Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by RandyForRubio, Feb 16, 2019.
You don't just make half the country mad unless they are already angry to begin with.
Really?? This happened just last week. Notice the red hat?? While being led away, he's yelling "**** the media! **** the media!" At every single rally, Trump devotes some time to slamming the media present at the rally, who are usually in a caged in area separate from the rally goers. And, at every single rally, those attendees spend some time screaming at the media.
So, Trump has helped heighten the dislike the public has for the media. He has enhanced the belief that our free press is the enemy of the people. One needs be very dense between the ears not to recognize that this is nothing but Trump demonizing anybody who dares criticizes himself or his policies. What one would expect of any authoritarian.
And I can find other examples of people being attacked by folks wearing MAGA hats. But, reflective of just how much you really keep up with what is happening in your country, this incident was just last week:
Agreed. Pre Trump things were moving in a better direction.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
You make it sound like the media has played no part in their being demonized. It’s no longer about getting the whole story. It’s become getting it out first and interjecting their opinion in everything. Present the facts and let the people decide. Don’t try to sway them one way or the other.
Actually, I mentioned that people dislike the press, and by that I meant that the media, broadcast and print, are held in very low esteem at this time in our history, I just did not spell that fact right out.This did not start with the ascendency of Trump, but he has certainly elevated and enhanced it through his "enemy of the people" meme.
Every president has had to deal with adversarial press. If they are critical in their reporting, their opinion pieces, their editorials, their talking points on the cable shows in our own era, I do not expect them to sugar coat that reporting or those opinions. We have had corrupt presidents and scandals affecting administrations. I would much rather have an adversarial press then a media landscape that is 100% compliant in its reportage.
And there is plenty of good, solid investigative reporting that is not subjective opinion spouting at all. The Times article above is as good an example as any. If the evidence shows that Trump attempted to interfere in the investigations led by the Southern District of New York, that should be reported, and if it is factual, then it's not opinion. Is it complimentary of Trump? Of course not, but it is the press fulfilling its watchdog role, and it has been present since the earliest days of our republic.
Further, the above revelation is very likely to result in Whittaker being recalled by a congressional committee, since it implies that he might have perjured himself in his recent testimony. Again, this would result from the press fulfilling its function as a watchdog in a democratic country.
I have a few complaints where the media is concerned, both press and broadcast. Some of my complaints involve profit motive and ratings driving motivation. Even in the 2016 election, if I remember correctly, a higher up for CBS news stated point blank, in so many words, that Trump's tweets and behavior was great for the bottom line. The media was absolutely complicit in helping Trump suck the oxegen out of the room. And all of tbe media, but esp. the talking heads on cable, were simply too taken by every tweet they regarded as outrageous. The news has become more about entertainment, all too often.
Yes, getting it out first is "getting the scoop", and this is driven by two things, that I can think of. For a newspaper, it's the profit motive, it's about selling papers, or getting hits on their internet sites. And for the individual reporters, it's about a feather in their cap, enhancing their reputation, advancing their profile and career. This has been there from the very beginning. Competing papers, reflecting different political philosophies, supportive of different parties, fought it out in the early republic. Nothing new in that, it comes with the territory. My main complaint is the degree to which, particularly broadcast media, has focused too much on selling news as entertainment.
well this story has certainly pushed the Virginia governor's problems into the background...
or am I just in a Chicago media bubble?
I don’t know, but it’s interesting that people are much, much more concerned about him possibly wearing blackface 30 years ago than about comments about how you could deliver a baby and let it die just a couple weeks ago.
To each their own, I suppose.
This is just one incident and shouldn't be blown out of proportion either way, just because it gained media attention. However, it shows how quickly the mainstream media are to jump on a sensational and racially charged story in order to push a liberal narrative, even if the story itself is bogus.
Not the first time.
You are trying to Jussie me
Same. Must be fake news. Does MAGA even exist, or is it imaginary like unicorns and Eskimos?
Unicorns are real. Don't try to "fake news" me.
There used to be a fair amount of journalistic integrity. Now there seems to be none.
Wait a minute, is 1 person representative of a group or not? Isn't there a guy wearing a MAGA hat holding the other guy back? Is he the one that isn't representative of the group or is it the other guy?
I don't believe every single attendee at a Trump rally, and wearing a MAGA hat, is going to physically assault a member of the media. NPC D4617 stated: "no actual cases of people in MAGA hats hurting or assaulting other people". I simply posted a very recent example that shows an "actual case". I'm not going to say: "oh look, how is this even possible, a MAGA supporter restraining another MAGA supporter from attacking a photo journalist". We were not talking about one individual representing an entire group. I posted an example that disproves the claim he made in the quote I posted.
Perhaps I could put it this way. Neither is representative of the majority, although I will extend full credit to the gentleman acting to restrain the attack. But, at any Trump rally, those who are most representative are those wearing MAGA hats, and yelling in unison by the hundreds, or thousands, "CNN sucks", as well as booing loudly, each time Trump points to the media, and directs his ire at the media covering his rally. I should think those members of the Cult of Trump, are likely most representative of MAGA supporters. That does not mean I expect they would each gladly conduct a physical attack on a representative of the media. But, like Trump himself, they attack one of the bedrock principles of our democracy, namely freedom of the press, which includes the freedom to criticise this president, or any president.
They absolutely have that freedom and we should all stay vigilant on that subject. But unless I’ve mossed something, entirely possible, trump hasn’t done anything to curtail that freedom. He can bitch about it all day long. But until he tries to take action to violate that freedom...
And no I don’t consider the Acosta ban a freedom of the press attack. It was two assholes trying to one up each other and Acosta ultimately won.