Acosta would’ve said something.
At least he had the decorum to not quote the whole line:
They wouldn’t be wrong.
I kind of got to use it just now. I was going to my car with my dog and my next door neighbor was out. I used to bring in their trash cans and shover their walk when it snowed, but they put up a Trump sign and I haven’t spoken to them since. They tried waving at me and I just look through them like they’re not there.
Anyway, my dog was whining because he was excited to be getting in the car and I got to say “quiet, piggy.”
That’ll do.
That’s what I’ve said they should do. He lives and dies on his ratings, so don’t give him any.
There’s really no point in covering these people in any depth, and certainly not in talking to them. They refuse to answer any question they don’t like, and the answers they give to the questions they do like are some combination of lies, blather, and praising Dear Leader for nothing.
Cover the things he actually does, but post no videos, no pictures, nothing.
He needs the press. Like NEEDS the press.
I’ve thought since day one when he came down that elevator, “What are they covering this guy for?”
It hasn’t stopped for one second since.
The press is a double edge sword. Celebrities and politicians need them. The press needs newsworthy folks to cover. These famous get what they ask for. Then bitch because they’re asked questions they don’t like.
There’s a level of decorum required to cover the president closely. If he breaks down the good manners the reporters should respond in some way. “Hey, that was rude” or “Dial it back, Donny” or something.
Sounds like your 4th grade teacher? Yeah, well….
The problem with reporters refusing to cover Trump is that only a small minority would do so. The rest would be so eager to cover Trump that they’d flock to him like flies to shit. This proposed boycott could never work.
Bear in mind, the average reporter isn’t some paragon of virtue. They go into the career motivated by lust for ratings, clicks, views, attention and notoriety - in fact, a bit like Trump himself. They are not people you could count on to make any sort of principled moral stand.
Ugh. That’s sad to contemplate.
Man, the more I hear about this Donald Trump guy the more I don’t care for him.
Really puts the malignancy in malignant narcissism, don’t he?
What the hell? Are you talking only about TV reporters? Because I don’t think most print reporters fall under your personal definition.
On a whim, I went over to foxnews and couldn’t find any mention of the story. Not through search, not through looking through the past two days of Trump headlines. Shocking, right? So they’ll probably have no idea what you’re talking about.
I agree, heartily. My experience with print (newspaper journalists) is very different, both in Massachusetts and the upper Midwest. Very principled, idealistic, truth-seeking, community building.
Both my parents were print journalists. “Average reporters”. They were motivated by a perhaps naive but idealistic search for truth, and altruism. They were dedicated to the traditional principles of journalism: Who, what, when, where, why and how. For salaries only.
The above statement made by @Velocity could not be more off the mark, at least applied to my family members.
I’ll allow there are some grubby opportunists motivated by self-enrichment in television showboating. I don’t consider them “average reporters”. I consider them shills.
If you can’t stand the heat, insult the kitchen.
(Not you, but that seems to be Trump’s approach.)
Narcissists project their own bad traits on their victims.
Yeah, Velocity’s statement about the “average reporter” is laughable. Your average person in journalism makes peanuts, has barely any recognition and works often-insane hours, all because they believe so strongly that what they’re doing is for the good of their country and/or community. I say this as a one-time “average reporter” who still has friends in the journalism world.
Of course you’ve got your famous, highly-paid people on national tv, but those aren’t your average reporters any more than Scarlett Johansson is your average actor.
I’m happy to go on ignoring the issue of whether or to what extent journalism as a career field selects for ethical behavior in its practitioners, or for unethical behavior, or whatever. However that may be, I think press opportunities with public figures should still be expected to conform to the following:
- Standard etiquette protocols for ethical conduct on the part of journalists during a press opportunity.
- Standard etiquette protocols for a public figure interacting with a journalist who’s behaving ethically.
- Standard etiquette protocols for a public figure interacting with a journalist who’s behaving unethically.
I can’t see a public figure saying “Quiet, piggy” to a journalist as an appropriate part of any such protocols, even the last. I don’t think public service and information transparency in a democracy is well served or “refreshed” in any way by elected officials hurling playground taunts at reporters.
It’s not. But when compared to all the truly illegal and intolerable things Trump has done, this is a speed bump. I don’t understand why this thread was even started, if we’re concerned over Trump “nastiness”. Killing foreigners without due process; election fraud; perverting government agencies and the rule of law; soliciting bribes; providing cover and support for foreign governments that kill journalists, to name but a few… but this is what spurns the outrage?