Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody's talking about "name calling." I wouldn't say there's any name calling on the part of "journalists" outside of some opinion pieces. And no journalist is "name calling" the President when they're asking him a question at a press conference...but there have been plenty of occasions at those press conferences where the President has engaged in "name calling" of specific journalists and specific news organizations.
If you don't understand how that is going to cause people to not be on your side and to be actively against you then, no offense, you don't understand basic human nature.
I didn't say "journalists," I said the left. But I think it's interesting and gets right to the core of the thread topic that you treat them interchangeably.
This weekend's coverage of Trump's speech is the latest illustration of how absolutely unhinged and unteathered from sanity the media has become. All he had to do to convince them to suddenly start hating Mount Rushmore and the people carved into it is give a speech there.
I didn't say "journalists," I said the left. But I think it's interesting and gets right to the core of the thread topic that you treat them interchangeably.
This weekend's coverage of Trump's speech is the latest illustration of how absolutely unhinged and unteathered from sanity the media has become. All he had to do to convince them to suddenly start hating Mount Rushmore and the people carved into it is give a speech there.
Except...you know...my post that you responded to and this entire thread is about journalists (BTW, I only put journalist in quotation marks because I would define anyone that strictly writes opinion pieces to be a writer and not a journalist, but I digress).
And to be fair, you didn't say "the left." You said "Democrats." (But now I'm just being a bit pedantic.)
Point being is that I brought up a specific issue with one person and was rather respectful in doing so. In turn you decide to generalize and paint a whole group of Americans with a broad brush when there was no reason to do so, especially as it had nothing to do with the topic at hand. But, hey, if it makes you feel good to extrapolate issues that aren't actually there in a conversation, hey, you do you.
Just a reminder for all... Respectful responses are not only appreciated on the Great Debates forum, but are also expected from all who wish to participate in this forum.
If you don't mind my asking, shen did this take place, the time from when they began lower his word count to unrecognizable re-writes? Was this like from 2010 to 2015, or are we talking 1990 to 1995?
Was this a local newspaper or something we might recognize nationally?
Thank you
I moved a while back and tried (yest) to find the boxes with all of his printed columns but couldn't locate them at this point to see the dates. I will venture a guess at about 2007 - 2011. At first it was sporadic and then a regular column. Within 6 months they were lowering his word count but, as he used to say, he could still out-think them with fewer words (He was seldom wrong but never in doubt!). He was frustrated but dealt with it.
They did their editing from the very first article (because editors edit) but it got progressively worse as time went on. He still wrote for maybe close to a year when they began to be unrecognizable from what he submitted until he said that's it. No more.
Local paper in city of about 200k and 37 affiliated papers in other towns/cities.
Magazine articles (national) were sporadic between 1992 - 2014.
I don't think most would recognize him nationally although he had been mentioned by one or two nationally known columnists.
A journalist asking a question of the President, even a question that you or he don't like, agree with, or even think is ridiculously biased, is not "being mean." It's them doing their job. I can see how that might not be a lot of fun for the President, but dealing with it and acting presidential in the face of it is kinda supposed to be part of the job. I realize that acting like a schoolyard bully instead of acting presidential is kinda the turn-on for a segment of the populace
It's supposed to work like a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law at Thanksgiving dinner who really don't like each other. At times, they're cloyingly and insincerely sweet to each other. Other times, they give each other backhanded compliments. What they never do, though, is come out and be blatantly and directly rude and spiteful. Because that's just how the rules of a polite society work.
according to this BBC article, the first time Trump uttered it was Jan 2017, perhaps when he aimed it at Jim Acosta.
President-elect Trump took up the phrase the following month, in January 2017, a little over a week before taking office. In response to a question, he said "you're fake news" to CNN reporter Jim Acosta. Around the same time he started repeating the phrase on Twitter.
I would assume enough happened between November 16 and then. I was going to guess it started earlier, between the time he effectively secured the nomination - you know, when they all loved him and had him on every day? - and the election.
We know by Jan 17 the "Russia collusion" claims were widespread.
You're asking somebody that doesn't keep tabs on the stuff. I catch whiffs of it once in a blue moon. Usually they're yakking about black this or black that. I'm not black, so I don't give a hoot. Matter of fact I'd rather not hear about it. When I was young they had a Black Entertainment Television, and that's where they kept the black stuff. Doesn't have anything to do with me.
As to your question specifically, partisan can mean "an unreasoning adherent", so it's close. Trouble is, what are they an adherent of? I can't get my head around that. I'll give them the unreasoning part.
A couple of observations: In every despotic dictatorship the media are constrained in order to have control over potential media criticism of government. Secondly, many US politicians have made it clear that their support of democracy hasn't always been extended to media. Nixon, J Edgar Hoover, Trump, and others, have been sworn enemies of the press, preferring to carry out their duties in the same manner as Royalty, discrete and without popular consensus.
Trump played the old tune, "media hates me, because I'm cleaning up America, and by extension, the bad lefties in media," His followers loved that kind of talk, fearing and hating the press for their trespasses against the ultra conservative factions. But, this notion of a radical left leaning press has been a long standing joke among the last of America's real left. The mainstream media is simply an appendage of corporate America, hating their own unions, usually owned by a type of modern wealthy aristocrat who leans middle and safe, often pandering to popular memes, and movements. Plenty of "business news" but never the labor news--not exactly the stuff of far left dogma, but mostly reporting aimed at the suburban middle class liberal, again--not the far left..
I'd say it's more a case of the media feeling threatened by ultra conservative politicians-- just because that type has been associated with the type of despotism we've seen in third world nations around the globe. Trump would love to manipulate every story that has even the most minor bit of information about him. Nixon thought that the press was out to get him--he was correct in that assumption, but he was also considered an enemy by the free press, and later events allowed us to see why.
I personally don't rely on the MSM to provide anything other than the weather forecast. With the WWW there is simply no reason not to expand on one's exposure to balanced journalism--those who subject politicians to the same rigorous scrutiny needed, to get to truth of things..
Last edited by jertheber; 07-19-2020 at 05:57 PM..
You asked, "Do others agree that media ideology has become more pronounced or do you think this concern is overblown and establishment media is no more/less partisan than it was 10 or 15 years ago?"
My short answer is "Yes, I do think it is much more pronounced, but I believe the relevant time period extends back much farther than 10 or 15 years."
Fact: I was raised during the Huntley & Brinkley era and can recall pretty vividly when the news was simply the news. Fact: I am a journalism graduate and began working in journalism in 1972. Fact: I was in journalism school when Richard Nixon was elected President in 1968. I personally observed a sharp decline in the respect for the Presidency as well as a sharp shift from media neutrality to an observable liberal bias during the Nixon Presidency and its aftermath. Fact: I personally observed the liberal bias ratcheted up to a new level during the Reagan Presidency, to such as extent that I was motivated to take an active part in a political campaign for the first time in my life. Fact: I personally observed a dramatic ratcheting-up in liberal bias during the Presidency of George W. Bush, to such an extent that there was now little effort to disguise the bias. Fact: In my personal observation, Trump Derangement Syndrome has elevated the bias to a pathological level, where "bias" is scarcely even an appropriate term - "irrationality" might be more appropriate. Fact: Every single study of which I am aware has documented the above-described liberal bias and its progressive (no pun intended) escalation. See, e.g., http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman...Media.Bias.pdf
I agree with this post. I wonder if "The Fairness Doctrine" would have helped at all? I don't think there is any "news" sources left to my knowledge. It is either opinion based or one sided. Look what it has done to our minds. Wow! We are certainly going to need a huge police force as things continue.
IMO, journalists have had to fact check almost every word out of Trump’s mouth, and that is a reason their relationship is so difficult. Trump opens his mouth, and a lie falls out. Everyone knows this. When Trump gets called out for his lies, he gets defensive or angry. He has only a hazy grasp of his powers of office, and has probably never read the Constitution. He also does not retain information well. So, he says stuff he wants to be true, and gets called out.
He is upset with journalists who are doing their jobs. I also think that Trump is not very likable, and he is hard to respect as a person, so it is easier for journalists to call him out.
The AP seems neutral to me. I use it on my Ipad for news, along with NBC. For news from a progressive viewpoint, I check in with Huffington. Many sites now require subscription, but I try to get my news for free. I’ve given up on local TV news.
I can’t stand most of MSNBC. But I sometimes watch The Eleventh Hour. I can learn things there. But when every story is slanted or sensationalized, I just want to walk away.
My take is that modern American society is hooked on a steady diet of drama, partisan sound-bytes, easy to consume social media and reality-show style entertainment all which typically co-exist within an almost exclusive echo-chamber of like-minded individuals. The Trump era merely brought this into the realm of government.
This culture isn't an environment in which in-depth, fact-based reporting and unbiased exposure to multiple viewpoints will thrive. The media is giving the people what they want, not what they need. That's what drives the ratings and revenue.
Changing and bettering our culture starts with education. If the average American citizen is educated to have a reading comprehension at the 12th grade level instead of the 5th, we'd see a difference in what types of news media they would demand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
