The press versus the president - Columbia Journalism Review

[whell]

I considered posting this in the "Fake News" thread, but it deserves its own spot.

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/t...ent-part-1.php

It's a 4 part, decidedly non-partisan examination of the press's relationship with Trump published by the Columbia Journalism Review. It paints both sides alternately as antagonists and protagonists, but the article's true focus is on the press. Essentially, the articles explore this question: Was the coverage of Trump by the mainstream media pre ad post-election consistent with responsible, ethical journalism.

You read, you decide.

[finnbow]

The press made Donald Trump because they simply could not abide not writing about a a shit show inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck. Once he got into office, they realized they helped elevate a career criminal into the highest office in the land and went about trying to clear their consciences by revealing how much of a lawless, lying, narcissistic cretin he was.

[Dondilion]

The primary mover for the press and the media in general was financial. Trump drew a lot of eyes and ears which was exceedingly good for the bottom line.

Many newspapers, confronted by the new matrix in the business welcomed the pull of Trump.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The press made Donald Trump because they simply could not abide not writing about a a shit show inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck. Once he got into office, they realized they helped elevate a career criminal into the highest office in the land and went about trying to clear their consciences by revealing how much of a lawless, lying, narcissistic cretin he was.

Thanks for not reading the article linked in the OP. I understand that the information presented may not comport with your worldview, so you probably chose to avoid it.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

The primary mover for the press and the media, in general, was financial. Trump drew a lot of eyes and ears which was exceedingly good for the bottom line.

Many newspapers, confronted by the new matrix in the business welcomed the pull of Trumped.

There's some of that, for sure. How much that competition for clicks and eyeballs drove the media to do some of all of what they did? Well, the article lays some of that bare. Honestly, based on the article plus what I've observed over the last 6 - 7 years, it doesn't appear to have been the primary driver.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Thanks for not reading the article linked in the OP. I understand that the information presented may not comport with your worldview, so you probably chose to avoid it.

I don't need to read a CYA exercise of the journalism community to understand how it failed the American people in providing Trump free publicity, thus enabling his run for President and the subsequent damage his did to this country.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I don't need to read a CYA exercise of the journalism community to understand how it failed the American people in providing Trump free publicity, thus enabling his run for President and the subsequent damage his did to this country.

...and of course, if you read it, you'd find that your comment above is wildly inaccurate.

[Rajoo]

The press gave legitimacy to the ramblings of a certified moron.
I did read beginning part of the article and then asked myself, who cares what this moron thinks. He is nothing but a crook and paraphrasing his own words, "Lock him up".

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

...and of course, if you read it, you'd find that your comment above is wildly inaccurate.

The whole premise of the article that the press has been unfair to Trump is BS. The press and Trump had a symbiotic relationship, without which (along with Russia's help) he never would have become President. Besides, a career criminal who spouts lies at a documented 20x daily rate doesn't deserve kid-glove treatment. Fuck him and the press he rode in on.

[Rajoo]

House majority leader to colleagues in 2016: ‘I think Putin pays’ Trump

KIEV, Ukraine — A month before Donald Trump clinched the Republican nomination, one of his closest allies in Congress — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy — made a politically explosive assertion in a private conversation on Capitol Hill with his fellow GOP leaders: that Trump could be the beneficiary of payments from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of the June****15, 2016, exchange, which was listened to and verified by The Washington Post. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is a Californian Republican known in Congress as a fervent defender of Putin and Russia.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) immediately interjected, stopping the conversation from further exploring McCarthy’s assertion, and swore the Republicans present to secrecy.

QED

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...e8c_story.html