Media Coverage of Politics & Elections

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 381
  • Views: 8K
  • Politics 
WSJ cont’d

“…
Columnist Peggy Noonan, a longtime and sometimes severe critic of Mr. Trump, asks him to clarify: “If you were to reach the presidency again, would you of course rule out using the military to move against your enemies? That is, yours would not be a fascist-style government that would use its agencies, entities or military to move against your political foes because they have opposed you—is that correct?”

“Yeah,” Mr. Trump says, “but I never said I would. . . . First of all, Biden, who doesn’t know he is alive—Biden said that he expects there to be a lot of trouble if I win the election. That’s a very bad statement for him to make. He said that. That’s where this came from.” Mr. Trump digresses into his poll numbers and has to be brought back on topic.

Ms. Noonan: “But you would never do that?”

Mr. Trump: “Of course I wouldn’t. But now, if you’re talking about you’re going to have riots on the street, you would certainly bring the National Guard in. As an example, in Minneapolis while I was there”—meaning while he was in office—“they had riots, literal riots. That whole city was burning down. And Minnesota, the governor was supposed to—our favorite governor—the governor was supposed to do it. He wouldn’t do it. He wouldn’t do it. And I said, ‘You got to get the National Guard.’ . . .

“And when you looked over the shoulder of that poor guy from CNN, that poor, stupid reporter who was standing there saying, ‘This seems to be a peaceful demonstration,’ then he gets hit on the leg with a rock, and behind him the whole city was burning.

It looked like World War II in Berlin, and he’s trying to say that it’s peaceful. So I insisted that the National Guard—if I didn’t do that, I don’t think you would’ve had a city left. So I’m only talking about in cases like that where you need help. You can’t say, ‘I’ll never bring in everything,’ as the entire country is disappearing in bedlam. But certainly not against my opponents—it’s against civil unrest.” …”

Happy With Love GIF by Amazon Prime Video
 
Anyone see Lady G bully Kristen Welker on MTP? I like Welker, but she needed to take that BS he was spewing and shovel it right back on him.
 

  • When it was reported that Trump’s top general, Mark Milley, called him “fascist to the core” the newspaper buried the story instead of putting it on the front page.
  • When Trump referred to Democratic lawmakers as the “enemy within” it wasn’t a lead story either.
  • When Trump threatened to deport millions of undocumented immigrants it was described as “hyperbolic rhetoric.”
  • When Trump stopped answering questions at a rally and bizarrely “bobbed” to music for 39 minutes, it was called an “improvisational departure.”
  • When The Times finally ran a story on Trump’s apparent cognitive decline, the article didn’t even use the term “cognitive decline.”
I'll add their description of Trump "inverting facts" and their description of the Arnold Palmer dick size reference as "telling golf stories" about Palmer.
 
The media has been somewhat better (though hardly effective) at pressing Trump apologists than Trump himself.

 
Once the younger generation of Sulzbergers took control, profit became the driving force over "all the news that's fit to print".

Understandable as ithis has occurred as the nedia world was changing. Look at the board of directors. Full of folks from the internet/tech world. Very little journalistic background amongst them.

Clicks and $$.

 
This same kind of partisan inversion has been documented several times in various ways over many years now, but Republicans and Trump voters prefer Harris's and Democratic agenda without realizing which party the policies are congruent with.

 
This same kind of partisan inversion has been documented several times in various ways over many years now, but Republicans and Trump voters prefer Harris's and Democratic agenda without realizing which party the policies are congruent with.

That's one hell of an article, which I would title, "Right Wing Media Has Convinced All of You Rubes That Up is Down."
 
I find I'm never persuaded (but often irritated) by the Trumpian "and you know it" tactic.
It's not Trumpian by nature. This is a very old rhetorical approach in the "speaking truth to power" tradition of American politics. It's most effective when it's applied to something obvious and undeniable, and it's easily misused, but there's a long history of that type of appeal. It's like saying, "this is so obvious that you can't possibly believe otherwise."

Just to take one example: Here's Biden in 2008: "Because the truth of the matter is, and you know it, that American dream under eight years of Bush and McCain, that American dream is slipping away. I don't have to tell you that. You feel it in your lives. "

 
It's not Trumpian by nature. This is a very old rhetorical approach in the "speaking truth to power" tradition of American politics. It's most effective when it's applied to something obvious and undeniable, and it's easily misused, but there's a long history of that type of appeal. It's like saying, "this is so obvious that you can't possibly believe otherwise."

Just to take one example: Here's Biden in 2008: "Because the truth of the matter is, and you know it, that American dream under eight years of Bush and McCain, that American dream is slipping away. I don't have to tell you that. You feel it in your lives. "

Harry Potter Eye Roll GIF
 
I find I'm never persuaded (but often irritated) by the Trumpian "and you know it" tactic.
I find I have no patience with the intentional acquiescence to the cowardly excuse for interviewing that has emerged since 2016 and the rise of the Trump cult. The manifestation and infestation of this problem is now pervasive, and in fact with what you do on this board--the relaying of almost all things that happen in news and commentaries--makes you in a tiny way a part of the media, in a sense. Then, if you mildly editorialize in the particular way that you did, I find that I "feel" persuaded to say that you know that interviewer simply stopped pursuit of a brazen, destructive lie, and that by that inaction he allows some watching to conclude the person is correct, or as bad, that the topic doesn't really matter, and this is absolutely not an example of being "somewhat better" in pressing Trump cultists on such lies.

It's what we keep on seeing, what has caused immense problems, and what I have no patience for.
 
I find I have no patience with the intentional acquiescence to the cowardly excuse for interviewing that has emerged since 2016 and the rise of the Trump cult. The manifestation and infestation of this problem is now pervasive, and in fact with what you do on this board--the relaying of almost all things that happen in news and commentaries--makes you in a tiny way a part of the media, in a sense. Then, if you mildly editorialize in the particular way that you did, I find that I "feel" persuaded to say that you know that interviewer simply stopped pursuit of a brazen, destructive lie, and that by that inaction he allows some watching to conclude the person is correct, or as bad, that the topic doesn't really matter, and this is absolutely not an example of being "somewhat better" in pressing Trump cultists on such lies.

It's what we keep on seeing, what has caused immense problems, and what I have no patience for.
All fair
 
The media has been somewhat better (though hardly effective) at pressing Trump apologists than Trump himself.


It's a tough bar to clear, but the "people are saying" methodology of proving your point might be the most odious thing the MAGAsphere has wrought upon the country. It's moved ahead of disingenuous bo-siding for me.
 
Back
Top