You know, you have a point here. Part of the reason the BS went as far as it did is because the Press just reported “the candidate said this”.
He got the free publicity and just machine-gunned such a constant long string of lies, he never ever had to address what he said because it was 2 (maybe 10) lies ago.
If he wants to blow smoke in a sound bite? Report it… but do MORE than just the two-day turn around follow up fact check. Report Right Then And There in the story with the quote… when its an unsubstantiated statement.
When he finally sees that he can’t just bully, belch, and bellow at the reporters at press conferences like they are under-performing salesmen selling Trump-U,
then he’ll be forced to (Finally) step up his game and clearly show the people in this country exactly where he’s trying to steer this ship… because he won’t be Able to move on to the next lie as he’s still caught on-the-spot in the first one.
Lets please welcome Fast Journalism… or ‘The Hurry-Up J’.
(I like it!)
I don’t trust “the media” in general (whether mainstream, conservative or left-wing) to be objective. I don’t think they consciously deceive, but I do think they have biases that affect their reporting, as is the case with the rest of us too (outside of the hard sciences, where there are clear and unambiguous tests of truth). That being said, I trust Trump and his cabinet much less, and I do think they consciously lie. I think the only legitimate option here is #3, even though I think this is going to further accelerate political polarization and increase the amount of misleading “information” out there. When confronted with someone like Trump, even a heavily biased press is better than straight coverage of whatever he babbles.
The press should mock him … make him into the laughing stock of the Free World …
We’re looking at a new Golden Age of Comedy here these next four years …
It’s said that the beginning of the end for Joe McCarthy is when Bob Hope starting making jokes about him … Joe McCarthy hated it but by this time Bob Hope was a national hero for going into war zones to entertain our troops with the USO … and this gave everyone permission to make “Uncle Joe” the butt of their jokes … poor Joe was dead just a couple years later …
That’s my approach as a journalist (albeit one in a different country) to people obviously telling porkies.
A raised eyebrow and “Are you absolutely sure that’s correct? That doesn’t seem likely”, and if they don’t clarify or correct their comments, the story would say something like “Prime Minister Eccles denied dynamiting Tasmania into the shape of his own head would be expensive and impractical, telling reporters ‘I’ve done the costings and it’s absolutely an affordable and acheivable course of action’.”
As a non-American journalist the obvious bias of US media outlets really surprises me. Sure, Australian media outlets have obvious political leanings too, but they’re nothing compared to the partisanship of the US ones from what I’ve seen and experienced.
I’m not aware of major Australian newspapers openly endorsing candidates for parliament im the way US newspapers do, for example.
I think this example from CNN shows perfectly how the media should cover Trump and his administration’s attempts at misinformation (my emphasis.)
Simply quoting the source, and right there in the same sentence/paragraph pointing out that the statement is unsupported/wrong in a completely straightforward way.
ETA
I think it’s going to take more than a raised eyebrow. A blunt request for clarification might be a start, but we’re now dealing with shameless liars.
The role of the press should always be exactly the same. Trump should be investigated when it’s called for, asked hard questions when it’s called for, challenged when it’s called for, and condemned when it’s called for.
And I have no doubt the MSM will do all those things. I only wish they’d been doing the same the past 8 years.
Has anyone looked at the New York Times today? They are NOT pulling any punches, literally from day 1: With False Claims, Trump Attacks Media on Turnout and Intelligence Rift
WASHINGTON — President Trump used his first full day in office on Saturday to unleash a remarkably bitter attack on the news media, falsely accusing journalists of both inventing a rift between him and intelligence agencies and deliberately understating the size of his inauguration crowd.
…pity they didn’t start writing like this six months ago.
This is important. Everyone makes mistakes. It’s part of being human. How we fix the mistakes is how we make or keep our reputations.
Unfortunately, given the bad blood between Trump and much of the press, the press do need to be extra careful in not making mistakes in the first place.
That could be difficult in Trump’s case as, from what I’ve seen of him, I don’t think he works at that level of detail. Unless he can brandish the report. I would, however, expect to see citations when the speech is published.
Trump pulls a lot of that crap, i.e., “people are saying.” It was especially prevalent during his birther crusade, “I’ve sent people to the Back of Beyond to look for evidence on Obama, and you wouldn’t believe what they’re finding!” Clickbait language that never delivers. In fact, I seem to remember calling him The Clickbait Candidate" at one time.
Which raises another question… why SIX months ago? Why not a year ago, when Trump was spouting nonsense while seeking the GOP nomination?
It’s undeniable that liberals in the MSM treated Trump with kid gloves through the Republican convention, because he was good for ratings. Reporters IGNORED Rubio, Fiorina, et all, except to ask THEM questions about Trump! Trump’s many, many scandals were ignored until after he was nominated.
During the GOP primary season, I regularly heard reporters saying (frequently off the record), “Oh boy, I have so much dirt on Trump, and I can’t wait to unload it this Fall.”
And I’d wonder, “Why this Fall? If you have something, reveal it NOW!” But liberal reporters had two conflicting interests. They hated Donald Trump the Man but looooved Donald Trump the Story. So, instead of trying to shoot him down during primary season, the media built him up, figuring (wrongly, VERY wrongly) they could destroy him later, once he was up against Hillary.
As Michael Moore put it aptly, the media hate Trump, but only after they loved him. They thought they could milk him for ratings and mouse clicks a few months, then annihilate him with pussy grabbing and Alicia Machado stories later.
I’ve just read an article in the Times today on this subject. The author reminisced that in his time at The Scotsman, a reporter was written up for failing to provide no fewer than three sources.
Sorry, no link because I read it offline and don’t have a subscription to the Times.
Those were the days before the 24-hour news cycle when intense competition among media outlets made getting there with the story **first **more important than getting the story correct.
I think this really took of during CNN’s around-the-clock coverage of the first Gulf War back around 1990-ish. Does anyone else remember a night troop landing where the soldiers came out of the water onto a beach and reporters were alread there with cameras to cover the event? What about the shelling of Baghdad when Wolf Blitzer stood on the balcony of a hotel and in effect served as a spotter for Saddam Hussein’s artillery (until someone told him to get inside and shut up).
If you want a good look at old-time reporting, watch All the President’s Men. And look at old episodes of Lou Grant (available on Hulu).
I’m not buying it. The 24 hour news cycle has been around since radios were first sold widely. The current lackadaisical attitude to veracity is very modern.
The logistics can be dealt with in many cases by simply foregoing “real time” in favor of “record and present with fact-check” (the approach CNN took to Baghdad Sean’s tantrum about inauguration attendance figures, which should be SOP for networks generally, particularly for mouthpieces with a known pattern of presenting “alternative facts”).
I’m not saying media sources have never lied. But you didn’t used to be able to access news 24/7, any time of the day or night. Even radio reported the news (sometimes) on the hour or half-hour. Newspapers had several editions every day, but you had to wait for them to come out and appear at newsstands. TV news was in the morning, evening, and at night. There was the concept of “breaking news” for something really important.
But today you can get live news–even video filmed by bystanders and immediately posted on the internet-- every minute of every day and night… and THAT has made reporting so competitive that truth and accuracy are shortchanged. Really.
The media was, once again, in too much of a hurry to be the first to publish a story, accuracy be damned. This time, the media corrected itself. Something it wouldn’t have had to do if it had considered accuracy to be it’s highest priority.
The bind the MSM is in is that they did everything they could in the general election to stop Trump, and it didn’t work. Now they can’t think of anything else to do except more of the same.
I would, however, expect to see citations when the speech is published.