And of course that coordinator would be a man. Is their a coordinator for men?
Media Coverage of Politics & Elections
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 55
- Views: 1K
- Politics
And of course that coordinator would be a man. Is their a coordinator for men?
- Messages
- 370
Not that this comment from me will surprise anyone, but yes we do have an absurdly low standard for Donald J. Trump. As far as I can tell the existing standard for Donald J. Trump when making a public appearance is: did he drop trou and take a dump? If not, then DJT, Sr. exceeded expectations. Meanwhile the standard for Kamala Harris for any public appearance is: 1) did she announce the cheap and effective cure for all types of cancer that she personally discovered and 2) did she announce that, at her urging, Vladimir Putin had surrendered himself to the International Court of Justice in the Hague and is ready to plead guilty to any and all charges filed against him. If she falls short if this standard, then the best media political minds in America will spend the next week discussing who the Democrats have warming up in the bullpen.
Centerpiece
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 541
“There’s no earthly reason to give Trump the benefit of the doubt…”Everybody seems to have a gripe about how the media is covering the election, politics and, in particular, Trump. I figured it ought too have its own discussion thread and thought I would start it with a pretty good piece by Aaron Rupar (the entire thing is well reported and worth clicking the link to read):
Trump's weekend of radical flip-flopping
It's hard to say you're against abortion bans when you're literally voting for them.www.publicnotice.co
But it seems like legacy media are doing just that.
TarHeelGrad
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 130
This has been fucking INFURIATING for me. Let's nitpick every word that Harris/Walz say, but yet give Trump a free pass on his nonsensical word salad responses. And by ignoring these blatant lies from Trump/Walz, they are implicitly agreeing with him, and trying to normalize those statements.
maxcrowder
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 204
"it's just Trump being Trump"
Jay Rosen is also the guy who has advised media to focus on "not the odds but the stakes" in this election.
Sounds like he's a "journalist" so no.
- Messages
- 4,057
“… While speaking at an event put on by the extremist group Moms for Liberty, Trump spread a baseless conspiracy theory that “your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation,” referring to transition-related surgeries for trans people. In their write-up of the event, a glowing piece about how Trump “charmed” this group of “conservative moms,” the Times didn’t even mention the moment where he blathered on and on about a crazy conspiracy that has and will never happen.
This “sanewashing” of Trump’s statements isn’t just poor journalism; it’s a form of misinformation that poses a threat to democracy. By continually reframing Trump’s incoherent and often dangerous rhetoric as conventional political discourse, major news outlets are failing in their duty to inform the public and are instead providing cover for increasingly erratic behavior from a former—and potentially future—president.
The consequences of this journalistic malpractice extend far beyond misleading headlines. By laundering Trump’s words in this fashion, the media is actively participating in the erosion of our shared reality. When major news outlets consistently present a polished version of Trump’s statements, they create an alternate narrative that exists alongside the unfiltered truth available on social media and in unedited footage. …”
Last edited:
What a great phrase that sums up exactly what is happening: SANEWASHING. Thanks for the link.
- Messages
- 4,057
“…
His country is a democracy, so he can’t simply close newspapers or imprison journalists. Instead, he sets about undermining independent news organizations in subtler ways — using bureaucratic tools such as tax law, broadcast licensing and government contracting. Meanwhile, he rewards news outlets that toe the party line — shoring them up with state advertising revenue, tax exemptions and other government subsidies — and helps friendly businesspeople buy up other weakened news outlets at cut rates to turn them into government mouthpieces.
Within a few years, only pockets of independence remain in the country’s news media, freeing the leader from perhaps the most challenging obstacle to his increasingly authoritarian rule. Instead, the nightly news and broadsheet headlines unskeptically parrot his claims, often unmoored from the truth, flattering his accomplishments while demonizing and discrediting his critics. “Whoever controls a country’s media,” the leader’s political director openly asserts, “controls that country’s mindset and through that the country itself.”
This is the short version of how Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, effectively dismantled the news media in his country. This effort was a central pillar of Orban’s broader project to remake his country as an “illiberal democracy.” A weakened press made it easier for him to keep secrets, to rewrite reality, to undermine political rivals, to act with impunity — and, ultimately, to consolidate unchecked power in ways that left the nation and its people worse off. It is a story that is being repeated in eroding democracies all around the world. …”
- Messages
- 4,057
Gift link to Sulzberger’s OpEd: https://wapo.st/3ZfmRNg
For this who are unaware, this is the publisher of the NYTimes writing an editorial column in the Washington Post about the systematic undermining of free press in democracies like Hungary and India, and the unique threat Trump poses to do the same here.
“… But even with an imperfect record, both Republican and Democratic presidents, lawmakers and jurists have consistently defended and expanded protections for journalists. Over the past century in the United States, Trump stands out for his aggressive and sustained efforts to undermine the free press.
…
If you need evidence that Trump was just getting warmed up, look no further than the waning days of his first term, when his Justice Department secretly seized the phone logs of reporters of three of his least favorite news organizations — The Times, The Washington Post and CNN. They had played leading roles in revealing the sorts of things he preferred to keep hidden, from his tax returns to his business and charitable misconduct to his ties with foreign governments to his role in schemes to overturn the 2020 election.
Yet, as in Hungary, Brazil and India, many of the most pernicious threats to press freedom in the United States are likely to take a more prosaic form: an environment of harassment, financially punitive litigation, weaponized bureaucracy, allies mounting copycat attacks — all aimed at further diminishing a news media weakened by years of financial struggle. This list is neither alarmist nor speculative.
For years, Trump has expressed interest in using federal funding and the tax code to punish institutions he doesn’t approve of, including public media such as PBS and NPR. His Department of Homeland Security proposed strict caps on foreign-journalist visas, with extensions potentially depending on whether immigration officers approved of a reporter’s work. His serial displeasure with The Post led him to threaten owner Jeff Bezos’s other business interests, attempting to upend Amazon’s shipping arrangement with the U.S. Postal Service and impede its defense contracting.
Likewise, furious with CNN’s coverage, he sought to influence the Justice Department’s review of a merger involving the news outlet’s parent company. More recently, he suggested that NBC and MSNBC ought to lose their broadcast licenses over their coverage of his presidency.
And then, of course, there is Trump’s use of the courts. He has repeatedly sued The Times, The Post, CNN, and a host of other independent outlets. In Trump’s most recent case against my organization, the judge deemed the allegations frivolous enough that he ordered the former president to send The Times a check for nearly $400,000 to cover its litigation costs.
But Trump recognizes that even a losing lawsuit can help his cause. Musing in 2016 on his failed libel lawsuit against a Times journalist a decade earlier, he said: “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.” …”
For this who are unaware, this is the publisher of the NYTimes writing an editorial column in the Washington Post about the systematic undermining of free press in democracies like Hungary and India, and the unique threat Trump poses to do the same here.
“… But even with an imperfect record, both Republican and Democratic presidents, lawmakers and jurists have consistently defended and expanded protections for journalists. Over the past century in the United States, Trump stands out for his aggressive and sustained efforts to undermine the free press.
…
If you need evidence that Trump was just getting warmed up, look no further than the waning days of his first term, when his Justice Department secretly seized the phone logs of reporters of three of his least favorite news organizations — The Times, The Washington Post and CNN. They had played leading roles in revealing the sorts of things he preferred to keep hidden, from his tax returns to his business and charitable misconduct to his ties with foreign governments to his role in schemes to overturn the 2020 election.
Yet, as in Hungary, Brazil and India, many of the most pernicious threats to press freedom in the United States are likely to take a more prosaic form: an environment of harassment, financially punitive litigation, weaponized bureaucracy, allies mounting copycat attacks — all aimed at further diminishing a news media weakened by years of financial struggle. This list is neither alarmist nor speculative.
For years, Trump has expressed interest in using federal funding and the tax code to punish institutions he doesn’t approve of, including public media such as PBS and NPR. His Department of Homeland Security proposed strict caps on foreign-journalist visas, with extensions potentially depending on whether immigration officers approved of a reporter’s work. His serial displeasure with The Post led him to threaten owner Jeff Bezos’s other business interests, attempting to upend Amazon’s shipping arrangement with the U.S. Postal Service and impede its defense contracting.
Likewise, furious with CNN’s coverage, he sought to influence the Justice Department’s review of a merger involving the news outlet’s parent company. More recently, he suggested that NBC and MSNBC ought to lose their broadcast licenses over their coverage of his presidency.
And then, of course, there is Trump’s use of the courts. He has repeatedly sued The Times, The Post, CNN, and a host of other independent outlets. In Trump’s most recent case against my organization, the judge deemed the allegations frivolous enough that he ordered the former president to send The Times a check for nearly $400,000 to cover its litigation costs.
But Trump recognizes that even a losing lawsuit can help his cause. Musing in 2016 on his failed libel lawsuit against a Times journalist a decade earlier, he said: “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.” …”
- Messages
- 4,057
(Continued)
“… Crucially, these efforts have been embraced by his supporters and ideological allies around the country. His lawsuits against the media have inspired similar efforts by his backers, many sharing the same lawyers. Influential conservative jurists, including two Supreme Court justices, have expressed an interest in making it easier to win lawsuits against journalists — an effort consistent with Trump’s desire to “open up libel laws.”
These legal tactics appear to have emboldened state officials, judges and others to take their own steps to undercut journalism they don’t like. In 2023, the Freedom of the Press Foundation found that courts had issued 11 gag orders censoring journalists from Democratic and Republican officials alike.
At the local level, officials are taking aggressive anti-press actions. In Kansas last year, sheriff deputies raided a local newspaper’s offices on the preposterous grounds that relying on public records in its reporting constituted identity theft. In Mississippi, a former governor is pursuing a lawsuit against a nonprofit newsroom that the editor says is intended to impede its award-winning reporting into wrongful spending by the state’s welfare system.
“If we’re forced to spend our limited resources on legal fees to defend a meritless lawsuit,” Adam Ganucheau, the editor in chief of the nonprofit Mississippi Today, wrote recently, “That’s less money we can devote to the costly investigative journalism that often is the only way taxpayers and voters learn about how their leaders truly behave when they believe no one is watching.”
… Fortunately, we in the press aren’t powerless against attacks such as the ones our colleagues abroad have faced. At The Times, we already report every day from countries where the safety and freedom of the press are not a given. We are taking active steps to prepare ourselves for a more difficult environment at home, as well: Ensuring our reporters and editors know how to protect their sources and themselves. Preparing for legal fights, from budgeting for increased expenses to understanding how outside vendors will respond if federal agents make secret demands for phone logs or emails. Maintaining pristine business practices — news-related or not — to minimize exposure to abusive tax or regulatory enforcement. Preparing colleagues to remain resilient in the face of harassment campaigns and offering them robust institutional support in those moments. Pushing to formalize foundational protections for journalism, such as the right to keep sources confidential and protections against frivolous lawsuits. Contesting campaigns to instill distrust in media organizations by telling the story of what independent journalism is and why it matters.
And, through it all, treating the journalistic imperative to promote truth and understanding as a north star — while refusing to be baited into opposing or championing any particular side. “No matter how well-intentioned,” Joel Simon, the former head of the Committee to Protect Journalists, wrote last month on what he’s learned studying attacks on press freedom, “such undertakings can often help populist and authoritarian leaders rally their own supporters against ‘entrenched elites’ and justify a subsequent crackdown on the media.” …”
“… Crucially, these efforts have been embraced by his supporters and ideological allies around the country. His lawsuits against the media have inspired similar efforts by his backers, many sharing the same lawyers. Influential conservative jurists, including two Supreme Court justices, have expressed an interest in making it easier to win lawsuits against journalists — an effort consistent with Trump’s desire to “open up libel laws.”
These legal tactics appear to have emboldened state officials, judges and others to take their own steps to undercut journalism they don’t like. In 2023, the Freedom of the Press Foundation found that courts had issued 11 gag orders censoring journalists from Democratic and Republican officials alike.
At the local level, officials are taking aggressive anti-press actions. In Kansas last year, sheriff deputies raided a local newspaper’s offices on the preposterous grounds that relying on public records in its reporting constituted identity theft. In Mississippi, a former governor is pursuing a lawsuit against a nonprofit newsroom that the editor says is intended to impede its award-winning reporting into wrongful spending by the state’s welfare system.
“If we’re forced to spend our limited resources on legal fees to defend a meritless lawsuit,” Adam Ganucheau, the editor in chief of the nonprofit Mississippi Today, wrote recently, “That’s less money we can devote to the costly investigative journalism that often is the only way taxpayers and voters learn about how their leaders truly behave when they believe no one is watching.”
… Fortunately, we in the press aren’t powerless against attacks such as the ones our colleagues abroad have faced. At The Times, we already report every day from countries where the safety and freedom of the press are not a given. We are taking active steps to prepare ourselves for a more difficult environment at home, as well: Ensuring our reporters and editors know how to protect their sources and themselves. Preparing for legal fights, from budgeting for increased expenses to understanding how outside vendors will respond if federal agents make secret demands for phone logs or emails. Maintaining pristine business practices — news-related or not — to minimize exposure to abusive tax or regulatory enforcement. Preparing colleagues to remain resilient in the face of harassment campaigns and offering them robust institutional support in those moments. Pushing to formalize foundational protections for journalism, such as the right to keep sources confidential and protections against frivolous lawsuits. Contesting campaigns to instill distrust in media organizations by telling the story of what independent journalism is and why it matters.
And, through it all, treating the journalistic imperative to promote truth and understanding as a north star — while refusing to be baited into opposing or championing any particular side. “No matter how well-intentioned,” Joel Simon, the former head of the Committee to Protect Journalists, wrote last month on what he’s learned studying attacks on press freedom, “such undertakings can often help populist and authoritarian leaders rally their own supporters against ‘entrenched elites’ and justify a subsequent crackdown on the media.” …”
- Messages
- 4,057
The (very long) editorial is part dire warning about the unique dangers posed by Trump and part defense of their editorial approach to neutrality in covering Trump as part of building a defense against a second Trump term.
But to me, his defense of the NYT coverage of Trump (he doesn’t see it this way, but to me what he is describing is bending over backward to maintain what Trump supporters and, crucially, Trump-appointed judges, would perceive as neutral even as he catalogs how Trump lies, threatens and bullies the media over true stories he simply does not like) sounds more than a bit like the cowed reporters he describes in India and Hungary — afraid to cover TPTB for fear of retribution.
Sulzberger also skirts entirely the Oligarchs in this country pushing “citizen journalism” as some sort of replacement for quality, professional journalism, which is a key prong of the “Enemy of the People” narrative Trump “weaves” about the free press. Maybe the Oligarch who owns the Washington Post wouldn’t have liked that argument?
But to me, his defense of the NYT coverage of Trump (he doesn’t see it this way, but to me what he is describing is bending over backward to maintain what Trump supporters and, crucially, Trump-appointed judges, would perceive as neutral even as he catalogs how Trump lies, threatens and bullies the media over true stories he simply does not like) sounds more than a bit like the cowed reporters he describes in India and Hungary — afraid to cover TPTB for fear of retribution.
Sulzberger also skirts entirely the Oligarchs in this country pushing “citizen journalism” as some sort of replacement for quality, professional journalism, which is a key prong of the “Enemy of the People” narrative Trump “weaves” about the free press. Maybe the Oligarch who owns the Washington Post wouldn’t have liked that argument?
- Messages
- 835
Another recent occurrence, Walz has family that doesn't agree with him. Media: let's interview everyone of them. While Trump has family members writing books about him with minimal coverage as trump sues them.
