No, they shouldn’t. They should publish the liars so they can be damned by their own lies. The press should, of course, highlight the lies. They should, however, be careful when dealing with hyperbole and metaphor: something like, “Today Trump said that the river was running red with the blood of America’s enemies; scientists note that the river is red actually because of iron oxide deposits upstream.” isn’t going to wash.
IMHO it was the onset of the 24-hour news cycle that undermined accurate reporting, when getting there with the story first became more important than getting it right. When people got their news from two or more editions of a daily paper and a couple of TV/radio reports, there was more time to check the facts before reporting a story.
Now there’s too much information all the time and it’s up to the reader/viewer to decide what’s true and what’s not.
Anyone who asks the question, “why should covering Trump be different from covering any other President?” is naive at best and disingenuous at worst. Here are a whole bunch of articleson the subject just from the past year.
I agree with this and, sadly, with the following, too:
This is a comprehensive answer.
But you weren’t speaking english. I asked you to explain your terms and you can’t?
Try again.
How’s approval ratings working for you? An imaginary figment?
While I keep hearing about how the media is worried about “access” to the president, I’m wondering if it even matters anymore.
Suppose Trump decides no more press conferences for him, no more live press conferences even by a representative. From now on, any commentary from the White House comes exclusively through Twitter. So what?
As far as I can tell, the function of any White House Press Secretary is to simply obfuscate while parroting the official talking points. The media can get those talking points via Twitter if Trump decides that’s what he wants, and the press can submit questions that way too. Trump and his people can then obfuscate there instead of in person.
So I don’t really see why “access” is important, apart from whatever ratings bump accompanies a White House press conference. Policies get created, disseminated (I’m assuming that one) and put into action. The media can report on that without “access”.
What am I missing here? Woodward and Bernstein did what they did by writing about it, not standing up at a press conference and going, “A-ha, gotcha!!!” Who cares if the media gets to ask questions in person that aren’t going to be answered productively anyway?
As John Oliver so eloquently put it, “even when you can demonstrably prove Trump to be wrong, it somehow never seems to matter,”[…]“You can hold his feet to the fire, but he’ll just stand there on the stumps, bragging about his fireproof foot skin.”
At the very least, I’d like to see the press drop all use of the term Obamacare and use the official term Affordable Care Act. Thus every future interview will be along the lines of:
Republican Pol: We’re gong to repeal Obamacare!
Reporter: And what is your plan after you repeal the Affordable Care Act?
If there are indeed Americans who are honestly unaware that the two are synonymous, the press should take responsibility to clarify it for them.
I was referring to your post (aka your terms).
The LSM, the Democrat collective, Hillary worshippers, and comedians, aren’t going to stop trashing Trump. SOP = SSDD. The approval rating’s may show that. As you may remember, the approval ratings also suggested that Trump couldn’t beat Hillary in the general election.
Meanwhile, Trump’s administration will begin running the executive branch of the government. The Republicans in Congress will run the legislative branch. And the Democrats will do their best to slow things down. I doubt that the approval ratings will have much effect, either way.
I suspect that is because only the Democrat collective take comedian John Oliver’s ramblings seriously. The other side only considers the comedian John Oliver to be a comedian, and nothing more.
Let’s be accurate: Trump didn’t beat Hillary in the “general election.” She beat him by ~3 million votes. He won in the Electoral College. Not the same thing.
The general election is the phrase used to distinguish from the primaries; it means the election that selects the members of the Electoral College.
The country-wide popular vote total has no meaning in selecting a winner, and therefore isn’t really called “the general election.”
The President, on that issue, said something like, “I like it. I don’t mind. And I tell you, five years from now, when everybody’s saying, ‘Man, I’m sure glad we got health care,’ there are going to be a whole bunch of people who don’t call it Obamacare anymore because they don’t want me to get the credit.”
We just like reminding folks that Trump lost the popular vote. It bothers him & we enjoying bothering him.
The truth bothers him.
You keep making this same statement and pretending it’s relevant.
Trump beat Hillary. End of sentence. Trump will be sworn in Friday. Hillary won’t. Trump won, like it or not.
The fact that she got ~3 million more votes than him is as irrelevant as the fact that he’s about 8 inches taller.
I personally don’t need reporters fact-checking every clause of every sentence he says. It will become overwhelming for both the journalist and the listener. What I’d want them to do is pick and choose the most meaningful actions and statements he makes and investigate those. The things he says that are obvious whoppers, if meaningful, can be dealt with in a few sentences containing the clearly contradictory facts. For less obvious fibs or issues that Trump or his administration does not give adequate nuance to, those should be dealt with in more length than the obvious whoppers, noting areas where he is right/wrong and where there is simply more nuance to the issue.
Additionally, and I know this isn’t going to happen because of news competition, it would be nice if not everyone did fact checking and not everyone fact checked the same things. Some overlap is good to cut down on errors and bias, but I don’t need every major network, website, and newspaper fact checking division saying the same things about the same statements.
Most importantly, I want journalists actually covering the effects of Trump’s actions. I want them in China and middle-America if he starts a trade war. I want them in any country that he bombs or sends troops into. I want to know quantitative and qualitative effects of his administration’s actions more than I want every word he says fact checked.
Individuals in the media can only do what they think is right. People will draw their own conclusions, mostly unfounded whether positive or negative. They can’t control that. I wish journalists would just ignore these people and their largely unfounded conclusions, but they can’t for obvious reasons.
Let’s be completely accurate. In the 2008 Democrat primary, Hillary beat Obama, according to the popular vote, by 272,809 votes.
Obama - 17,584,692 - winner?
Hillary - 17,857,501 - loser!
*Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008
Candidate - Barack Obama - Hillary Clinton
Home state - Illinois - New York
Delegate count - 2,272.5 - 1,978
Contests won - 33 - 23
Popular vote - 17,584,692 - 17,857,501
Percentage - 47.3% - 48.0%*
According to the rules, Hillary won the popular vote in 2008. Hooray for Hillary. Unfortunately for Hillary, it was the delegate count that mattered. In spite of losing his parties popular vote, Obama won his party’s primary in 2008. Sux to be Hillary.
I would think that the Hillary worshippers would finally be used to Hillary getting her ass kicked according to the rules.
Although Obama led in the delegate count, Clinton won the popular vote. However, the popular vote tally from most news organizations did not include Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and Washington which did not release popular vote results, but it did include Florida, which neither Clinton nor Obama contested, and Michigan, where Obama withdrew from the ballot yet Clinton did not, due to the Democratic National Committee’s penalizing of those two states for violating party rules.
It that’s the best ya got, that’s the best ya got. Better luck next time.
Exactly. And this is what is known as “fact checking”, btw.
And that is exactly how the system works. People don’t vote for the candidate they vote for the electors.
The electors have spoken.
Trump is President.
[QUOTE=ThelmaLou]
How should reporters cover the Trump presidency? “Just the facts” in articles and then point-by-point critique in the opinion pages?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Withering remarks, fervent denunciations and savage lampooning are also fine in editorials.
I disagree that the next four years (or eight years :eek:) will be hell for reporters. There should be infinite targets of opportunity. The only folks who’ll have it better are cartoonists.