The problem is that since they end up correcting Trump far more than any other politician, then they get accused of not being objective and instead being
In the process they lose credibility and so their corrections fall on deaf ears. It is really a no win situation. The big lie is very hard to fight.
I doubt that it bothers him much, given that his campaign was deliberately designed to win the Electoral College rather than the popular vote. Cite
I don’t see much room for debate here. The role of the Press should be what it always has been, to monitor and report on the actions of the President. I can’t see why it should be any different for Trump.
From David Brooks of the NYTimes:
I’ve followed with interest Brooks’ struggle with the lunacy that has infected conservatism. The ascent of Trump has pulled the rug out from under principled conservatives like him. I never could stand to read Brooks before, but now I feel sorry for him. His attempt to make peace with covering Trump by coming up with this “carnival” metaphor is kind of sad, even pathetic.
This particular column of his is yet another answer to the blatantly obvious question, “Why should covering Trump be different from covering any other president?”
It will be interesting to see if the press is state owned or corporate owned.
Curious if the press suddenly would start to paint Trump more positively.
Yet another reason why the press will have to treat Trump differently from past presidents is because Trump is treating the press differently.
More limitations: Trump plans restricted press access to inaugural celebrations
So, anyone care to speculate on the odds of:
A) Trump giving one-on-one interviews in the next four years.
B) During one of those one-on-one interviews, the reporter finally loses patience and says bluntly: “You’re lying, Mister President.”
It seems to me that if the news media outlets were to supply the whole truth, and nothing but the whole truth, the big lie would have a very difficult time gaining a foothold with the public/voters.
A news media outlet which supplies the Who, What, Where, When, and Why of every news story they produce (aka publish), would not have lost it’s credibility. It’s stories would still be questioned, but it’s credibility as a news organization would not be in doubt.
What do/did y’all think of the media coverage of the Inauguration today?
(And can someone explain to me why Michelle Obama went for the frumpy schoolmarm look? :dubious:)
I’m not so sure of that myself. If, for example, I have certain beliefs that are wrong and are consistently shown to be wrong by media sources, I may be tempted to unjustifiably conclude that they are bias because there is no way that I am that wrong. Even if they are using a very factual style of reporting as you are describing, there must be “another side to the story” that aligns with my beliefs, thus making those outlets not showing this side bias in my mind. This would likely become exacerbated the more people I found that also hold the same beliefs as me.
So while I agree that journalism should be very factual in nature, I think there are always going to be people, maybe even many people, who would still call reporters bias for just reporting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I was listening on NPR at work. Personally, I would have been interested to hear more about the protests and riot(s) going on, but then I know not everyone would. I’ve never been too interested in these ceremonial things.
Whatever makes them money and pushes the interests of their parent company, as per the usual. The bean counters and analysts tend to understand their demographics. The corporate press is usually deferential to government authority, so I imagine they will continue speaking small talk to power.
**What Should Be the Role of the Press in a Trump Presidency
**
Here’s a novel concept - they should actually report the news. Not slant it, not spin it, not omit whatever they want. Stick to what they have apparently forgotten how to do: who, what, where, when and how.
Not being snarky but: You have got to be boycotting Fox News then, right?
Well, here’s a specific test. I just caught part of Trump’s speech to the CIA. He made a specific allegation about a Time reporter lying about something to do with him and a bust of MLK. Was Trump right? Was the reporter right?
Trump also said that the press grossly under-reported attendance at his inauguration. Fact or fiction?
I think the press should speak the truth like this.
If President Trump says “X”, then the press should report, "President Trump said ‘X’ but did not provide any facts or cites in support.
If reporter asks Trump, “What factual support to you have for ‘X’” and Trump replies “People say X, that’s my factual support”, then in making his TV standup reporter the reporter should say, “I asked the President about what support he had for X and he just dodged the question instead of answering it.”
There are ways of reporting without slanting things, and without being mere stenographers.
I think that’s going too far. I would expect citations to be included in the speech notes but not in the actual speech itself. I think it’s part of the reporter’s job to fact-check. After all, the cite the interviewee might give might be fake.
The media is really in a bind here.
or
I think that’s part of the problem, not making Trump( or any speaker) explain how he knows things. “Saying some people” simply is insufficient. Saying, “This was in a report by the CDC (or the SEC or the Department of Labor or Yale or NASA or whatever)” is something the media should question the speaker about and require him to answer.