I see a lot of comments about the media having “sane-washed” Trump. I am not an expert on what is presumed to be journalistic ethics, but I sure thought the mainstream media could have been more upfront proclaiming his incompetence and questionable stability/rationality. I suppose there is a belief that legitimate news should separate reportage from commentary. I perceive that reporting “facts” has limited effect on influencing peoples’ “feelings” which are based on (often mistaken) perceptions rather than facts.
So I’m wondering how the media will react should Trump pursue - and Congress/the courts enable - policies that truly harm individuals/groups/institutions.
I guess I’m expecting the media to thread an impossible needle, as their efforts to show the effect of policies usually. devolves into lengthy “human interest” pieces on one or a few folk (who in my opinion, generally aren’t all that sympathetic.)
All news going forward will be legitimate news, or they will cease to exist. I would not be suprised to see a lot of journilist falling out of windows or leaving the profession for “family” reasons.
Yeah - it is possible that news media will self censor - and/or continue to contract. Just one more “not great” potential development aiming in a direction I disfavor.
Talk about how the victims deserve it and how Trump is a visionary leader. “Journalistic ethics” in practice is just “say what my boss wants me to say”, and said bosses are a handful of large corporations and wealthy right wingers. That’s why the media worked so hard to get Trump elected.
Let’s not forget that the media is primarily concerned about making money. Lots of newspapers are closing these days putting lots of journalists out of work, which isn’t their goal.
I envision the media as a whole officially splitting into two distinct groups. One aimed at Trump supporters, and one aimed at Trump detractors. These two information silos won’t even try to present a balanced point-of-view. Their goal is to make money by telling people only what they want to hear so they keep coming back for more, which makes their advertisers very happy.
The current “legitimate” mainstream media tries to thread the needle and provide what it thinks is a balanced view which doesn’t please either side. With the current political polarization I see two separate groups of news sources that will report only what their audience wants to hear and read about. All we need now is for the mainstream media to pick a side and we are there.
Yeah. I think the roadmap for mainstream media in Trump II can be found in any of these nations:
Generically:
Better safe than sorry
Also, …
“It’s all documented in a 318-page “Plan For Putting the GOP on TV News.””
“Republican media strategist Roger Ailes launched Fox News Channel in 1996, ostensibly as a “fair and balanced” counterpoint to what he regarded as the liberal establishment media. But according to a remarkable document buried deep within the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, the intellectual forerunner for Fox News was a nakedly partisan 1970 plot by Ailes and other Nixon aides to circumvent the “prejudices of network news” and deliver “pro-administration” stories to heartland television viewers.”
“The memo—called, simply enough,” A Plan For Putting the GOP on TV News"— is included in a 318-page cache of documents detailing Ailes’ work for both the Nixon and George H.W. Bush administrations that we obtained from the Nixon and Bush presidential libraries."
I’m not aware of any reason for anything to change.
Ultimately, the media is going to have outfits that are more concerned with money and others that are more concerned with truth. In either case, they don’t have policing powers so all information comes from leakers - who may be leaking the truth or may be leaking information that’s been selected to be planted by political operatives on either side.
Ultimately, it’s on you the viewer the decide whether you want fun, entertainment, and scandal or if you want a boring slog of reasoned analysis. It’s on you to double-check what you’ve read, against primary sources, to see if it appears to be factually grounded.
There’s no short cut. There never was and there isn’t going to start to be.
4th estate is non-existent and maybe an unintended consequence of the internet age/social media. Replaced by right wing propaganda. And soon billionaire crony capitalists.
To the OP, there is no “legitimate” media. NY Times probably holding on by a fingernail, but they are going to be hard pressed to stand against the tide.
The biggest U.S. news gathering organization, the Associated Press, is non-profit.
This doesn’t make it impossible for a dictator to take over the media, but it makes it a lot harder than when you just have four oligarchs you need to capture (Turkey).
