"Until this moment I think I never really gauged your cruelty"

@Robert Gentel,

In the beginning the media couldn't have made enough of Trump, he still gets way more free air time than any other candidate both mostly negative. However, in the beginning when Trump was just getting going, the media was way more forgiving until they realized, the jerk they see and hear is the real deal and began to write articles such as the one which started this thread.

It is the voters who forgive him anything now, and some people are sort of normalizing his awfulness as though it is spread around when it isn't.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

I agree that they give him more airtime than most but do not see the media as pulling the strings, I see them reacting to what the public wants. We give the man attention (including those who do not like him) and they just chase the public interest rather mindlessly.

In any case this is a thread about an article excoriating him for the very things some are claiming that they do not so perhaps if this line of inquiry is to be pursued it would be appropriate on its own thread about the subject.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

It's amazing to me to see some people's positive views about Trump.
I see a racial bigot, a xenophobe, a narcissist, a woman hater, and belittles handicapped people. He's a textbook sociopath.
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004269364/trump-and-violence.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/06/07/this-brutal-new-ad-portrays-donald-trump-as-a-full-blown-sociopath/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/facti-checking-trumps-history-insulting-women/

0 Replies

Tangent -
One of my smart ass group of girl friends (some guy in Mexico called us that, and we made it SAG for short), a latina, was a tv anchor in Phoenix and then in Los Angeles. I need to get in touch with those friends.

Anyway. Los Angeles and environs are enough to encompass, some of which I understand but is probably outdated.

Calling it a hive is easy.

0 Replies

They could have slid sideways with Cruz, or interviewed wallpaper or Jeb Bush. Trump held sway.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I agree with Robert on this one. And I am also a little puzzled by what Snood thinks the media's job is.

0 Replies

I think that 24 hour cable news, and the reality show/entertainment aspect of today's "news" has, over a period of about 30 years completely changed the media's role. I think it has also changed the public perception of what news journalists are supposed to do.
I think there's some room for differences of opinion of what news media's "job" is supposed to be.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

I agree that they give him more airtime than most but do not see the media as pulling the strings, I see them reacting to what the public wants. We give the man attention (including those who do not like him) and they just chase the public interest rather mindlessly.

In any case this is a thread about an article excoriating him for the very things some are claiming that they do not so perhaps if this line of inquiry is to be pursued it would be appropriate on its own thread about the subject.

Do you think it is one those areas where people much more learned than I ask, which came first the chicken or the egg?

(I always think of one or two more thing after I click post, oh well)

Anyway, I think both, first Trump says something coming from anyone else would be disqualifying, then the news reports it, another news reports it, then voters read and talk about it and then Trump says something again completely disqualifying. It is like a vicious circle feeding in a shark infested waters.

1 Reply

Why wasn't Patricia Smith, who spoke at the Republican National Convention and whose son was killed in Benghazi, highlighted on CNN or any of the major Sunday news shows like Mr. Khan was today?
It is painfully obvious that the mainstream media continues to carry water for the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton and has mounted a campaign against Mr. Trump. They're not even trying to hide their bias. We needn't worry about Russia trying to meddle in the election when we have our own media doing it just fine.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because Mrs Clinton didn't follow her speech with disparaging comments. You had to take a shot though eh?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

In any case this is a thread about an article excoriating him

Do you see this article as an example of the press treating Trump negatively?

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Not sure I follow your question to me and still think this is a discussion worthy of its own topic. My personal take is that the media did their job as usual, reporting his absurdity often and the editorialization was nearly universally negative. While it could have been more negative, of course, I don't think it would have changed the result, personally.

I'd be willing to join any such discussion about the media's role if anyone wants but I don't have any solid research to contribute or willingness to do it myself or commission it so all I have is the ipse dixits I have said and just repeated which don't seem worth much.

0 Replies

@snood,

This article? Um, yes? It calls his comment horrific, and casts the election as normal vs not normal, decent vs not decent. It is excoriating Trump and frankly I'm curious how it could possibly be seen as not negative.

1 Reply

@thack45,

thack45 wrote:

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because Mrs Clinton didn't follow her speech with disparaging comments. You had to take a shot though eh?

No she didn't make a disparaging remark, she just continuously lies and says she never said it was the the video that caused the terrorist attack... including today on Fox News.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I agree that the editorial flavored characterizations of good vs evil are negative.

If nothing was written except what was actually said by Khan and Trump, it would still cast Trump negatively, and that would just be Trump doing it to himself. My point being that if the unvarnished truth was reported on and nothing else, I think some would see that as negatively biased against Trump.
(Because he's an ass who cannot resist saying stupid things)

2 Replies

@snood,

Trump can't resist saying stupid things, and we all know he's going to say more stupid things. Just give him the media time; he'll prove it over and over again.

1 Reply

One of Texas' largest newspapers - The Houston Chronicle - has shocked both campaigns and officially endorsed Hillary Clinton. Here is a part of their opinion of Trump, included in the endorsement announcement:

‘Any one of Trump’s less-than-sterling qualities — his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance — is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, “I alone can fix it,” should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic.’

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/29/both-campaigns-stunned-after-houston-chronicle-makes-very-surprising-endorsement/

2 Replies

@snood,

You can never tell. If he becomes president, he may declare himself king trump of all the land.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Trump can't resist saying stupid things, and we all know he's going to say more stupid things. Just give him the media time; he'll prove it over and over again.

The media has and will continue to give Trump more rope to hang himself.

0 Replies

@snood,

I must be slow because I still don't get the point though. This is an editorial and is taking a negative editorial position. Non-editorial news should however just report the facts and not try to editorialize. And yes in those they would not be portraying him negatively except through story selection (i.e. report what he says and make him do it to himself).

But this article is an editorial and a scathing one so I see it as clearly negative, no?

0 Replies

"Until this moment I think I never really gauged your cruelty"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know