and misdemeanors. The Republicans successfully (?) used it against Clinton because he lied to Congress under oath. The Democrats want to impeach Trump for collusion with Russia, yet Mueller apparently did not find sufficient evidence to secure any more charges. On what basis do the Democrats impeach? Or is this, like the Democrat court-packing threat, just a truthful expression of their naked ambition and disregard for the checks and balances of the Constitution?

The Democrat Party is the worst. Period. People like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are not the outliers in their party, despite media claims. They are very close to the mainstream. The Democrats have openly become the anti-American party, advocating for open borders and extending the franchise to non-citizens. In biological terms, the Democratic Party is a cancer in the US political system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
3 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I wonder if the Democrats might gain more support if they moved closer to the Center? 

Absolutely, and that has to start with the media pumping the brakes a bit. MSM (minus Fox) is seen as the voice of the Democratic Party, and frankly that's pretty accurate right now. The media has the power to control the liberal narrative around Trump's America, and they've used that power recklessly at best. More level-headed reporting is our best chance at defeating Trump in 2020, but I don't forsee such a drastic shift happening in the next 12 months.

3 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

One of the challenges is getting the left voters to the polls. As I understand it, US employers are not required to allow workers sufficient time off to vote. Voter registration seems to require effort on the part of voters rather than the government handling the process as occurs in Canada. However, changes to laws that increase voting among lower incomes is unlikely to occur under the Republicans. The US may be Red for sometime to come...unless a right wing 3rd party candidate appears. 

Many states have early voting periods, which definitely makes it easier for people to vote on their own schedule rather than try to make it work on one specific day. There was recently an attempt to make Election Day a federal holiday to get more people out of work so they can vote, but the GOP defeated it. Because you're right, the people who would benefit most from easier voting access are low income citizens who are likely to vote Democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

As I understand it, US employers are not required to allow workers sufficient time off to vote. Voter registration seems to require effort on the part of voters rather than the government handling the process as occurs in Canada. However, changes to laws that increase voting among lower incomes is unlikely to occur under the Republicans.

Sunday21, do you think that, just maybe, you're swallowing the leftist media's nonsensical ideas? Or do you really believe that your Republican friends on this forum are actively seeking to repress the voting of their political opponents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Vort said:

Or do you really believe that your Republican friends on this forum are actively seeking to repress the voting of their political opponents

No I do not think that Republican Party members are trying to repress the voting patterns of those with opossing views.

But politicians of any political view trying to manipulate voting patterns? Yes I do believe this. As someone who lived In a nation’s capital, the political parties of any political stripe will move heaven and earth to manipulate any part of the system to increase their chances of election. And how will political parties do this? Change voting boundaries, commit fraud to direct opposition voters to the wrong location (Happened recently in Canada), buy alcohol for voters in exchange for votes (1970s Nova Scotia), invent scandals and don’t get me started on military helicopters. You don’t want to hear about those helicopters! 

Edited by Sunday21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Ok Military helicopters. One party, maybe the right wing party I am not sure, wanted to buy some helicopters. This party lost a confidence vote in parliament so an election was called. The Center-left party won and immediately bought those helicopters. @SpiritDragon Did I get this right? Or am I misrembering the helicopter scandal?  

To be honest I was never clear on just what happened with the helicopter fiasco...

Some potentially light shedding info from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Sea_King_replacement

Quote

Political delays[edit]

Following a change of government in October 1993, the incoming Liberal Party ordered the immediate cancellation of the order, forcing the payment of C$500 million of cancellation fees. By not purchasing the helicopters and slashing the DND budget, the government aimed to trim the deficit and be more fiscally responsible. As a negative, the Liberal government left itself with little maneuvering room as the Sea King fleet continued to age and its systems become obsolete; a replacement was needed but no alternative or contingency plan had been made. Some commentators observed that cancelling the NSA contract was not a fiscally responsible move.[9] During one debate, Chrétien famously retorted that the President of the United States still flew in a Sea King, thus the helicopter was also good enough for Canada.

By the mid -1990s, each Sea King required over 30 man-hours of maintenance for every flying hour, a figure described by the Canadian Naval Officers Association as 'grossly disproportionate'.[10] Furthermore, the helicopters are unavailable for operations 40% of the time and due to the airframes being typically 10–15 years older than other operators' fleets, AIRCOM are often forced to have spare parts custom-made as Sikorsky's supplies are either overly expensive or out of production. Many observers regards AIRCOM's Sea Kings as unreliable, outdated and expensive to maintain. On February 27, 2003, when HMCS Iroquois was deploying to the Arabian Sea, a Sea King crashed shortly after takeoff, and images of the crashed helicopter lying on its side on the destroyer's landing pad were embarrassing.[11] Late that year, the entire fleet was grounded (except for essential operations) for several weeks after two aircraft coincidentally lost power within days of each other.

When it became clear that new helicopters were desperately needed to replace the Sea King, the Liberal government began a slow procurement process that critics accused of being deliberately tailored to prevent the selection of the EH-101. The government continually modified the replacement project's terms, dubbed the Maritime Helicopter Project. The project was divided into two sections, with distinct airframe and integrated mission systems components. The two-parts approach was attacked from all sides; opponents insisted that separating the major MHP components would only raise total costs.[12] Public Works insistence on "lowest-cost compliant" bids failed to help the situation.[13] In December 2002, the new Minister of National Defence, John McCallum, reversed 'two-part' approach, opting "to proceed with a single contract rather than two". However, this decision was criticized, often by the same elements who had attacked the earlier decision to split the MHP contest, as the procurement process was forced to restart.[14]

The Liberal government continued the leisurely pace of the project despite several high-profile Sea King crashes. It became clear that policy-makers were waiting for Jean Chrétien to retire; when Chrétien retired in December 2003, the new Prime Minister, Paul Martin, made replacing the Sea Kings a top priority within the DND. A spending freeze was applied to all other major DND projects, except for the Maritime Helicopter Project. On December 17, 2003, tenders were issued for the selection of a Sea King replacement.[14]

Candidates for the Maritime Helicopter Project consisted of Sikorsky's S-92 Superhawk, NHIndustries NH-90, and AgustaWestland's EH-101.[13] The DND subsequently decided that the NH-90 was non-compliant with requirements and thus was eliminated from the contest, despite rumours that the NH-90 had all but won the contest months before. The NH-90's apparent reversal of favour may be seen as politically motivated, as Canada was keen on improving industrial relations with France. Other factors indicated that the DND had valid reasons to reject the NH-90, such as size, which had influenced the project from the outset.[14]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Godless said:

I stumbled across a very well-written article on Yahoo News, of all places, that does a great job of breaking down the hostility between Trump and the media. It asserts that while Trump indeed fits many of negative characterizations made of him, the media both empowers him and cripples themselves with the way they cover him. Probably not a new idea for anyone here, but it's refreshing to see this viewpoint from a left-leaning journalist. As much as I dislike Trump, the best way to defeat him is with honest impartiality and integrity. Otherwise, you're just feeding into his ego. 

I appreciate you posting the article. I was a Never Trumper. I still don't like him, and doubt that I ever will. He is crass, dishonest, and has done serious damage to alliances I think are vital to our security (NATO, South Korea, etc.). Yet the media's blatant bias against him and honestly anyone to the right of Trotsky has left me in the same position as @Vort. I am starting to not trust anything they say about him at all, and I'm seriously considering voting for him next November (I voted third party last election for the first and so far only time in my life). I've dropped all major news publications that I used to at least somewhat trust, and have focused on gleaning what truth I can from the AP. Maybe that's a good thing, I'm more vigilant about what I hear than ever before in my life, but I want the press to do their job. I don't want misleading clickbait articles and gleeful jumping onto whatever they call the next big scandal. While I am right wing, I appreciate this article and hope that someday the press can get back to being the 4th branch of the government they are supposed to be. I don't believe they will, but hey I try to be somewhat optimistic. Thanks for the thought provoking discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I appreciate you posting the article. I was a Never Trumper. I still don't like him, and doubt that I ever will. He is crass, dishonest, and has done serious damage to alliances I think are vital to our security (NATO, South Korea, etc.). Yet the media's blatant bias against him and honestly anyone to the right of Trotsky has left me in the same position as @Vort. I am starting to not trust anything they say about him at all, and I'm seriously considering voting for him next November (I voted third party last election for the first and so far only time in my life). I've dropped all major news publications that I used to at least somewhat trust, and have focused on gleaning what truth I can from the AP. Maybe that's a good thing, I'm more vigilant about what I hear than ever before in my life, but I want the press to do their job. I don't want misleading clickbait articles and gleeful jumping onto whatever they call the next big scandal. While I am right wing, I appreciate this article and hope that someday the press can get back to being the 4th branch of the government they are supposed to be. I don't believe they will, but hey I try to be somewhat optimistic. Thanks for the thought provoking discussion.

It would take a LOT for me to ever vote for Trump.  I do not think I'm even close to voting for him now.  Most likely, I'd vote for just about anyone who ran against him.

That said, this entire impeachment idea seems more like a witch hunt akin to the Salem witch trials than anything legitimate.  I think the fanaticism of the media and others in the Democrat party has only hurt them and their aspirations among those who are not among the far left. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JohnsonJones said:

It would take a LOT for me to ever vote for Trump.  I do not think I'm even close to voting for him now.  Most likely, I'd vote for just about anyone who ran against him.

That said, this entire impeachment idea seems more like a witch hunt akin to the Salem witch trials than anything legitimate.  I think the fanaticism of the media and others in the Democrat party has only hurt them and their aspirations among those who are not among the far left. 

I agree with you about the impeachment idea especially. It's almost as if many on the far left seem to have forgotten that having to impeach a president is a horrendous thing for the country to go through (see Nixon), and act like it would be something to celebrate. Plus it's amazing that many in the country who should understand how the government works, don't seem to understand that you need the House and 2/3 of the Senate to remove a president. The Republicans were unable to get a supermajority to remove President Andrew Johnson, one of the worst presidents in history, even with extremely favorable political conditions, and you are not going to get 2/3 of the Senate on board in this climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
9 hours ago, Godless said:

I still think there may be an objective case for impeachment. A lot of it hangs on what's in the Meuller report, which we don't know yet. We just know what AG Barr has told us, which would be akin to a 2 year investigation into Obama ending with Loretta Lynch telling everyone that there was nothing conclusive. You think the Fox & Friends crowd would buy that?

So, you're following the media bandwagon on this one, eh?  Based on what?  Is there any evidence at all which would lead you to believe otherwise?  What in anything that Trump has ever said would indicate that Trump was guilty of siding with Russia on anything.  His policy has always been "America First."  You think Russians would have been rooting for him?  Hillary had been getting all kinds of illegal money flowing into her campaign (directly or indirectly) from Russian sources, and instead of helping her, they collude with Trump? 

Yes, you're being completely impartial, unbiased, and reasonable.

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

Loading...