The sane washing continues. Zero coverage of Trump's comments on NBC, CBS, ABC or CNN.
NPR actually published an article today, in the Opinion section.
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
310 points (97.3% liked)
politics
18870 readers
4887 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It’s laughable that MAGA chuds keep insisting the mainstream media is biased against Trump when the truth is he gets every advantage and benefit of the doubt imaginable. It’s not their fault he’s just a stupid piece of shit that fumbles everything despite their help.
Let’s be honest here, the mainstream media and cable news networks in particular have been carrying water for Trump since he descended that fucking escalator in 2015 and announced his racist platform. Nobody wants a second Trump presidency more than the mainstream media. There’s a reason ABC kept turning his mic back on during the debate but shut Kamala Harris down the one time she tried to speak outside of her allotted time. The major news outlets have failed us completely.
I won't necessarily say it's that.
There are two main crowds when it comes to Trump coverage:
- Why give airtime to those lies and nonsense?
- Why aren't you covering his lies and nonsense?
Literally no way to make both of those groups happy, lol.
When it's just him spouting off lies, conspiracies, and hate, I say give him as little coverage as possible. The people voting for him don't care or want that, and the "undecideds" at this point are either just attention-seekers or too ignorant for any additional coverage to get through their thick skulls.
The only people who don't know what Trump's about by now would have to have been cryogenically frozen or in a coma since 2014, and I don't think that's a large enough voting demographic to really worry about.
Option 1 is like having a statue of Hitler in a town square and treating it like any other honorary statue.
Option 2 is hiding Hitler completely and never mentioning his existence, even though he is currently doing terrible things.
There is a third option, write an article about how incoherent he is while using what he said as examples and not just giving him a platform with 'he said...' and no context. Like how museums handle horrible subjects by giving them context. People tend to worry that pointing out his incoherence would be editoralizing or some excuse to fall back to 1 or 2, but it isn't. He is clearly spouting incoherent word salad beyond prior years and that is newsworty.
That's...not wrong. And I see where you're coming from.
But they'd end up spending 24/7 coverage just debunking that shit because it's coming out like a fire hose every time he's on camera or taking a shit (because what he craps out on social media also gets news coverage).
I can't tell you how much I'm looking forward to the day the news isn't dominated by this orange turd (except maybe coverage of his sentencing or something) Mid 2021 was kind of a preview of that, but once our 3 year election cycle kicked back in, there he was again all day, every day.
Maybe they could do a weekly Trump bullshit fact check wrap up instead or something?
Regardless, I agree with them not airing the live feed/coverage, but I can agree with you that the overall behavior should be highlighted in some way.
They don't need to debunk everything he says though, just hit the major points and extrapolate from there.
I mean, they crucified Biden for a single debate performance that was likely the result of jet lag and illness, why can't they do that to someone who deserves it by having similar performances every single day?
Agreed that the coverage doesn't need to be daily.
Almost like they want him to win.. and that you should never EVER trust these entertainment companies with ANYTHING ever again.
Corporate journalism is over. It doesn't exist anymore because it is NOT PROFITABLE.
That's the lesson here. Please I hope people learn this lesson.
The tricky part of this is that Trump's statements are believed in their entirety by his supporters, despite the fact that they are untrue. He has successfully managed to cast the act of holding politicians to account, a major function of the press, as a purely political act, at least in the opinion of its followers.
So the news media has to choose: it can hold Trump to account, and face accusations of political bias from one whole side. Or, it can not hold Trump to account for what he says at all, and maybe get less pushback from the other side. The safest way (which returns more value to shareholders) is the second option. If they push back at all, it would be safest to label it "opinion", so as not to trigger people.
The reason why Biden's performance during the debate didn't merit the same treatment is that his party does not march in the same lockstep as the Republican base. So the story there was as much of the party's reaction to it as to Biden's Performance.
At the time of publication, the post had more than 2,700 likes.
Which were probably like 12 hillbillies and 2688 Russian bots.
What exactly is “woman-made destruction”? Trump’s mom giving birth to him?
Let me provide my interpretation. Kamala Harris was naturally born, so she was made by a woman, hence the whole "woman-made destruction" comment. Trump was excreted out of a sewer-blocking fatberg that was impregnated after someone foolishly ejaculated down a storm drain.
Fuck man, I've only been awake for an hour and I'm already pissed off about this shithead. Time to take a break.
Comrade Kamela is my favourite radical left Marxist Communist Leninist Maoist Feminist Philatelist.
Comrade Howard*
Will this be her Dark Brandon moniker?!
Calling Comrade Howard, Comrade Fine, Comrade Howard
This gets my stamp of approval.
"They don't have Pacific Oceans."
Donald Trump
Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that
#
"He also referred to Harris as a “radical left Marxist Communist fascist,”
It would make PERFECT "sense" to his cult of followers.
It's only impossible to people who believe that everything can be fit into a one dimensional political spectrum.
China clearly is more fascist than communist these days (no matter what they call themselves) but at what point did it cease to be communist and become fascist?
Seems to me both communism and fascism are both authoritarian they just rationalize it in different ways. China has had a continuous authoritarian regime for many decades, but previously it was rationalized as being needed to bring equality. But now there's capitalism and billionaires in China (but no labour unions) so the rationalization for authoritarianism has shifted to needing a strongman to protect China from foreigners. Same government, just a shift in rationalizations.
Seems to me you should read more. All these words have definitions even though it may not seem that way to you…
So what form of government does China have given there's capitalism, billionaires, no labour unions, an authoritarian government that oppresses minorities and a whole lot of xenophobia in the rhetoric of their leaders? What do your definitions say about a government like that?
I didn’t say I was going to teach the class, I said you should educate yourself. But you seem to enjoy the folly of ignorance.
You wrote a lot of words when you could've just wrote one. Maybe you'd have an answer and if you spent more time educating yourself and less time trying to come off as smarter than everyone else while saying nothing.
And shes an Antifa fascist.
My father (who died in like 2008 so he never knew these Trump years) used to call people who made him mad "commie pinko bed-wetters." It's a whole thing for some people; chain your weird insult words together.
"#"
Age dementia and syphilis dementia combo. This geriatric needs terminal care. He is physically and mentally unfit for the job.
#
^Would^
^you^
^like^
^to^
^play^
^tic^
^tac^
^toe?^
###
#X#
###
All those ads an pop-ups are really annoying. Printfriendly isn't perfect but does make the website a bit more readable: https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/DYjpGu