Not to mention the words "lies" and "liar." The mainstream media never use those words. Trump is a liar. He tells lies, not "untruths" or "falsehoods" or "exaggerations".
Watch this video of George Conway justifiably calling CNN’s Republican “Commentator” Scott Jennings a liar for lying about what Trump was convicted for. Kasie Hunt’s appalled reaction and defense of her lying colleague epitomizes what you are pointing out.
Greg Sargent — who is one of the great opinion writers no longer at the WaPo — interviews Conway in today’s Daily Blast podcast.
And now we learn that the WaPo is replacing executive editor Sally Buzbee with a WSJ/Murdoch guy — just “temporarily” you understand, until after the election. The more the WaPo panders to the right the more readers/subscribers they lose.
Could that be a legal matter if the news printed he was a liar? Liable would be hard to prove but none of these outlets want to be in court fighting charges from Trump. Is there any doubt Trump would not sue?
I'm pretty sure politicians serving in public office cannot sue anyone who calls them a liar. The public can say whatever they want about a politician in power, because we have freedom of speech. Of course one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and there are some limits on what one can say, especially if it can lead to violence or harm. Barring any threats or hate speech, politician are fair game to call out as liars.
You mean libel. Glenn Kessler catalogued over 30,000 lies, falsehoods, whatever you want to call them, uttered by Trump while he was in office. Trump never sued anyone for libel - because he knows he'd lose.
Back on a normal day, it would be a given. Now that he is fighting legal battles on multiple fronts with a shrinking corps of lawyers, he has to pick his battles.
Given the high bar to prove malice, if he didn't pass up the chance to sue, he'd show his typical reckless flinging of accusations and protestations and still lose in court.
Can we address the lack of informative news coverage on Trump without recognizing the facts of who owns corporate media and who still profits off the huge tax cuts Trump and the GOP pushed through Congress.
This column feels like a retreat to me. I love your work, but...
First, "media" is a plural noun, and it encompasses multiple types of medium: print, broadcast, cable, website, social media, and podcast. So plural verbs are important as reminders that "the media" are not a monolithic bloc but an assortment of news and opinion sources. So it feels like you are helping people avoid discriminating between different types of media, as well as who owns those sources.
Second, "elite media" is even more opaque. In the past, you've used the term "corporate media," which I think is much more to the point. A medium owned by a billionaire or one of their corporations (X, WaPo, Fox) may not have an "elite" image, but it clearly exists for one reason only (like all corporations): to make the maximum short-term profit, no matter any long-term costs.
So, copy editors are laid off, headline writers are directed to get maximum clicks in order to gather data for advertising sales, publishers fire investigative reporters and hire in their stead supposedly balancing voices from the right-wing fringes, and stories like Sam Alito's "stop the steal" flag episode are buried for years.
Let's remind readers that there are many independent, non-profit, reader-funded sources (like this column, only with more subscribers). ProPublica, Mother Jones, Young Turks, National Native News, and a host of others do the work that traditional corporate media have abandoned for the most part. They deserve our attention and our support.
Don’t ever forget that Joe Kahn has explicitly said this is not the NYT’s job. They’re busy with the most important issues at the front of Americans’ minds, like the presidency of Harvard or (in Parker Molloy’s depressingly perfect phrase) exactly how many trans people is too many.
Over and over again, Trump has clearly shown that he is a psychopath and that his mental condition is sliding towards full-blown dementia. He is clearly a very dangerous man, and he needs to be removed from public life before he destroys the country.
I think that to a large extent, the news media is afraid of him, but many are simply playing by the same old rules and are still in denial of the fact that Trump is not a politician; he is a cult leader who has seized control of a political party. He is all about power and revenge, is a constant liar, and a criminal who may soon be a convicted felon. He's the most terrifying person to come along since Adolf Hitler because, should he win the election in November, he will be a madman running the richest and most powerful country in the world. And the media doesn't seem to care, or is too afraid of him to write honestly about the threat we face from a man who has no regard for truth, has no integrity and is planning violence against his fellow Americans.
Not to mention the words "lies" and "liar." The mainstream media never use those words. Trump is a liar. He tells lies, not "untruths" or "falsehoods" or "exaggerations".
Watch this video of George Conway justifiably calling CNN’s Republican “Commentator” Scott Jennings a liar for lying about what Trump was convicted for. Kasie Hunt’s appalled reaction and defense of her lying colleague epitomizes what you are pointing out.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/05/31/trump-guilty-verdict-george-conway-scott-jennings-cnntm-ldn-digvid.cnn
Greg Sargent — who is one of the great opinion writers no longer at the WaPo — interviews Conway in today’s Daily Blast podcast.
And now we learn that the WaPo is replacing executive editor Sally Buzbee with a WSJ/Murdoch guy — just “temporarily” you understand, until after the election. The more the WaPo panders to the right the more readers/subscribers they lose.
Could that be a legal matter if the news printed he was a liar? Liable would be hard to prove but none of these outlets want to be in court fighting charges from Trump. Is there any doubt Trump would not sue?
I'm pretty sure politicians serving in public office cannot sue anyone who calls them a liar. The public can say whatever they want about a politician in power, because we have freedom of speech. Of course one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and there are some limits on what one can say, especially if it can lead to violence or harm. Barring any threats or hate speech, politician are fair game to call out as liars.
Even if you do get sued if you can prove they lied you’re OK as long as someone is willing to take your case without bankrupting you.
You mean libel. Glenn Kessler catalogued over 30,000 lies, falsehoods, whatever you want to call them, uttered by Trump while he was in office. Trump never sued anyone for libel - because he knows he'd lose.
Back on a normal day, it would be a given. Now that he is fighting legal battles on multiple fronts with a shrinking corps of lawyers, he has to pick his battles.
Given the high bar to prove malice, if he didn't pass up the chance to sue, he'd show his typical reckless flinging of accusations and protestations and still lose in court.
Can we address the lack of informative news coverage on Trump without recognizing the facts of who owns corporate media and who still profits off the huge tax cuts Trump and the GOP pushed through Congress.
And what is it you love so much about Communism?
This column feels like a retreat to me. I love your work, but...
First, "media" is a plural noun, and it encompasses multiple types of medium: print, broadcast, cable, website, social media, and podcast. So plural verbs are important as reminders that "the media" are not a monolithic bloc but an assortment of news and opinion sources. So it feels like you are helping people avoid discriminating between different types of media, as well as who owns those sources.
Second, "elite media" is even more opaque. In the past, you've used the term "corporate media," which I think is much more to the point. A medium owned by a billionaire or one of their corporations (X, WaPo, Fox) may not have an "elite" image, but it clearly exists for one reason only (like all corporations): to make the maximum short-term profit, no matter any long-term costs.
So, copy editors are laid off, headline writers are directed to get maximum clicks in order to gather data for advertising sales, publishers fire investigative reporters and hire in their stead supposedly balancing voices from the right-wing fringes, and stories like Sam Alito's "stop the steal" flag episode are buried for years.
Let's remind readers that there are many independent, non-profit, reader-funded sources (like this column, only with more subscribers). ProPublica, Mother Jones, Young Turks, National Native News, and a host of others do the work that traditional corporate media have abandoned for the most part. They deserve our attention and our support.
Don’t ever forget that Joe Kahn has explicitly said this is not the NYT’s job. They’re busy with the most important issues at the front of Americans’ minds, like the presidency of Harvard or (in Parker Molloy’s depressingly perfect phrase) exactly how many trans people is too many.
Very true! Rump would be devastating to this country and the fact that people act indifferent or love him is just unbelievable.
You are always so right. The Cassandra of modern day media coverage.
A good place for them to start would be till merely stop putting a camera on him every time he approaches a microphone! Stop covering his lies!
Over and over again, Trump has clearly shown that he is a psychopath and that his mental condition is sliding towards full-blown dementia. He is clearly a very dangerous man, and he needs to be removed from public life before he destroys the country.
I think that to a large extent, the news media is afraid of him, but many are simply playing by the same old rules and are still in denial of the fact that Trump is not a politician; he is a cult leader who has seized control of a political party. He is all about power and revenge, is a constant liar, and a criminal who may soon be a convicted felon. He's the most terrifying person to come along since Adolf Hitler because, should he win the election in November, he will be a madman running the richest and most powerful country in the world. And the media doesn't seem to care, or is too afraid of him to write honestly about the threat we face from a man who has no regard for truth, has no integrity and is planning violence against his fellow Americans.