What does your ideal media look like (especially when it comes to Trump)?

Politics & Elections
1

If the media were to objectively hold Trump to the exact same standard that it held any other candidate, like Obama, Romney, Clinton or Harris, it would be a nonstop 24/7 dissection of every single Trump mistake, lie, fascism-embrace, etc. After all, Trump told over 13,000 lies in just a few years’ time, and has said or done hundreds of things that would have been career suicide for any normal mainstream candidate.

So by such a standard, the news, starting from late 2015 all the way til the present day, would have been wall to wall, page after page coverage of “Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad.” And to be sure, the media has been doing a lot of that in the last nine years. But at the same time, the media has done a lot of normalizing and whitewashing of Trump, making him look better and more presidential than he is. A true objective, unbiased, coverage of Trump would be relentless negativity, attack, dissection and investigation for nine years. It would read basically like a never-ending Holocaust Museum exhibit about the Holocaust.

If the media did the opposite and deliberately ignored Trump and pretended he didn’t exist, that would deny him a lot of the attention he craves, but also allow a thousand red flags to go uncovered and unnoticed.

But not just limited to Trump - what would you want the U.S. media to be like in its coverage of everything non-Trump, too?

2

If I had my druthers, right wing news as it exists today would cease to exist. You would of course have different news organizations which would have different editorial vibes, so the wall street journal might be more business friendly while the Washington blade would be more pro-LGBT. But they would all work under the assumption that presenting accurate facts, not advocacy, was the primary goal of journalism. So no Limbaugh, Infowars or Fox News.

Trump would be treated like an non-serious joke who consistently lied and peddled conspiracy theories that practically no one believed. He would not have a following because his audience would not have been trained to reject any information that didn’t match their biases, and accept anything that did. He would have as much influence on the Republican party as LaRouche had on the Dems. As such he would quickly be ignored except as an occasional entry in news of the weird. He may or may not have been investigated because without being a major candidate he might have kept under the radar avoiding scrutiny of his fraudulent activities. But the same is true of many other wealthy people. He might have gotten away with more, but the damage he caused would be much less.