I don’t watch Morning Joe anyway because I don’t like mainstream morning shows. Too much fluff. I’d rather listen to NPR. But why any news organization would make a trip to see Trump to get the “read of the man” is ridiculous. We’ve known what Trump is since before his election. He hasn’t changed, only gotten worse and more dangerous. He’s a narcissistic sociopath and grifter who’s determined to bring down our democracy and declare himself king. So the question remains, Why really did Joe and Mika go to Mar-a-Lago to see him? Are they afraid of being prosecuted for broadcasting anti-Trump news?
Mika and Joe probably went because the management of Comcast (which owns MSNBC) told them to do so. Just like WaPo, CNN & NYT; all of these media companies are desperate to add conservative viewers/subscribers--or not lose their relatively small shares they currently have.
And yes, they're probably also afraid that Trump's DOJ/FBI will come after them for spurious reasons. Which is what has already happened in Hungary, India and Poland, where government-initiated lawsuits and prosecution has sought (and largely succeeded) to cripple non-conservative media.
Last month's Ipsos poll found that of the 85% of conservatives who get some/all of their news from FOX News, 80% believe that crime & unemployment are at all-time highs, and that we're already in a recession. Which is before you get into their wackier beliefs: that Dems abort (murder) babies *after* birth. That we invite illegals across the border to give them the vote to steal elections. That we're verminous, anti-American scum who want to turn all kids gay or trans.
Conservative America lives in this fantasy realm because FOX News and its lesser competitors spin them these lies daily, continually, year after year. And GOP politicians like Trump repeat them. Until and unless the RW media is required to adhere to actual journalistic practices, our democracy is doomed.
They already have been, regarding the efforts of Internet companies to cut down on mis-/dis-information during the pandemic. The de-platforming was done mainly to conservatives on health issues--the kill-Covid-with-bleach types, who also act as influencers for other RW issues, like killing abortion access.
Changing libel law, so that companies like Dominion can sue for slander more easily, could be a start. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine could be another. Convening a panel of brilliant Dem strategists to explore options is clearly in order.
I believe that legal scholars could find grounds to contest First Amendment protection of deliberate lies, at least by supposed journalists.
When someone like Donald ignores hard data and says the "real numbers" are very different, that's politics. Dirty and immoral, but political speech and clearly protected.
Journalism, whether hard news or opinion, needs to be held to a higher standard. If a news outlet says, "X is happening," they should have to back that up with verifiable information. Fox "News" beat a suit against Tucker Carlson by arguing that his show was not a news program and that viewers had no reason to believe anything that he said was factual. That's indecent.
Harry Litman published today a scathing denunciation of the LAT owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, and why Litman has just resigned from the newspaper. All in keeping with what you've been writing, Dan, on "anticipatory obedience" on the part of billionaire media owners. Read Litman here:
They haven't and they won't. Self respecting journalists who are willing to speak truth to power have either been pushed out or have left in disgust. There are a few that are holding out but they are overwhelmed by the corporate media lackeys. Our last best hope is alternative media that is not beholden to corporate greed. People are flocking to alternative outlets that are willing to speak truth to power. Real news outlets need to grow bigger, get louder and massively expand their reach if we have any hope of getting through this with our democracy intact.
From the first look at them I thought of those two as self important examples of the old Peter Principle. They have nothing to offer to inform viewers
and are only concerned with holding what they consider glamorous jobs.
I have an aversion to selfish cowards. It’s absurd to think of those two as anything other than “liberal” media’s answer to right wing sophistry. Tit for tat, actually.
The idea that you only speak to potential sources and contacts on the record is lovely as a point in a journalism seminar but absurdly idealistic and silly out on the street. Of course you have contact with sources. Or else why aren't there 1,000 on-the-record news stories filed the morning after the WCHA Annual Dinner?
Froomkin specifically addresses why Trump is not a source to be given background status.
and in what possible context could the president as anonymous source have any journalistic value? if he wants to get a message out, why wouldn't he do so under his name?
"have contact" doing a lot of work here. there are a number of ways to stay in contact with sources that don't involve making a journey to their personal kingdom to bend the knee.
Or dressing up to fraternize with them at a fancy dress ball. A quick trip to Mar a Lago is no more unethical or degrading than going to Nerd Prom. They didn't give him "background status." They simply sat around and talked without it being an interview. This happens all the time in the real world. It's how real reporters build relationships even with sources they don't trust or admire.
another school of reporting says you don't need access or personal relationships to do your job. while access journalism has been a norm for ages, it now seems to create ethical conflicts. how much reporting is downplayed or omitted when it would jeopardize the reporter-source relationship? we've seen a lot of line-crossing these past years, and it often seems preserving the relationship wins out over facts.
In what way? I ask because I spent a couple of decades reporting for newspapers and we often socialized with sources off the record. It's a process that makes interviews easier when you do meet formally because the source is more relaxed and more apt to tell you something that otherwise wouldn't have come out. It's not "Journalism 101" but it's "Reporting," which is a little less theoretical and a little more pragmatic.
I respect normal journalistic practices. However, Trump is sui generis. Please reread the first paragraph. Or this:
"Going off the record with a source is a compact and a sign of respect. You grant a source anonymity on the assumption that you will get valuable information in return. But Trump holds nothing back in public. Nothing he says off the record will be revelatory. Certainly nothing will be revelatory and true. Nothing will suddenly give you a better “read on the man.”
So what is it then? It’s bending the knee. It’s obedience."
So explain the WCHA Dinner. And if I am at, say, the opening of a new bridge and the mayor is standing there, do I have to ignore him unless I come away with a quote for a story? What if I see him at the grocery store? Should I turn my cart and go the other way? When I first became editor of a small town paper, a woman with political connections invited me to lunch, where she provided valuable backgrounders on who was who and how things worked. It was incredibly useful but it wasn't an interview and it didn't result in a story. I ran into her often at events, but only interviewed her after she became AG in the state. Today she's governor and I'd likely have excellent access for on-the-record work if I still lived there.
I don’t watch Morning Joe anyway because I don’t like mainstream morning shows. Too much fluff. I’d rather listen to NPR. But why any news organization would make a trip to see Trump to get the “read of the man” is ridiculous. We’ve known what Trump is since before his election. He hasn’t changed, only gotten worse and more dangerous. He’s a narcissistic sociopath and grifter who’s determined to bring down our democracy and declare himself king. So the question remains, Why really did Joe and Mika go to Mar-a-Lago to see him? Are they afraid of being prosecuted for broadcasting anti-Trump news?
Mika and Joe probably went because the management of Comcast (which owns MSNBC) told them to do so. Just like WaPo, CNN & NYT; all of these media companies are desperate to add conservative viewers/subscribers--or not lose their relatively small shares they currently have.
And yes, they're probably also afraid that Trump's DOJ/FBI will come after them for spurious reasons. Which is what has already happened in Hungary, India and Poland, where government-initiated lawsuits and prosecution has sought (and largely succeeded) to cripple non-conservative media.
You’re right of course. My questions were actually rhetorical, because we all know the answer.
Hopefully, Trump2 *won't* result in a rash of spurious Federal attacks on non-conservative media, for simply being non-conservative. De Santis in FL did recently threaten legal action against TV stations running Pro-Choice ads: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/29/florida-tv-ad-abortion-amendment-charges-00186025
Last month's Ipsos poll found that of the 85% of conservatives who get some/all of their news from FOX News, 80% believe that crime & unemployment are at all-time highs, and that we're already in a recession. Which is before you get into their wackier beliefs: that Dems abort (murder) babies *after* birth. That we invite illegals across the border to give them the vote to steal elections. That we're verminous, anti-American scum who want to turn all kids gay or trans.
Conservative America lives in this fantasy realm because FOX News and its lesser competitors spin them these lies daily, continually, year after year. And GOP politicians like Trump repeat them. Until and unless the RW media is required to adhere to actual journalistic practices, our democracy is doomed.
But who would require them? They’ll all be screaming that their right to free speech is being trampled.
They already have been, regarding the efforts of Internet companies to cut down on mis-/dis-information during the pandemic. The de-platforming was done mainly to conservatives on health issues--the kill-Covid-with-bleach types, who also act as influencers for other RW issues, like killing abortion access.
Changing libel law, so that companies like Dominion can sue for slander more easily, could be a start. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine could be another. Convening a panel of brilliant Dem strategists to explore options is clearly in order.
I believe that legal scholars could find grounds to contest First Amendment protection of deliberate lies, at least by supposed journalists.
When someone like Donald ignores hard data and says the "real numbers" are very different, that's politics. Dirty and immoral, but political speech and clearly protected.
Journalism, whether hard news or opinion, needs to be held to a higher standard. If a news outlet says, "X is happening," they should have to back that up with verifiable information. Fox "News" beat a suit against Tucker Carlson by arguing that his show was not a news program and that viewers had no reason to believe anything that he said was factual. That's indecent.
Harry Litman published today a scathing denunciation of the LAT owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, and why Litman has just resigned from the newspaper. All in keeping with what you've been writing, Dan, on "anticipatory obedience" on the part of billionaire media owners. Read Litman here:
https://harrylitman.substack.com/p/why-i-just-resigned-from-the-los
They haven't and they won't. Self respecting journalists who are willing to speak truth to power have either been pushed out or have left in disgust. There are a few that are holding out but they are overwhelmed by the corporate media lackeys. Our last best hope is alternative media that is not beholden to corporate greed. People are flocking to alternative outlets that are willing to speak truth to power. Real news outlets need to grow bigger, get louder and massively expand their reach if we have any hope of getting through this with our democracy intact.
Joe always talks too much.
From the first look at them I thought of those two as self important examples of the old Peter Principle. They have nothing to offer to inform viewers
and are only concerned with holding what they consider glamorous jobs.
I have an aversion to selfish cowards. It’s absurd to think of those two as anything other than “liberal” media’s answer to right wing sophistry. Tit for tat, actually.
Are they really using the “everybody else is doing it” excuse/rationale for their behavior? It didn’t work when I was a kid:
Me: But mom, EVERYONE is bleaching their hair.
Mom: If everyone was jumping off a cliff would you jump too?
Which pretty much ended the discussion.
Of course now, the answer would be yes from the MAGAt-verse as lemmings gotta do what lemmings gotta do.
The idea that you only speak to potential sources and contacts on the record is lovely as a point in a journalism seminar but absurdly idealistic and silly out on the street. Of course you have contact with sources. Or else why aren't there 1,000 on-the-record news stories filed the morning after the WCHA Annual Dinner?
Froomkin specifically addresses why Trump is not a source to be given background status.
and in what possible context could the president as anonymous source have any journalistic value? if he wants to get a message out, why wouldn't he do so under his name?
"have contact" doing a lot of work here. there are a number of ways to stay in contact with sources that don't involve making a journey to their personal kingdom to bend the knee.
Or dressing up to fraternize with them at a fancy dress ball. A quick trip to Mar a Lago is no more unethical or degrading than going to Nerd Prom. They didn't give him "background status." They simply sat around and talked without it being an interview. This happens all the time in the real world. It's how real reporters build relationships even with sources they don't trust or admire.
another school of reporting says you don't need access or personal relationships to do your job. while access journalism has been a norm for ages, it now seems to create ethical conflicts. how much reporting is downplayed or omitted when it would jeopardize the reporter-source relationship? we've seen a lot of line-crossing these past years, and it often seems preserving the relationship wins out over facts.
I think you missed his point.
In what way? I ask because I spent a couple of decades reporting for newspapers and we often socialized with sources off the record. It's a process that makes interviews easier when you do meet formally because the source is more relaxed and more apt to tell you something that otherwise wouldn't have come out. It's not "Journalism 101" but it's "Reporting," which is a little less theoretical and a little more pragmatic.
I respect normal journalistic practices. However, Trump is sui generis. Please reread the first paragraph. Or this:
"Going off the record with a source is a compact and a sign of respect. You grant a source anonymity on the assumption that you will get valuable information in return. But Trump holds nothing back in public. Nothing he says off the record will be revelatory. Certainly nothing will be revelatory and true. Nothing will suddenly give you a better “read on the man.”
So what is it then? It’s bending the knee. It’s obedience."
So explain the WCHA Dinner. And if I am at, say, the opening of a new bridge and the mayor is standing there, do I have to ignore him unless I come away with a quote for a story? What if I see him at the grocery store? Should I turn my cart and go the other way? When I first became editor of a small town paper, a woman with political connections invited me to lunch, where she provided valuable backgrounders on who was who and how things worked. It was incredibly useful but it wasn't an interview and it didn't result in a story. I ran into her often at events, but only interviewed her after she became AG in the state. Today she's governor and I'd likely have excellent access for on-the-record work if I still lived there.
Base appeasement. Is there any other POLITE term?
Acting like they are doing a service for their readers/viewers! Insulting gaslighting!!😵💫😤🤮
https://substack.com/home/post/p-152592632
AN OPEN LETTER TO MY MAGA NEIGHBOR
You Know Who You Are: Your House Still Draped in MAGA Banners, Red Hat Firmly on Your Head, and Truck Plastered with Trump Stickers