I don’t know what the endgame is for the gaslighters-in-chief. Yes, ideally Trump would want his 30% of fans to take their news solely from him. And from FOX. But even they know that that is hardly sustainable goal in these modern times. Eventually the Trump voters will want to watch something on a different channel, no? Even if it is just a re-run of one of their popular shows?
So, what would work? Some ideas below.
Let’s all watch the most realistic Fox programs, so Fox feels that that is where the money is, and adapts the programming ?
Find a left wing Milo Yannopolis; someone who looks and sounds like a Trump voter, someone they like to watch, but who balances their worldview in a subtle way?
Boycott the WH press conferences all together? What would happen then?
Found an alternative WH press conference? A place where journalists share their discoveries with each other? And divide and share the duties of researching the different long stories, instead of all jumping on the outrage du jour?
"Okay guys! CNN will delve into the ongoing disappearance of the EPA. NBC, you people will delve into the behind the scenes power play around Tillerson. Report back next week and share the story with all of us. In the meantime, we leave just two junior reporters here at the WH press conference to note down what alternative fact Spicer wants to tell us this week, and we’ll photograph the room nicely to show how empty it is. And on the picture we’ll red-circle anyone paid to be there by the WH to cheer Spicer. Back here tomorrow same time ! "
Should the press still attend the conferences, but instead of reporting them, report on them? Treat them as the smoke, not as the fire? “Today, the WH wanted us to focus on Betsy’s spelling errors in her tweets. But meanwhile, here are the policies some Cabinet member signed into action today, and here’s what they will mean to citizens”.
What is a hoot is that you are missing the point. It was pointing out how Trump and henchmen are like cavemen “accepting” an apology and right away crush the one that made the apology. Darth Vader that only mentioned because he famously does the same maneuver, only that he used the Force.
Yep, corrected itself and then Trump pounded on the reporter as if there was no communication whatsoever between the right hand and the left hand (Between the one that accepted the apology and Trump not knowing that it took place).
Not a thing that leaves one with confidence going forward.
The news media outlets should be mocked every time they get a story wrong, or incorrect, express bias, fib, lie, only present one side of a story, and create fake news.
The news media outlets have turned themselves in the laughing stock of the Free World.
The news media outlets have hurt their own credibility.
The election is over, that you do not want to deal with the chronic lack of communication and chronic lack of transparency with the current administration is not surprising.
Interesting … I was raised to believe that the news media had to earn my confidence … any blowhard just selling laxatives didn’t cut it … I’m sure any young folk who gives their confidence so freely will soon be awaken to the mayhem about in the Infotainment industry … commercial media reports what their commercial sponsors tell them to report …
I’m dealing with the lack of communication, and chronic lack of transparency with what currently passes as news from the so-called main stream media. The fact that you seem to advocate for the bias, spin, and fake news emulating from the LSM is not the least bit surprising.
I call a news report every hour 24/7. BBC Radio has had a news report every hour on at least one of its channels (except perhaps in the early evening) for decades. And the BBC will break into broadcasts for important news.
Really? Do you deny that an apology was made and that Trump ignored that and trashed the reporter unnecessarily or in dick move? And that Trump did not lie about eventually releasing his taxes?
Your single example does not negate my main point. We were NEVER so inundated with constant “breaking” news around the clock as we are now, and the news media were NEVER as driven to get there with the story FIRST as they are now. That competitiveness doesn’t apply to the BBC, does it?
Not really. The idea was that radios had the “Something has happened!” element while newspapers had the “This is why something had happened and What It All Means” thing, or “Something Might Happen Because Of This Other Thing” aspect.
The internet basically combines radio, TV and newspapers into one element - but people want the immediacy of radio or TV with the depth of newspapers and windmills do not work that way.
There’s no money in print advertising anymore and anyone who knows anything about computers is running adblockers. The media isn’t making enough cash to make things viable and are laying off experienced journos left, right and centre - the ones who are left are doing more and more work for comparatively less and less money.
Not only that, but the implicit story that the media was looking for and that they were nearly wetting themselves to publish: Trump is a Racist Who Hates Blacks, Particularly MLK.
To me, that is the real problem with most of the media: They have a narrative (Trump is a racist) and they then look for “facts” to justify the narrative, truth be damned.
It doesn’t matter that the reporter apologizes minutes later. The fact remains that he was not there to report in an unbiased fashion, but was looking for something with which to bash Trump. No matter if he apologizes for his mistake, his intentions remain the same.
ETA: Let’s say that he did actually remove the bust of MLK. That could be done for a variety of reasons, but in reporting it, the media wants the public to believe that Trump is a racist. He probably removed several other decorative items, but nothing was reported on those. That is what I consider media bias; the subtle gotchas.
During the general election season, yes. But the media LOVED Trump and couldn’t get enough of him during GOP primary season. As Les Moonves put it, “Trump isn’t good for America, but he’s great for CBS.”
The media helped turn Trump into a phenomenon, but were later shocked to find they didn’t have the power to destroy the monster they helped create.
Without further detail, this “three-source” standard is nonsensical.
If you are reporting someone’s actual words or from a credible document, no other source is needed, or indeed, even conceivably exists. You wouldn’t be able to report 90 percent o actual facts.
If you are talking about information from a source that doesn’t want to be named, however, then I can more easily understand—if your sources are all anonymous, then you should have at least three.
But in practice, the vast majority of news stories do not rely on anonymous sources.
For what it’s worth, the New York Times is finally calling an alternative fact by it’s other name, a “lie”. Though WSJ still calling it an “assertion that lacks supporting evidence”.