Aug 24, 2017

The Post Journalism Era

Let me start with a disclaimer, I did not watch the speech/rally.  I started to watch a youtube of it, but loss interest very quickly.  What I did notice was that every article about it was an editorial, not a report. It compared what he previously said about Charlottesville, with what he said in Phoenix.

Trump complains that the media unfairly inserts their attitude into the news about him,  and the media in turn applies more attitude when reporting on his complaint.  Where does one find news in this climate?  It now appears that the BBC is channeling CNN: Scratch one more source.

Don't confuse me with a Trump supporter, I'm a defender of our democracy.  You couldn't have paid me to attend that Phoenix event.  Every complaint about him has some truth,  but the media should attempt to separate their opinion from their reporting.  CNN spent Wednesday asking various public officials if Trump is fit to be president?  The Democrats need to mound no opposition strategy,  the media is doing it for them.

The Trump era news' treatment is now being taught in our colleges and universities as journalism.  Revisionism, instead of taking decades, now takes minutes.


doug_b said...

I think our time in history, will be written as a textbook example of media/communication induced hysteria.

With the advent of 24 hr 'news' channels, there needs to be 'news' - constantly. Unfortunately there are not enough murders / stabbings / volcanoes / natural disasters for 24 hr news to exist. So they invent it. That morphed into 'opinion news'. This is where they dissect every move, every nuance, to criticize whom ever is their target.

Further the internet (completely driven by ad revenue) offers an endless supply of opinion, much of it wacko. Add to that 'social media' which is mostly a cesspool.

True, objective journalism is dead. They can no longer separate opinion from fact. The Wall St Journal and the Washington Post were good newspapers - at one time.

Bob said...

Mike, we are in agreement that there is way too much analysis finding its way into news coverage. And Doug is right about 24-hour news channels. It used to be that analysis occupied a few hours of airtime on Sunday mornings. Now three channels compete 24/7 to entertain you. Left, right, or center, they all traffic in outrage and I believe this is a major factor in the current toxicity.

You characterized Trump's statement as "Trump complains that the media unfairly inserts their attitude into the news about him..." With respect, Mike, your characterization describes how both Bushes spoke about the media, with some validity. If Trump spoke that way about the media, in my opinion there'd be some validity to it as well.

What Trump said is altogether different. He is telling people that the media is intentionally dishonest. With zero evidence, he claims that the media makes up anonymous sources. And he falsely claims that the media did not report Trump's statement condemning the KKK, when in fact it did.

Here are Trump's own words from Monday night's rally:

"But the very dishonest media, those people right up there with all the cameras.
So the -- and I mean truly dishonest people in the media and the fake media, they make up stories. They have no sources in many cases. They say "a source says" -- there is no such thing. But they don't report the facts. Just like they don't want to report that I spoke out forcefully against hatred, bigotry and violence and strongly condemned the neo-Nazis, the White Supremacists, and the KKK."

Mike, do you believe Trump when he says the media is dishonest and makes up sources?

I serve on the board of a small non-profit local news site. I have a longtime friend who worked at the NY Times and Wall Street Journal. Another friend worked as a journalist before a long career in journalism education. My first-hand observation is that journalists strive to be accurate and evenhanded. They tend to be left-leaning and as human beings they don't always succeed in keeping their biases out of reporting. Still, you would be surprised at how thoughtfully and how seriously journalism professionals approach the question of balance. And accuracy is paramount to any journalist who considers herself a professional.

The WSJ's reputation is a liberal news department and a conservative editorial page. Yet here's what's going on in the newsroom:

There are two issues here, and we conflate them at our peril. One is bias, which dates back to the first printing press and will always require vigilance. The other is accuracy. In my opinion, Trump's self-serving, unsubstantiated charges of media inaccuracy damage a pillar of our democracy.

Jamie Kelton said...

The real news from Phoenix was not President Trump's speech and rally, which was predictably successful with his supporters. What one should really look at was the rioting that broke out among leftists in the aftermath of the speech. Which police responded with tear gas and rubber bullets.

Shortly after the president’s speech ended and night fell in Phoenix, protesters began to throw water bottles and scream obscenities at police. This is what happens when the police do their job and the rioters have no one to attack but the police. Showing their true colors.

Was this riot noted by the mainstream media. It barley rated a paragraph as is common with the biased media. It should also be noted that the media calls these people ANTIFA. These protesters, these rioters, these people attacking the police are Democrats.

doug_b said...

It's obvious the media is 95% against Trump. The problem is there are way too many news stories from 'anonymous sources' or 'sources close to...'

Does the media have any dignity? The leaked conversation between Trump and the President of Mexico - why did they need to publish it? It was just more fodder, their belief was something in the conversation would cast a negative light on Trump.

The almost all newspapers now have a distinctly, unapologetic liberal slant.

michael molovinsky said...

bob@11:12, i will briefly answer your question, but it's my blog preference to post, and then keep the comment section for the readers.

i personally over the years on occasion have been misrepresented, and under represented, by certain personnel at The Morning Call. i considered those omissions and distortions dishonest.

I believe that Trump is correct about being mistreated by the media. i will refrain from directly addressing the question about dishonesty and sources, because I certainly don't wish to research and provide examples.

i do agree that the press is a pillar of our democracy, but then again, so was respect for the presidency.

Scott Armstrong said...

Bob, I was routinely misquoted by the local paper. When I called the reporter to complain/set the record straight she accused me of personally attacking her. The op-ed page was used by a political opponent to smear me and the op-ed editor lied to to me about why the rules of the op-ed page were not in fact broken. He knew he was lying but did it anyway. That is the press locally, that is the press nationwide. Stop even trying to make the case the the media is fair, balanced, accurate, or even remotely interested in what we used to call the truth. As I wrote yesterday, they aren't even trying to make that case anymore. Your argument is at best quaint. Give it up.
Now why don't you move on to making the case that this nations universities are populated by professors that are open minded intellectuals interested in teaching their students how to think critically.

TRENT HALL said...

The problem dear Trumpkin snowflakes is that Trump does not make news because he has no interest in or knowledge about any policy. His speeches are simply campaign nonsense shouted over and over again..."fake news"..."build the wall"..Mexico will pay for it"...crooked Hillary"...yadda yadda. What you decry as not accurately reporting Trump's "news" but only citing "leftish opinion" is reporting exactly what Trump actually says. You just think it is opinion, but, it's Trump's own words.

Example...Trump's much self heralded "Afghanistan Doctrine." Remove the bullshit and what did he actually say? That he has a plan to achieve victory, but, can't tell us now what it is or how many years or men it will take to achieve. Same old, same. Is it irresponsible for the media coverage to mention that Obama sent 100,00 men & 3 thousand private contractors for eight years and all that was accomplished was a draw? Perilous control of the Capital, but, none in the countryside? Like in Vietnam & Iraq? That we now have 12,000 men there, with a reported 4,000 more to come in a Trump "surge" along with some more private contractors. How is that going to change the situation when ten times the resources couldn't? Is it irresponsible, "leftist opinion" to report that for every Taliban we kill, ten civilians die along side them in drone/bomb/firepower attacks, thus creating 9 more folks hell bent to avenge their families' deaths? That the only sensible thing to do is declare BIG TRUMP VICTORY and go home? To report that only military contractors and corrupt locals benefit from our continued involvement?

Grow up people, the press is only reporting what the whole world recognizes, save for the Trumpkins.....the Emperor has no clothes and is full of sh-t.

ironpigpen said...

"The problem dear Trumpkin snowflakes ..."

I think the actual problem at hand is that Hillary Rodham Clinton lost the Presidential Election last November and butt-hurt Democrats, who actually believed the Lame Stream Media when they said over and over and over again that there was no way that Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife would not defeat Donald Trump in a landslide, simply refuse to accept the reality that The Messiah's hand-picked successor did not get her much anticipated and planned for Grand Coronation.

Speaking of growing up, I think it's about time for the mobs of Democrat voters to routinely stop attacking police each and every chance they get.