But does it have to be yours?
[Woody Allen]
“I was thrown out of NYU in my freshman year, for cheating on my metaphysics final; I looked within the soul of the boy sitting next to me.”
[/Woody Allen]
In this instance, the old three networks manufactured space they “had” to fill when they’ve had “Special Reports” interrupting hours of already-filled scheduled programming despite having no new information.
For example, well before Saturday Night Live’s airtime, we already knew Trump was OK with a bloody ear, one bystander was killed, and the would-be assassin was dead. We also didn’t know more than that. Nonetheless, NBC preempted SNL with even more “Special Report” time.
Hell, some of the networks were still doing tilling-the-same-tired-ground “Special Reports” interrupting live sports and other programming on Sunday!
If Trump actually did urge his supporters to shoot Hillary Clinton then an objective media should report it exactly that way.
This is a good thing.
But: say you’re the guy who gets to make the call at NBC: do you air the SNL rerun, or do you air a Special Report? Factor in whether CBS is running a Special Report, with someone who looks like they’re about to say something really important; viewers might switch over to CBS; what do you do?
No it’s not. By actively refusing to mention the fact that Trump DID NOT FUCKING WRITE that it’s saying that Trump is a normal candidate just like any other who writes nice political platitudes about unity in difficult times, etc. Trump is not a normal candidate he is a fascist set on the destruction of our system of government. And one of the ways he shows that is by his every written or spoken utterance being unhinged poisonous rants.
This is just one of the ways the media has normalized and enabled Trump (and has decided to go all in on that post assassination attempt) probably not the most important. But to me it’s one of the more blatant. Like I’m not asking them to show a shred of decency and maybe oppose the descent into fascism, but at least actually report the facts the are abundantly clear. This piece of writing is nothing like anything Trump has ever written or said. That not a single media outlet pointed that out is a travesty.
You miss the point. Yes, he did suggest to his acolytes that a “second amendment solution” to the threat of Hillary might be appropriate. The point is that if the media reports that he “wants” Hillary assassinated and then reports that he “appeals” for national unity, the media should have its collective schizophrenic head examined. They should be reporting what he says or what he posts, and not implicitly ascribing authentic motives to it.
In this specific case, one of Trump’s minions made an obviously hypocritical post on his behalf on Truth Social. Report the post that was made? Sure. Characterize it as the orange felon “appealing” for national unity? Bullshit.
Look. That shot is front-page, above-the-fold and full-color any time and every time. It’s a very powerful historical image.*
Just because his politics are repulsive it can’t change the journalistic value of that moment captured visually.
*I’m a photojournalist. There lots of snaps of the event. I haven’t seen one that is out of this world amazing in an ‘Ali defeats Frazier’ [or whoever it was] kind of way. But the moment they were photographing presented a historic, photogenic, magic moment".
There had to be plenty of other images that also captured the moment visually. But they chose the one that made Trump look best.
I’m sorry, but we’re letting you go, Akaj. Maybe you’re just not cut out to be a photo editor at a major media outlet.
Yeah I’m with you here unfortunately that image was always going to be the iconic one that memorializes the event in memory, I don’t fault the media for that. Similarly to the infamous execution photo during the Vietnam Tet Offensive (which the photojournalist regretted for the rest of his life)
Its all the other crap I do fault them for, like, for example: not pointing out that refusing to get out of the line of fire until you have your shoes (while your security are actively protecting you with their bodies!) is not showing bravado or bravery its actually pretty unhinged behavior.
Aww, man …
Seriously, I do work in marketing (though not on the design side), and if I were a member of Trump’s team that’s exactly the image I would have picked. I hate that the supposedly mainstream media agrees with that choice.
It’s a possibility. We all know there’s a ZERO chance of him becoming a worse person.
I think Trump deserves a pass on this one. It’s common for people in a crisis to suddenly fixate on some random object - as mentioned in the other thread, those in a car crash can suddenly care a lot about whether their shoelaces were properly tied, or a shirt someone is wearing, or about a window having lost its pane of glass. Apparently it’s some psychology thing about grounding oneself in reality after an unexpected shock. Of all the thousands of bad things Trump has said or done, I don’t think this one is intentional, or a sign of bad character.
But in terms of the narrative the media chooses to tell it’s an important difference. Yeah choosing to look for your shoes when being shot at is not the sign of a psychopath but the media tells the 'Trump bravely defies assassin’s bullets" story not the “Trump confusedly looks for his shoes while Secret Service tries desperately to drag him away” story. That’s an editorial decision that is a actively encouraging our descent into fascism.
So random thought (slight sidetrack but it’s the pit), what effect does PTSD on the progression of senility? Is it the kind of thing that could lead to a sudden dramatic decline?
I wouldn’t be too sure of that! Every time we’ve thought he’s sunk to his lowest, he’s surprised us with yet another “gotcha!”
Good God I’m sick of seeing that damn photo everywhere.
I saw one headline that noted she called the shooter “a monster.” Yeah, a monster for making her think she was finally getting that sweet inheritance, right?
Not if he comes out of this with an enlarged sense of ego and invulnerability. As some who have come close to death do.
~Max
The hell is with this your side lost? “My side” is the United States, same as you I presume.
I don’t know why you even felt the need to point this out. I never implied Lincoln was the “causative aggressor” in the civil war. There are multiple primary causes of the civil war including Lincoln’s election. If you’re going to stubbornly insist on one cause to the exclusion of all others, it had better be slavery and not “The Lost Cause (the Confederacy) caused it”. The Lost Cause is a specific phrase that refers to an alternate universe version of the Confederacy where slavery didn’t cause the civil war, and it is a myth, full stop. I never said or implied the Confederacy didn’t fire the first shots. If someone starts a war that does not necessarily imply moral responsibility. Start: to set into motion, operation, or activity. As in, a shot that started the race. I said Trump hasn’t started a civil war yet, and in my book Lincoln and maybe Tyler were more divisive presidents. The only implication is that Lincoln’s causative role in the civil war was divisive, not culpability. Did you notice I threw Tyler in there too? Aside from pissing off just about everyone when he was president, in his later years he actually voted to split the southern states off and helped form the Confederacy! Hard to be more divisive than that, but Trump is getting there!
~Max
Or for lying and telling her he was a good shot when he took her money 