Donald Trump Has Freed Up Journalists' Ability To Call Bullshit; But It Won't Last, Nor Extend To Others
from the that's-too-bad dept
If you've been watching the political press at all this election season, you may notice something interesting that's different: the press is now calling bullshit on Donald Trump pretty regularly. Perhaps nothing has made this quite as clear as whoever handles the chyron text for CNN, who seems to take a bit of delight in real time fact checking of Donald Trump in a manner never really seen before:
It’s pure bias, which the Times fancies itself an expert in detecting in others, but is blissfully tolerant of its own. And with the top political editor quoted in the story as approving the one-sided coverage as necessary and deserving, the prejudice is now official policy.That makes for a neat media narrative, but it doesn't really make much sense. If it were the case, then we'd see this kind of bullshit calling on lots of conservative politicians. But that's rarely the case. It seems to me that Ezra Klein's take on the same issue, at Vox, is much more accurate. That the media feels freed of its awkward "objective" standpoint by the fact that Trump is just so blatant in his lies. This is not to say other politicians aren't frequently dishonest or wrong. But Trump takes lying to a new level.
It’s a historic mistake and a complete break with the paper’s own traditions. Instead of dropping its standards, the Times should bend over backwards to enforce them, even while acknowledging that Trump is a rare breed. That’s the whole point of standards — they are designed to guide decisions not just in easy cases, but in all cases, to preserve trust.
"The things Trump says are demonstrably false in a way that’s abnormal for politicians," says the Atlantic’s James Fallows, who wrote the book Why Americans Hate the Media. "When he says he got a letter from the NFL on the debates and then the NFL says, ‘No, he didn’t,’ it emboldens the media to treat him in a different way."This is a big difference, but one that many people often confuse. Getting things wrong -- because you're misinformed, because you just really want to believe something is true, or because you just made a mistake -- is one thing. But pure fabrication is something different. And it's the outright fabrications that the press feels comfortable calling out.
Politicians are not fully truthful. Everyone knows that. But they make a basic effort at being, as Stephen Colbert put it, truthy. The statistics they cite are usually in the neighborhood of correct. The falsehoods they offer are crafted through the careful omission of fact rather than the inclusion of falsehood. They may say things journalists know are wrong — climate change denial is a constant among Republican officeholders — but they protect themselves by wrapping their arguments in well-constructed controversy or appealing to hand-selected experts.
This is part of how political reporting operates. Politicians are allowed to be wrong, but they can’t lie. Trump just lies.
The question is what does this actually mean for journalism? Goodwin, at the Post, sees this as the downfall of journalism. The fact that the media will actually call someone out on their lies is seen as "bias" because it's not done equally to other candidates. Klein sees this as a temporary state of being -- because most other candidates will return to their truthy wrongness with the press happy to eat that up, with nothing more than a "he said/she said" type of false equivalency when there's some question about the facts.
Another writer, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, more or less agrees with Goodwin that this is somehow freeing the press up to be biased, after noting how much he disagrees with Trump -- but worries about the press feeling emboldened.
I hate Trump, and I hope he loses. But I fear one consequence of his candidacy will be an even more biased press in the future.Then there's Klein, who thinks that Trump's uniqueness means that this is a unique scenario for the press as well, and one that has many of them uncomfortable:
I think Klein is probably right here, and this is an unfortunate thing. Because we should want our press to be calling bullshit. It's not bias to call out someone when they lie. It's not bias to point out someone said something that's wrong. We should get over this lame "he said/she said" concept behind the stupidly fake idea of "objective" reporting, and do what reporters should be doing: calling bullshit when there's actual bullshit.Covering Trump this way isn’t freeing. It’s uncomfortable, both for individual journalists and for the broader institutions they serve. I think, if anything, the likely reaction will be overcorrection: The press would be so happy to have a semi-normal Republican candidate it could cover respectfully that whoever follows Trump is likely to benefit from a bit of halo effect just by comparison.
Like so much else in this election, what defines the press’s coverage of Trump isn’t that he’s a Republican but that there is something abnormal about him, about his campaign, and about the dynamics surrounding it. Assuming more normal politicians succeed him, more normal forms of coverage will reassert themselves.
If there's any bias in the media, it's not because they're calling bullshit, but because they're not doing it enough. They should be more aggressive in pointing out not just what's an outright lie, but when a politician says something that's wrong (though they should distinguish between what's just wrong and what's a deliberate lie). Klein is probably right that reporters will go back to their old ways after this election, and Goodwin and Gobry will breathe a sigh of relief, but the reality is that we'll be losing out on a real opportunity to move the media from compliant stenographers to actual journalists.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bias, bullshit, donald trump, hillary clinton, journalism, political reporting, reporting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's rare that things are so clear cut. Most of the time, there are at least two possible interpretations of someone's statements, or enough provable truth in the lies that it's hard to split them out. The media still do a pretty good job (many news organizations run fact check stories) but the generally don't call someone and out and out liar, often pointing to shreds of truth that salt the lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fact checking
As the rest of the media landscape is owned by paid up members of the current Liberal/National Party coalition there is little fact checking now that the former factcheckers have been liberated from their jobs only to find that nobody else wants then. We sure need them, but those who pay the wages don't want any sunshine on their bought & paid for politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fact checking
The biggest difference is that in the past, you might see editorials or op-eds in support of a given candidate. In more recent years. we have seen the media becoming more and more mouth pieces for their chosen party. I think of it as the Fox News Effect. Online sites like Breibart don't even attempt to get the facts right, pouring lies and misdirection into the political debate (see #hillaryhealth for more of that crap).
The total lack of fact in news reporting these days is pretty scary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The way I read this is that normally political journalism hides itself in political correctness because of the word use by a politician, which in my opinion is bad journalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#screamingcheeto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A: His lips are moving...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A. ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny how only one liar gets called out while the lying competition is still busy lying without challenge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Trump is the blatant liar. He will say something that is so blatantly false that beyond any doubt you know it is false.
Other politicians (all of them that I have seen) will say stuff that is wrong but that does have a small kernel (very small sometimes) of truth to it.
For example saying 50% of people are *blank* when the number is more like 46%. As opposed to Trump saying the 50% and then adding I did the survey personally door to door.
That is the problem with a blatant liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How can you breath with all of that BS flying around your head? Trump is NOT the only BLATANT LIAR in the election.
Remember, every time you open your fucking mouth the bullshit you are spewing gets everywhere, and as you breath in to charge up for another round of spewing that bullshit you inhale the shit you just dispersed.
I have been watching the news since the Clintoons... the only things I see in the news are Blatant lies. The only reason Bush was hated by the left is because a D was not next to his name. He lied just as good as the rest of your clowns!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All in the eye of the beholder. So keep that in mind next time you have a claim about one lie being less bullshit than another.
A lie is a fucking lie. The fact that you can say one liar stinks less then another is a big problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
O wait, if you stop sucking Putin's cock you could do it yourself!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And who's fault is that? That of the right-wing media who can't be bothered to dig for 'crooked' Hillary's lies? Or maybe, just maybe, because she does not lie (as blatantly)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is real danger in these waters....
And not just by the media, mind you. The next Republican Presidential candidate is already guaranteed to appear more likable, more sane, more Presidential by virtue of following this fiasco of a cycle. It's funny, but four years ago Ted Cruz was unelectable because of his place on the political spectrum being too extreme. What a Trump candidacy may have done is shift the American public's zero-point on the political spectrum to the right, far more than Bernie Sanders did so to the left. In 2020, Ted Cruz may still be considered extreme, but will likely realize less of a penalty for that extremeness because of this election cycle.
And that should be terrifying. It's also yet another reason why the press should not be engaging in false dichotomy and slaving itself to concepts of equal time that are undeserving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is real danger in these waters....
There's a term for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is real danger in these waters....
I mean... its not like the communist democratic party is not in the same boat.
Both of these candidates suck ass, but voting for trump would be more fun just to piss off the idiots that hate his ass.
This election is going to be nothing more than pick your poison as usual, and every mindless asshole that votes for anyone in a party deserves the fucking misery that their government visits upon them!
Every Nation gets the government it deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is real danger in these waters....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There is real danger in these waters....
Every problem we have right now was foretold by George Washington. You going to call him a victim blamer and politically ignorant as well?
Go read his farewell address Mr. "Political Ignorance!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: There is real danger in these waters....
False Dichotomy followed by an Appeal to Authority - sweet.
Wow, you really showed me how wrong I was calling you ignorant. What a potent and inspirational retort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is real danger in these waters....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is real danger in these waters....
Neither sides candidate will look better in the next election cycle, what will look better is someone from further outside the current establishment. If we have learned anything from this election, with the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, is people want real change and are so desperate for that change, they are willing to run down the equally failed paths of Fascism and Socialism. That does not bode well for the US, both paths lead to societal upheaval, and a further erosion of basic rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is real danger in these waters....
Isn't the typical support call for Trump based around the fact that he's not part of the establishment? It's weird, American politics is the only arena where I hear having absolutely zero experience in a related field being pushed as a qualification. Yet, the candidate picked with this in mind is widely agreed to be terrible and toxic for the country, and what you need is someone with even less experience? It's a very strange thing to behold from afar.
"equally failed paths of Fascism and Socialism"
Most developed countries have no problem with socialism and have benefited greatly from it. They understand what the word actually means, of course, and combine it with democracy rather than communism, or whatever current boogeyman word is being misused recently. Actual democratic socialism, which is what Sanders was mostly supporting from what I understand, is not a problem. Fascism, however, doesn't tend to end well for the country or the people, and doesn't mix well with demoracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solving the wrong problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solving the wrong problem
Usually politicians are sneaky in fabricating "evidence" for what they are saying. Trump doesn't even bother. As much as you should call out politicians for their fabrications, they are usually made in a way that hides the real senders, making it a heavy detective-work to find the evidence.
And when a month has passed since the statement, the person has touched on the subject in enough ways since then to wrap it in as slight misspeak and point to a later more wishywashy statement. If you keep digging after that, you will get stamped as "running a smear-campaign".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Solving the wrong problem
I considered the media a bunch of liars more than 20 years ago. I don't think Trump's accusation of the medias lies are even really part of the conversation.
Regardless of which side anyone is on, all lies and untruths should be exposed. We can ill afford either Trump or Hillary spewing their lies while any significant portion of the worthless and according to some "blameless" electorate cheers each candidate on.
If you can get behind a liar, then you have no right to bitch about other lies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Solving the wrong problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump has basically called all media liars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump has basically called all media liars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lose Lose Situation
The US media is seriously out of touch. I am not saying new and all I can do is hang my head in disgust because it will not change anytime soon.
"What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lose Lose Situation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lose Lose Situation
Both of those statements are false. People are talking about it, and there's no health problem.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/22/politics/hillary-clinton-health-conspiracy-theory-explained/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The interesting thing is how the media has yet to catch or report on Killary ever lying, even though they have the proof on paper and videotape.
320 million Americans and we're left with #SweetMeteorOfDeath as the best candidate.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't it be awesome if...
Wouldn't it be awesome if they did this kind of job for all politicians and candidates, including the Dems? Maybe if we had this kind of journalism we could have better candidates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wouldn't it be awesome if...
RARELY is he ever asked a hard question. It's always softballs. Then talking about a whole lot of nothing anyway that had nothing to do with the easy question. Zero experience running anything.
Not that I was a fan of BUSH or McCain or any other BUSH as they're just huge RINO's. Really, just a wing of the Democrat Party. That's why the country is going into the crapper.
I liked John F. Kennedy, a Democrat of course, but these days, he would be considered a crazy right wing Republican.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously?!
Now, that's not saying that Trump is lying, but it's being pointed out FAR, FAR, FAR more than other, more crooked politicians *cough* Hillary *cough*.
There IS NO OBJECTIVE media. Anyone who tells your differently is selling something. TechDirt certainly isn't non-biased, it's just that I happen to agree with your bias.
Objective journalism - if such a thing ever, truly existed - died the true death long, long ago.
Nowadays, nothing you look at is unbiased. Even science is biased. Look at all the "scientific" studies... milk is bad for you, paid by orange growers. Milk helps you lose weight, paid for by the diary association.
The media is having a field day because most of them are liberal democrats. Likewise, the conservative media is having a field day with Hillary because most of them are republicans.
Both sides haven't figured out that people care more about Pokemon Go and Game of Thrones than they do about Politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?!
Your absolutely correct. I think the point of the story is that Trump is so blatant with it, that it's making it super easy for the biased media to point out and beat to death... to the point that their ethics, what little they have, are starting to make them feel guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously?!
Hillary has a D next to her name and Donald does not. I do not like Republicans, but the cognitive dissonance required to be a Democrat is truly boggling to the mind.
The road people take to avoid their destiny is often the road they find it on. This is the fucking Democratic Party in a nutshell! Inviting the very destruction they claim to hate in by the very front fucking door complete with fanfare!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
Sorry bro!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?!
My point for modern media: There is a place much closer to objective than inviting a random nutjob to debate against an acclaimed scientist ("No need to let science stop a good discussion!").
Your characterisation of modern media is not wrong. They are often even more blatant in their biases than most care to call them out on! But even before the "he says, she says"-methods and subjective talkshows got out of hand, the journalistic method in handling science-based content was questionable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?!
Maybe, just maybe, that's because Trump is lying FAR, FAR, FAR more often? You're not suggesting there's too few right-wing media like Breitbart & Co. around to expose 'crooked' Hillary's lies, are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blantant?
There is no one more blatant in their lies than Hillary and Obama. Obama stood in front of the UN two weeks after Benghazi and still told the lie about the YouTube video. That lie was debunked within a day of the attack. He and Hillary have done so much damage to our reputation it isn't funny and yet the liberal media only cares about Trump. I am no Trump fan but until we get real journalism back, if we have ever had it, I will not watch lamestream media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blantant?
While you're totally correct about the lack of biparisan fact-calling in modern journalism, you are seriously mistaken about the damage Obama and H. Clinton have done to the reputation of the US, at least if you're talking internationally. There's a reason that Obama got a prize just for getting elected -- the US's reputation was already in the gutter. While they've both done a number of things (and lied about it) that probably deserve impeachment, this still didn't stop them from IMPROVING the international reputation of the US. Likewise, H. Clinton is able to use Trump to make herself look really good, despite all the lies and half truths she's told and bad decisions she's made.
All I have to say about "real journalism" is "Rosebud".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blantant?
And ofc, we have the TPP as the nail in the coffin, in which he attempts to screw half the planet, including his own citizens, in order to give handouts to his corporate masters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Blantant?
Obama made a great slave, sadly a lot of Democrats loved this slave despite claiming to hate slavery. I have said it many times, the Democrats are every bit the corporate paid whores they accuse Republicans of being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Blantant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Guardian: How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish
Note the date of the article: Feb 8, 2007. This is the same day that Playboy Playmate Anna Nicole Smith died.
CNN switched to non-stop 24-7 dead Playmate coverage for the week, and did not have room for the Iraq money story. Faux News of course simply ignored the Iraq money story.
The Daily Show - a comedy show - covered the Iraq money story and showed footage of Halliburton and military officials each giving their "I dunno..." in front of Congress. Foreign news services like The Guardian and BBC covered the story.
The major American news networks went to great lengths to avoid talking about the worst of the Bush II presidency. And yet the Republicans continued to declare the "lame-stream media" to be lib'rul and left-wing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That being said, the media is generally corrupt anyways... in this case government wasting money is just general bland news. Dead celebrities are always more newsworthy.
What is shocking is how Bush is not loved by the left. Obama has carried most of this policies and Bush started the TARP bailouts. The Repukes fucking loved Bush despite the fact that Bush damaged America more than any terrorist attack ever could.
It just goes to show that no matter who someone is or what they do, its all fucking good and well as long as they have the party affiliation.
Hell, my retired grandpa fucking loved Bush and Bush spat on the grave of every fallen soldier with the TSA and Homeland security!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Republicans have always been more in favor of socialism - for the wealthy. (TARP, corporate bail-outs etc.) But some times it goes to weird extremes. Space travel for example: Obama has been supporting the Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew program with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences already making regular flights to ISS. Republicans on the other hand prefer the Big Government (and probably doomed) Space Launch System, AKA the Senate Launch System.
One can just as easily say that it's shocking how Obama is not loved by the right. He's essentially a pre-2009 Republican, sticking to almost all their polices from TARP and auto bail-outs to the TPP to gun control to the military. Even ObamaCare is best described as "15 years of Republican policy until the moment Obama adopted it."
The only significant difference is same-sex marriage. And even then with polls showing the majority of Americans supporting it - and prominent Republicans like George & Barbara Bush and Dick Cheney supporting it - he may be just one election cycle ahead of the Republicans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I cannot find much I disagree with in regards to your response.
Regarding same sex marriage, I abhor it on a moral level, but believe that government never had a right to say who or what can call another human being a significant other to begin with. I have grown to hate both the Christian and the Gay communities arguments because both are completely obtuse and worthless!
I think the government should just collect taxes evenly per person and stay the fuck out of EVERYONE'S bedroom!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Get government OUT 100%, anyone, anywhere can marry whoever they want in whatever church or other way they care that matters to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what people will pay for from journalists. It's something that is relatively hard to duplicate. Throwing opposing quotes into a story with zero context or further information is what people get for free from everyone else. If they want to survive, they need to put some work in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But I'm not expecting that. Because I believe they are biased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Her lies are much harder to pin down, which is why they're not called out as strongly. But to give you one example, on the NPR Politics podcast, they played a tape of Hillary claiming that the FBI director said that she told the truth to the public about her emails, and then one of the reporters flat out said "that isn't what Comey said". So yes, the press actually does point out when Clinton isn't telling the truth. They don't use the word "lied" but that's fine, we can make our own judgments about that. CNN isn't calling Trump a liar either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is lying here?
To me he appears perfectly capable of honestly believing all of three completely contradictory things stated in a single paragraph or rather a number of half sentences.
I'd chalk it up to dementia but then this has not been all that much different for decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is lying here?
we all know that all politicians lie.
the question is - do we want politicians that expertly craft their words so that their lies are not uncovered in the same news cycle or the dolt who actually just assumed that, since we all know everyone is lying, might as well blunder head first in and make it up later?
i'm not actually sure at this juncture which is actually worse...since we've seemed to given up on the hope that someone would be insane enough to well...tell the truth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who is lying here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who is lying here?
Voting third party cannot change the fact that it's a zero-sum game. One person wins, and everyone else loses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is lying here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is lying here?
Yeah, it really does. There will be only one president elected, so everyone but that person will have lost.
Having more than one loser will reduce the value of smearing a specific candidate...
Possibly, but that doesn't mean it's not a zero-sum contest. Zero-sum means that in order for one person to win, everyone else must lose. Which is exactly what the presidential election is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who is lying here?
(I also don't see any way to effectively implement ranked-preference voting without also doing away with the electoral college, which both serves as a further obstacle to making that switch and might have its own downsides. The fact remains, however, that the switch is a necessary prerequisite for a third party to be truly successful.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
End FPTP, End electoral college.
One amendment. One ratification.
Not likely, but not less likely either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: End FPTP, End electoral college.
No, we couldn't, unless there were a revolution first. Congress could, but the incumbents very much profit from the current state, so they won't.
Lessig campaigned for system change and was surprisingly successful in the polls, so the Democratic Party kept shifting its rules and goal posts (and not adhering to the shifted rules themselves) in order to keep him out of the limelight until he threw up his hands in disgust and quit.
So the U.S. will keep having a bunch of leeches as representatives for a whole lot of suckers. They deserve each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: End FPTP, End electoral college.
It would take a constitutional amendment for the federal government to do that, yes - but under the current terms of the constitution as I understand them (and if I've got this wrong, please do point out how), the conduct of elections is left to the states, and the states could switch to ranked-preference just as easily as some of them have switched to a caucus system.
Which is part of why I maintain that the most effective way of getting this implemented in practice is to campaign for ranked-preference voting at the lower levels - not even just the state level, but (where applicable) also the county, city, and even lower levels.
It's likely to be easier to convince people to make the switch when you can talk to more of them individually and when more of them already know you outside of the campaign - and once the system is in place and shown to be working at those levels, the example which that provides (and the fact that people will have already experienced it at the lower levels) should make it easier to convince people to put it in at higher levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look at all of them attack FOX News like crazy. Obama hates FOX News and would kill it if all possible. Fox News is really the only FAIR Network. Sure they're more right, but they actually have both sides. How do I know? because many of the people on the show I'd like to strangle with their crazy left wing views. Really though, there's just to many RINO's in Government. Bush, McCain and many others, huge Rino's. They're NOT Republican's. Trump is also no Republican. He's just another RINO.
We've already had the lying Clinton's in Office. Who stole many things from the White House as they left!!! I don't want that or them again. I'm no fan of TRUMP, but splitting the vote for a better option just hands Hillary the chair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Might as well go for the bigger evil" is just asking for trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fox News is literally worse than nothing.
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching -no-news-at-all-2012-5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree with the premise. I can think of numerous examples in the past 20 years of politicians, of all stripes, making statements that they knew were false -- in other words, lying -- and the press coddling them with euphemisms like "misspoke" or "made questionable claims" or "received faulty intelligence" or "misstated the facts". Whether you're talking about Bush or Obama or Clinton or McCain or Romney or any politician of any stripe, the news media seem reluctant to use the l-word for anything short of extramarital affairs.
I don't know that Trump's lies are any more flagrant than, say, Bush's (remember the debate where Kerry called Bush out on saying, of Bin Laden, "I don't think about him that much, to be honest," and Bush got this incredulous smirk on his face and claimed never to have said it?), but they're more frequent, more obvious, and less strategic. Essentially, they're impossible to ignore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(I started to ask ‘Can you quantify…?’ But I think you might readily link up a url for a quantitive comparison. Hence—please quantify.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A higher standard.
So that like John Kyl's infamous Over 90% of Planned Parenthood is abortions line that Stephen Colbert turned into the #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement, any wrongful data would be cause for scrutiny of an official's bias or competence, and a field day for news and comedians.
For now lying on the floor is expected, and people are eager to believe what confirms their biases, rather than know the truth, and our reps are allowed to capitalize on this (to the point of being allowed to perjur with impunity). And amazingly, Trump supporters, even commenters on this sight, seem to overlook the degree to which he lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Key to Trumps Success.
Then he simply stirs the pot by stating how poorly he's treated by them. The infotainers, being easily excitable, run the stories not realizing the damage they are doing to themselves.
The reason you've seen so many professionals put their organizations credibility on the line attacking Trump is that they are defending their carefully constructed narrative. Go look at BLS OES data sometime; there are more PR people than there are Journalists in the US. Where do they all work? Mostly at ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN and so forth. The narrative means nothing to Journalists, but managing people's biases and peddling influence means everything to PR Professional.
Imagine you are in the PR or Marketing career, and every time you push your companies very carefully constructed image and narrative on the public, someone comes along and shatters it. Every single time. How frustrating and demeaning would that be?
Trump might attack General Mills and their Hamburger Helper Product by saying something to the effect of "What kind of Sick Joke sells Cancerous Bull Excrement to the public"? then when the media comes back with "It's an innocent American Staple!" He'll come back with "Does the Hamburger Helper hand have 3 fingers and a thumb or 4 fingers? If so, is it a right hand or a left hand? Finally, and most importantly, is it really just talking out of it's rear end? What kind of company has a mascot touching food with it's rear end? What else do you joke about making into the customers food?" All of the statements there are observational truth about the questionable anatomy of a poorly constructed marketing mascot but illustrate a great point about how his media campaign operates.
Now Imagine how offensive that would be to General Mill's director of marketing? Eventually you're forced to change.
Saying the Media Oligopoly is lieing implies they occasionally tell the truth. This belief, that an industry primarily dominated by the practice of Public Relations selling infotainment to manage biases and influence, actually tells the truth, is perhaps is sarcasm at it's finest.
At this point Trump has hammered these people so much and so badly they do not have the confidence to establish a new narrative. All of the narratives are breaking down and that's a bad line to sell marketers. Some have gone to their safe place with HRC and the establishment line, but that is, even if HRC wins, a sinking ship at this point.
Ultimately, good or bad, even if Trump loses the election, he's forced these PR people back into Journalism. This is not something they are going to easily forget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You missed the point of Goodwin's article, Mike.
It's that the media has not done the same for Hillary and has been full-on damage control for her it's not funny.
You can dislike Trump all you want, he won the primaries because voters were fed up with weak Republican leadership in Washington.
Hillary, on the other hand, was given a free pass for having the DNC in her back pocket rigging the primaries in her favor. And don't go "the DNC is a private entity", we all know that if the RNC helped Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Bush win the primary like the DNC did, you, everyone in the MSM and all the late-night show hosts from Maher to Colbert to Fallon to Conan would be going "this is an illegitimate presidential candidate" as they should if that was the case.
Goodwin's article was pointing out that the MSM has been very much pro-Hillary this whole time and that this whole "Trump has freed up journalists ability to call bullshit" only seems to go one way. Kind of interesting.
It's why trust in the media is at an all-time low and why more people are looking for alternative sources of news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WWWD
http://nonadventures.com/2016/07/30/fear-and-balanced/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get used to it and move on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump exposes Trump
and
Republicans loving feelings over facts.
Especially listen to Gingrich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TRUMP: RED, WHITE AND BLUE
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"way worse than trump"
Do elaborate and be specific.
(There are things that we can expect Hillary to do that is different from what we can expect Trump to do. But how do you measure which is worse?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A Trump that has no qualms about making Trump look bad will have no qualms about making the U.S.A. look bad. It doesn't really matter whether it is incompetence or malice or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]