Is it time for 'naming and shaming'? Identifying specific reporters' inane or enabling questions? If not now when? The concern that I see, other than the obvious journalistic malpractice, is that Trump's ignorance and compulsive lies allow his supporters to continue to drift in their red bubble, without changes to their lifestyles...thus endangering us all. Barring a treatment(s) that would be available (at the earliest) 4-6 months from now, we have an unstoppable adversary. The learned behavior of ignoring inconvenient facts and living in an alternative universe now has repercussions impacting life itself for the country. If the media refuse to save lives by reporting hard truths then they should be singled out for ridicule. Likewise, those reporters who have consistently and bravely spoken up (Heidi Przybyla, for one) should be named and lauded.
Years ago CBS went from challenging the powerful to kowtowing to Republicans. When Dan Rather did that largely accurate report on Bush’s National Guard service - or lack of service - he was fired. When Lara Logan based an entire Benghazi report on the claims of a con artist she was only suspended. But by that time the head of CBS News was David Rhodes, a man who had learned his job at the feet of Roger Ailes (he rose to VP of News at Fox) before moving into mainstream media.
Just before reading this article I read this at the NY TImes. It describes Rupert Murdoch as being concerned that his son Lachlan is blowing it at Fox News because he is politically naive. It makes Murdoch sound like bears no responsibility for the fact that Fox is a dishonest right wing propaganda machine - and has been from the start. Are we supposed to believe that Murdoch had no idea who Roger Ailes was when he hired him? That would have been truly politically naive. Why people still trust the Times is beyond me.
The word "lie" is verboten in establishment media for "respected figures". That's "taking sides", which is a huge no-no. Instead you say, "A said X. B said Y." It's up to the reader to decide who's telling the truth. This would seem to conflict with the idea of journalism as "informing the public", but political journalists today mostly see themselves as stenographers. Unless the person literally says, "I am lying to you right now," you can't say they're lying. After all, you don't know what they really think! Taking a position on reality would be "opinion journalism"! "Hard journalism" requires "neutrality" and a "view from nowhere"! Conveniently, this also means you don't have to put in lots of effort researching facts, or say/do things that might upset politicos and make you lose your precious "access" to them, which might mean not getting juicy scoops or invites to hang out with them at the nice cocktail parties. Or it could endanger ad revenue if you print something an advertiser doesn't like; framing everything as a matter of competing claims usually avoids that.
Obviously, no such niceties apply for people who don't matter. Media regularly calls accused "regular" criminals or other "unpleasant" types liars, or else reprints verbatim claims from law enforcement, which is basically the same thing, e.g., "John McBadGuy lied about purchase, police say". (I mean, he says he's innocent, but a criminal would say that, wouldn't they?)
The latest polls show the majority of public believe Trump is doing a good job with the COVID-19 crisis because the media is not calling out the lies for these daily political briefings. Unbelievable!
yeah. I looked at that poll and it seems rather dubious—it’s based on just 502 respondents nationwide. it has a very large margin of error etc. I’d wait to see if more polls find same thing
I also think the poll is basically meaningless because all of this at the moment is a distant abstract thing to most people in the U.S. Right now the question they're answering in their heads is basically, "Did Trump show up on TV and do 'presidential' things like giving speeches, and if I dislike him does that nevertheless mitigate my dislike somewhat?" A lot of that is just "rally around the flag effect", and approval probably would be higher with a more "normal" president. If seriously ill and dead people start piling up in the next weeks, and/or if lots start getting hit hard financially (both of which look fairly likely, unfortunately), I expect the number will shift drastically.
Is it time for 'naming and shaming'? Identifying specific reporters' inane or enabling questions? If not now when? The concern that I see, other than the obvious journalistic malpractice, is that Trump's ignorance and compulsive lies allow his supporters to continue to drift in their red bubble, without changes to their lifestyles...thus endangering us all. Barring a treatment(s) that would be available (at the earliest) 4-6 months from now, we have an unstoppable adversary. The learned behavior of ignoring inconvenient facts and living in an alternative universe now has repercussions impacting life itself for the country. If the media refuse to save lives by reporting hard truths then they should be singled out for ridicule. Likewise, those reporters who have consistently and bravely spoken up (Heidi Przybyla, for one) should be named and lauded.
so true. for three years the normalizing of Trump had a limited impact. today, the effects could be incalculable
Years ago CBS went from challenging the powerful to kowtowing to Republicans. When Dan Rather did that largely accurate report on Bush’s National Guard service - or lack of service - he was fired. When Lara Logan based an entire Benghazi report on the claims of a con artist she was only suspended. But by that time the head of CBS News was David Rhodes, a man who had learned his job at the feet of Roger Ailes (he rose to VP of News at Fox) before moving into mainstream media.
Just before reading this article I read this at the NY TImes. It describes Rupert Murdoch as being concerned that his son Lachlan is blowing it at Fox News because he is politically naive. It makes Murdoch sound like bears no responsibility for the fact that Fox is a dishonest right wing propaganda machine - and has been from the start. Are we supposed to believe that Murdoch had no idea who Roger Ailes was when he hired him? That would have been truly politically naive. Why people still trust the Times is beyond me.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/business/coronavirus-fox-news-lachlan-murdoch.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
The word "lie" is verboten in establishment media for "respected figures". That's "taking sides", which is a huge no-no. Instead you say, "A said X. B said Y." It's up to the reader to decide who's telling the truth. This would seem to conflict with the idea of journalism as "informing the public", but political journalists today mostly see themselves as stenographers. Unless the person literally says, "I am lying to you right now," you can't say they're lying. After all, you don't know what they really think! Taking a position on reality would be "opinion journalism"! "Hard journalism" requires "neutrality" and a "view from nowhere"! Conveniently, this also means you don't have to put in lots of effort researching facts, or say/do things that might upset politicos and make you lose your precious "access" to them, which might mean not getting juicy scoops or invites to hang out with them at the nice cocktail parties. Or it could endanger ad revenue if you print something an advertiser doesn't like; framing everything as a matter of competing claims usually avoids that.
Obviously, no such niceties apply for people who don't matter. Media regularly calls accused "regular" criminals or other "unpleasant" types liars, or else reprints verbatim claims from law enforcement, which is basically the same thing, e.g., "John McBadGuy lied about purchase, police say". (I mean, he says he's innocent, but a criminal would say that, wouldn't they?)
yes, the media’s fear of using “liar” for Trump seems palpable
The latest polls show the majority of public believe Trump is doing a good job with the COVID-19 crisis because the media is not calling out the lies for these daily political briefings. Unbelievable!
yeah. I looked at that poll and it seems rather dubious—it’s based on just 502 respondents nationwide. it has a very large margin of error etc. I’d wait to see if more polls find same thing
I also think the poll is basically meaningless because all of this at the moment is a distant abstract thing to most people in the U.S. Right now the question they're answering in their heads is basically, "Did Trump show up on TV and do 'presidential' things like giving speeches, and if I dislike him does that nevertheless mitigate my dislike somewhat?" A lot of that is just "rally around the flag effect", and approval probably would be higher with a more "normal" president. If seriously ill and dead people start piling up in the next weeks, and/or if lots start getting hit hard financially (both of which look fairly likely, unfortunately), I expect the number will shift drastically.
I wonder if respondents were thinking they approve of what he is doing now in comparison to when he was denying there was a problem.