Should Trump be held to the same standards? Of course! Will Trump be held to the same standards? Not a snowball's chance in hell. Trump's unfitness is baked in for the elite political press. No outrageous comment, no toxic policy position, no insult, no lie rises to a level as to bear investigation or reporting anymore for them. And when someone suggests that Trump might be lying about something that really matters - the non-bullet wound for example - the threats from the campaign and the MAGA horde reach epic proportions and the story is killed. So bottom line, it's only a matter of time until the NYT finds something with Kamala they can hype like Biden's age or Hillary's emails. And even less time until they assemble a group of old white men wearing red hats in an Ohio diner to talk about how they will never support a DEI candidate.
Just look at the media’s reaction to Trump telling evangelicals they won’t need to vote again if they vote from him in large enough numbers. I have repeatedly seen mainstream media people saying he might have meant he was going to fix things so well that everyone would vote for him next time. It’s one thing to offer that as a possible explanation but it should be followed up with all the evidence that Trump wants to be a dictator — he has said so openly, he supports Project 2025 which is a clear blueprint for autocracy, and the strongest evidence that Trump means he won’t need another election for him to stay in office is the fact he has already tried to overthrow an election. But hey, it’s important to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. After that is what the media always does for Democrats, amirite?
You offer a most excellent suggestion, but it fails to take into account the fact that generations of journalists have come of age since the FCC abolished the "fairness doctrine". The concept of "fair and balanced" works as an advertising slogan, but the concept is so 20th Century.
Did we investigate Trump in a fair and balanced way? Not really. It was about getting Trump elected not vetted. Did we investigate J.D. Vance in a fair and unbalanced way. Not really. I am so happy to have Harris' focus on preserving democracy and her focus on human values. I'm dropping subscriptions right and left as what's going on is not fair and balanced.
We're based in Greeensboro, now, not Davidson. We are a boutique management-consulting and corporate training firm serving Fortune 500 clients, smaller businesses, government agencies, and nonprofits. Before becoming a partner, I was a journalist for almost 30 years and then was in nonprofit communications for more than 10.
What would you do if a big client wanted you to help them coach there employees to keep secrets? Like 3M's Jim Johnson and Kris Hanson kept fluorochemicals a secret. They found them in random blood samples in 1997 but wanted to keep there jobs. Would you work for Philip Morris?
I was not manipulated by billiionaires as a journalist and neither were the people I worked with and most of the journalists for other organizations that I knew.
When was the last time you wrote for and received a paycheck from a main stream media company? I think maybe you underestimate the impact people like, Rupert Murdoch, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Glen Taylor (my home state billionaire) and Sheldon Adelson just to name a few, have on media. If you do not please them you will be downsized in a reorganization.
Critiques of Harris must be not only FACTUALLY accurate, but CONTEXTUALLY accurate as well. The kind of crap coverage that Hillary Clinton got in 2016 was mostly factually accurate but almost never contextually accurate. And contextual inaccuracy is inaccuracy. It's not just a "balance" issue.
The WaPo’s Erik Wemple has a really snarky article up defending the media from charges that they have not given enough attention to the threat Trump poses to democracy.
Many of the most like comments to that article point out that just having these articles he lists is not nearly enough, especially if you place them on a back page instead of giving them prominent placement. This article was in response to the blowback against the Times and WaPo not giving their coverage of Trump’s “you won’t need to vote again” speech early and prominent coverage. The lesson to take from this is that Wemple’s and the Post’s defensiveness is strong evidence that liberals can intimidate the media for its bad coverage if enough people cry foul.
This article also proves to me that Wemple really is a media apologist, not a critic, and that the WaPo should have bought him out and kept the much more experienced and respected Margaret Sullivan (whom Wemple had the nerve criticized in this article). At least now we can all read her columns for free at the Guardian
I have been listening to mainstream media coverage of JD Vance’s diatribes about people having — or not having — kids. One anchor said Trey Gowdy gave him a chance to walk back his comments which Vance sort of did when the fact is he doubled down on them. There have been several discussions of Vance saying people who have kids should pay less in taxes. Only a couple of times did anyone bother to point out that that has been our policy for decades because that is what the child tax credit literally does — reduces your taxes. But in only one of these discussions did anyone point out that when Biden proposed to further reduce the tax burden on families with kids by increasing the child tax credit Republicans — including Vance — voted against that. How hard would it be to make an add playing Vance’s words that points out he actually voted against reducing the taxes of families with kids.
As Sedaris pointed out in 2020, America is being offered a choice between chicken and a shit sandwich, and the media thinks it needs to ask "But how is the chicken cooked?"
I’m sure Kamala has different views than Biden but I don’t think she’ll come out against Biden’s how can she since he’s still the president. I figure we won’t really know until she’s in office. I’m sure there will be some disappointment along the way. I’m just hoping she’s not as bad as Kathy Hochul.
You are acting like we have a press, a news media, that actually reports the news. We do not. If we did, your admonitions on how proper investigation should be conducted would not be needed. They would go without saying.
Interesting. One problem, journalism, unfortunately, has become a game of "follow the leader" that is, clicks for bucks. Kamala Harris' story is unknown territory; therefore, clicks. Tfg? He is a known entity no clicks. Also, there is also a major bias among the major players and right now? It doesn't seem to be pro-democracy.
Should Trump be held to the same standards? Of course! Will Trump be held to the same standards? Not a snowball's chance in hell. Trump's unfitness is baked in for the elite political press. No outrageous comment, no toxic policy position, no insult, no lie rises to a level as to bear investigation or reporting anymore for them. And when someone suggests that Trump might be lying about something that really matters - the non-bullet wound for example - the threats from the campaign and the MAGA horde reach epic proportions and the story is killed. So bottom line, it's only a matter of time until the NYT finds something with Kamala they can hype like Biden's age or Hillary's emails. And even less time until they assemble a group of old white men wearing red hats in an Ohio diner to talk about how they will never support a DEI candidate.
Just look at the media’s reaction to Trump telling evangelicals they won’t need to vote again if they vote from him in large enough numbers. I have repeatedly seen mainstream media people saying he might have meant he was going to fix things so well that everyone would vote for him next time. It’s one thing to offer that as a possible explanation but it should be followed up with all the evidence that Trump wants to be a dictator — he has said so openly, he supports Project 2025 which is a clear blueprint for autocracy, and the strongest evidence that Trump means he won’t need another election for him to stay in office is the fact he has already tried to overthrow an election. But hey, it’s important to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. After that is what the media always does for Democrats, amirite?
You offer a most excellent suggestion, but it fails to take into account the fact that generations of journalists have come of age since the FCC abolished the "fairness doctrine". The concept of "fair and balanced" works as an advertising slogan, but the concept is so 20th Century.
Did we investigate Trump in a fair and balanced way? Not really. It was about getting Trump elected not vetted. Did we investigate J.D. Vance in a fair and unbalanced way. Not really. I am so happy to have Harris' focus on preserving democracy and her focus on human values. I'm dropping subscriptions right and left as what's going on is not fair and balanced.
Journalist can either be fair and honest or they can work for a main stream media company. They can't do both. That is why journalist are on substack.
Untrue.
What does AlexanderHancock Associates do in Davidson, North Carolina ?
We're based in Greeensboro, now, not Davidson. We are a boutique management-consulting and corporate training firm serving Fortune 500 clients, smaller businesses, government agencies, and nonprofits. Before becoming a partner, I was a journalist for almost 30 years and then was in nonprofit communications for more than 10.
What would you do if a big client wanted you to help them coach there employees to keep secrets? Like 3M's Jim Johnson and Kris Hanson kept fluorochemicals a secret. They found them in random blood samples in 1997 but wanted to keep there jobs. Would you work for Philip Morris?
An award-winning newspaper journalist for 25 years, do you now market alternate facts? Are you an indentured servant to the Fortune 500 clients?
I was not manipulated by billiionaires as a journalist and neither were the people I worked with and most of the journalists for other organizations that I knew.
When was the last time you wrote for and received a paycheck from a main stream media company? I think maybe you underestimate the impact people like, Rupert Murdoch, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Glen Taylor (my home state billionaire) and Sheldon Adelson just to name a few, have on media. If you do not please them you will be downsized in a reorganization.
It is true!!! X , youtube, major newspapers all owned by the America billionaires, Putin loving American oligarchs
Critiques of Harris must be not only FACTUALLY accurate, but CONTEXTUALLY accurate as well. The kind of crap coverage that Hillary Clinton got in 2016 was mostly factually accurate but almost never contextually accurate. And contextual inaccuracy is inaccuracy. It's not just a "balance" issue.
The WaPo’s Erik Wemple has a really snarky article up defending the media from charges that they have not given enough attention to the threat Trump poses to democracy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/15/trump-authoritarianism-media-stakes/?itid=ap_erikwemple
Many of the most like comments to that article point out that just having these articles he lists is not nearly enough, especially if you place them on a back page instead of giving them prominent placement. This article was in response to the blowback against the Times and WaPo not giving their coverage of Trump’s “you won’t need to vote again” speech early and prominent coverage. The lesson to take from this is that Wemple’s and the Post’s defensiveness is strong evidence that liberals can intimidate the media for its bad coverage if enough people cry foul.
This article also proves to me that Wemple really is a media apologist, not a critic, and that the WaPo should have bought him out and kept the much more experienced and respected Margaret Sullivan (whom Wemple had the nerve criticized in this article). At least now we can all read her columns for free at the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/margaret-sullivan
I have been listening to mainstream media coverage of JD Vance’s diatribes about people having — or not having — kids. One anchor said Trey Gowdy gave him a chance to walk back his comments which Vance sort of did when the fact is he doubled down on them. There have been several discussions of Vance saying people who have kids should pay less in taxes. Only a couple of times did anyone bother to point out that that has been our policy for decades because that is what the child tax credit literally does — reduces your taxes. But in only one of these discussions did anyone point out that when Biden proposed to further reduce the tax burden on families with kids by increasing the child tax credit Republicans — including Vance — voted against that. How hard would it be to make an add playing Vance’s words that points out he actually voted against reducing the taxes of families with kids.
As Sedaris pointed out in 2020, America is being offered a choice between chicken and a shit sandwich, and the media thinks it needs to ask "But how is the chicken cooked?"
I’m sure Kamala has different views than Biden but I don’t think she’ll come out against Biden’s how can she since he’s still the president. I figure we won’t really know until she’s in office. I’m sure there will be some disappointment along the way. I’m just hoping she’s not as bad as Kathy Hochul.
You are acting like we have a press, a news media, that actually reports the news. We do not. If we did, your admonitions on how proper investigation should be conducted would not be needed. They would go without saying.
Interesting. One problem, journalism, unfortunately, has become a game of "follow the leader" that is, clicks for bucks. Kamala Harris' story is unknown territory; therefore, clicks. Tfg? He is a known entity no clicks. Also, there is also a major bias among the major players and right now? It doesn't seem to be pro-democracy.
I'm surprised at the promotion of "bothsidism" or is it just an opinion that the GOP Project 2025 is a blatant rejection of democracy.