The LA Times absolutely hates Trump with a burning passion. (credit, bankrupt)

[RaymondChandlerLives]

What Trumpers fail to understand is that ZERO reputable newspapers, liberal or conservative, endorsed Trump. The LA Times was hardly the only one.

They were in near universal agreement that Trump is an unqualified moron unfit for the presidency.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

What Trumpers fail to understand is that ZERO reputable newspapers, liberal or conservative, endorsed Trump. The LA Times was hardly the only one.

They were in near universal agreement that Trump is an unqualified moron unfit for the presidency.

Oh we did understand all right. We knew that the media is all propaganda.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Oh we did understand all right. We knew that the media is all propaganda.

Yeah the fact that hardly any papers or corporate media endorsed Trump is actually a good thing.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Oh we did understand all right. We knew that the media is all propaganda.

Like when they covered Wikileaks trove of Clinton and DNC emails? Jim Comey's reopening investigations?

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Like when they covered Wikileaks trove of Clinton and DNC emails? Jim Comey's reopening investigations?

Eh, they didn't exactly thoroughly cover it. Many dismissed the cozy relationship between the DNC, the government and the press as all normal stuff. Maybe so to establishment figures but to average Americans who suspected this was the case, it was an eye opener and an 'aha I knew it' moment.

It wasn't so much that they didn't cover it, it's that they excused a lot of it away as mostly nothing. To many Americans it was strange that the press didn't care that there was such a working relationship between all that I listed above.

[radiolibre99]

Regardless of how many in the establishment press feel about the results, do they have to flood the media with more anti-Trump stuff. I mean what are they expecting, for the electorate to just throw their hands up and say ok we made a mistake?

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

Eh, they didn't exactly thoroughly cover it. Many dismissed the cozy relationship between the DNC, the government and the press as all normal stuff. Maybe so to establishment figures but to average Americans who suspected this was the case, it was an eye opener and an 'aha I knew it' moment.

It wasn't so much that they didn't cover it, it's that they excused a lot of it away as mostly nothing. To many Americans it was strange that the press didn't care that there was such a working relationship between all that I listed above.

Wikileaks response:

It's not true! (e.g. Dirty Donna)
It's the Russians! (Assange confirmed it was not even the Russians who leaked them)
Let's not cover them (media response in most instances)
Create sexual scandal for Trump so as to keep eyes off of Wikileaks.

And when none of that worked, attack the Wikileak Server, threaten Assange, Bolivia, Russia and even SHUT THE INTERNET DOWN!

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

Regardless of how many in the establishment press feel about the results, do they have to flood the media with more anti-Trump stuff. I mean what are they expecting, for the electorate to just throw their hands up and say ok we made a mistake?

Yeah why can't they support the next President like they did Obama and Bush?

The media has changed for the worse it seems.

Quicker we move on the better it is. Garcetti ,media and the rest aren't helping things.
Garcetti shouldn't of been so partisan. He's supposed to be the Mayor for all citizens , not just Hillary voters.

From what i've seen online and on Twitter he's turning off quite a few people.
LA Times should be written articles about how he's failed the city , not so many Trump hit pieces especially AFTER an election.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Wikileaks response:

It's not true! (e.g. Dirty Donna)
It's the Russians! (Assange confirmed it was not even the Russians who leaked them)
Let's not cover them (media response in most instances)
Create sexual scandal for Trump so as to keep eyes off of Wikileaks.

And when none of that worked, attack the Wikileak Server, threaten Assange, Bolivia, Russia and even SHUT THE INTERNET DOWN!

What I'll never figure out is how supposed progressives ignored the wikileaks dump and defended such an establishment crony. I was actually going to REAL progressive news sites such as Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, TYT Young Turks, and Mother Jones who covered the Wikileaks stuff better than the mainstream press.

There was also the issue of Haiti and the Clinton Foundation, which the conservatives literally ripped from progressive Democracy Now report about the Clintons totally stiffing Haiti after the earthquake. They helped usher in an unprecedented era of sweatshop labor there. I mean the Haitians are not Clinton supporters.

But the conservatives literally took the pre-election criticisms of the Clintons from the left wing sources and mirrored them. All of a sudden right wing sources such as Breitbart were against the pay for play corruption and collusion between big business interests overseas and American officials. This was all the anti-corporate stuff the left USED to talk about pre-election 2016.

When Hillary does it, near silence from the mainstream left press. There is even hardcore almost zealous defense of Hillary. Even after it was revealed she shafted Bernie in such a dirty way.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

Regardless of how many in the establishment press feel about the results, do they have to flood the media with more anti-Trump stuff. I mean what are they expecting, for the electorate to just throw their hands up and say ok we made a mistake?

I'm not a Clinton or media apologist. But the media fascination and focus on Trump is by his own design. He not only fed them an endless stream of sensationalist fodder, he was happy to have a lot of it be negative attacks. That was part of his strategy design, to inculcate his minions with the conspiracy theory of media complicity. He needed exactly to have the media lap up his outrageous behaviors and history. He loved it.

All that said, it worked too well. He never wanted to be POTUS, and still doesn't. He never expected to win the nomination. And tried to lose the election - but, all the while he wanted to develop his conspiracy-believing audience for his unadmitted plan to launch Trump Media.

Now he's stuck because of his ego. He can't admit his charade. Look at the expression on his face as he watched the election returns favoring him. Stunned. Shocked. Strangely quiet and nearly silenced.

Look at the pictures of him sitting with Obama in the White House. As my son said: "He looked like a kid got sent to the principal's office." Look at any other pictures of previous president elects watching their election night returns. Meeting with the sitting president they will replace. You will see confidence and sense of mission. Not so with Trump. He is in so far over his fake head of hair he is crapping his pants but trying to bluff his way through unnoticed.

Rarely, some people undergo true, deep transformations when confronted with an overwhelming fear of reality. It is unlikely, given Trump's entire life history, but hopefully he is having an attack of conscience for the first time. We'll see if he has the guts, character, and ability to do anything worthy with it if so.

Doubt it.