If you ask me, part of the problem is the media’s obsession with Trump’s Twitter feed. It’s what helped him get elected, because the media would go nuts over every stupid thing he tweeted, and they’re still doing it. What they need to do is turn off Twitter and only report things he says through official channels. If he was forced to stand up in front of a camera and make these claims, we’d probably be seeing a lot fewer of them.
It’s the (personal) Twitter account of the president. How is it not an official channel?
Why is it the media’s responsibility to enforce restraint and moral responsibility on an adult who is unable and unwilling to conduct himself in a manner fitting the office of PotUS?
Yesterday, This Week with George Stephanopoulos covered the wiretap claim extensively. I was surprised that they took the claim seriously. Someone suggested that there might have been a FISA warrant to tap phones in Trump Tower without Obama being aware of it. Someone also pointed out that as president, if Trump wanted to know whether his phones were being tapped prior to his election, he has the authority to find out.
Because you’re wrong.
“Santa Claus sneaks into my house every Christmas; therefore why would it be controversial that aliens sneak into my house through the chimney every Sunday night?”
My bold.
This is the part that boggles my mind. So now, if Trump says that the Obama White House was communicating with the Chinese/Russians/Al-Qaeda by exchanging encrypted rolls of toilet paper, the media, Congress, and everyone automatically drops everything to sift through sewage?
It’s the birther thing all over again-- why is some off-the-wall, half-assed accusation of Trump’s suddenly in all the headlines? He’s jerking everyone around because he likes the feel of the reins twitching in his little boy’s hands.
It reminds me of a line in Broadcast News when Albert Brooks is feeding lines to Holly Hunter, who is, in turn, feeding info to on-air William Hurt. Albert says something like, “I say it *here *and it comes out there.” Trump posts these asinine tweets in the small hours with his small hands and then turns on the TV (because he [del]can’t[/del] doesn’t read, you know) and “it comes out there.” Holy crap–how can anyone take him seriously??
And how the hell does any of this constitute running the country? It doesn’t. Because he’s not interested in, nor is he capable of running the country.
It’s a serious allegation and should be examined seriously. From all sides. Explain why this can/cannot happen, the steps the President needs to take to do such a thing, the steps the President needs to take so he can find out if this had happened, etc.
The only thing that orange jackass knows how to run is his mouth.
QED
Falsely accuse != lie. Had they said “lie” that would have been editorializing. There is no evidence that Trump knew he was making a false accusation, but there is also no evidence that there was a wiretap.
The Times headline was even more wishy-washy. They said that Trump made the claim without proof. I would have said “without evidence”. One can have evidence that does not rise to the level of proof.
If one *has *evidence, why does one demand that congress investigate to uncover said evidence?
It’s not the media’s responsibility, but they are definitely encouraging the behavior. If he tweeted and everyone ignored it, would he continue to tweet?
Perhaps not. But without a doubt he’d find an alternative method of making himself the center of attention. He’s a media whore. Has been all his life. What makes you think he’ll stop or moderate his behaviour when he’s got the loudest mega-phone in the free world?
When he tweets and the media don’t respond, the 10s of millions of followers of those tweets will be convinced that the press is covering something up.
Ignoring them is not a winning strategy. Covering them, briefly, and saying “no evidence” when that is the case, may be the best approach.
No. We are NOT normalizing this. Fact-checking is not “editorialising,” both sides are not “just as bad,” and performing proper journalism rather than printing factual falsehoods is what the news media is supposed to do.
(post shortened)
The media gloves have been off for a very long time.
CNN has taken it upon themselves to decide that someone FALSELY ACCUSES someone else of blah, blah, blah. I guess CNN no longer considers themselves to be an impartial news organization.
What’s not impartial about saying that the President is full of shit? There’s nothing insulting about that – it’s just fact. Next we’re going to hear that it’s just, like, our opinion, man, that water is wet, or the sky is blue.
“Falsely” implies certain knowledge of falsehood, whereas, as I understand it, no evidence has been offered to support the claim, however implausible it may look. So while it may be a bit wordy for a headline, “Unsupported claims” would be the neutral way of putting it, until somebody does some proper investigating and publishes what they find - or most likely won’t, of course.
[Deleted duplicate post]
I disagree. I used to be a magician in a store. One thing I liked a lot was a stick with six colours on it. I would show the observer that the stick had six colours on each side. Next, I’d have the observer pick a number. I would use the number to land on one of the colours. Showing both sides of the stick again, I’d magically change both sides to the selected colour.
If the observer stated/tweeted/got on TV and broadcast, ‘Johnny L.A. magically changed colours on a stick,’ he may believe it is true. But the statement is still false.
It’s also a reason that many people do not trust the news media outlets to provide all the facts and nothing but the facts. CNN didn’t even attempt to be impartial. It’s their choice, of course, but this won’t help CNN’s reputation as a trusted news provider.
Maybe CNN could ask Obama to answer the question? That would be a novel approach.