6 ms·

No disagreement about Fox. But is the feud really because those media outlets aren't advancing his agenda? The tone from the press started with mockery during

No disagreement about Fox. But is the feud really because those media outlets aren't advancing his agenda? The tone from the press started with mockery during the primaries and advanced to hostility once Trump became the forerunner. Look at the election night coverage from most of the networks: it looked like a funeral, which is rather surprising given the supposed objectivity of these organizations. IMO the feud is about a lack of objectivity rather than a lack of full-throated support. Nobody should want a complicit, docile press: that's what we largely had for the last 8 years.

oculusthrift 10y ago
"Last week, New York magazine reported that Trump’s feud with CNN has roots in his relationship with CNN President Jeff Zucker, a former NBC president who brought Trump's television show “The Apprentice” to the network. Trump, the magazine reported, has told White House staffers that he feels personally betrayed by Zucker and that Zucker should tilt CNN programming more favorably toward him because of their long relationship." http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Yeah, well, if Trump thinks anybody should tilt coverage toward him because of a long relationship, that's kind of a problem. Trump wanted the office, now he's got it - all of it, including having to face the music from the press.
beat 10y ago
I disagree. It's not about whether CNN and other outlets are "objective". It's about scapegoating an enemy. Beating on the "liberal media" has been a cartoon villain from the GOP ever since the rise of FOX News and right-wing talk radio two decades ago, but this is a new level. They can discourage even believing in facts, and focus supporters on "alt" media that isn't impeded by inconveniences like having to report the actual truth. CNN may be kinda dumb, but at least they have a bedrock of journalistic integrity. Heck, I've started crediting FOX as a "legitimate" news source, if only to counter arguments that the "liberal media" isn't covering whatever crazy fantasy is floating through the "alt-right" at the time. If even FOX isn't covering it, it's fake news, people! (And honestly, FOX has gotten a lot better over the past year or so.) This isn't about objectivity. It's about turning any journalistic outfit with a shred of integrity into an Enemy of the People. This sort of nonsense is exactly what makes Trump/Bannon different, and dangerous.
- VLM 10y ago
  "CNN may be kinda dumb, but at least they have a bedrock of journalistic integrity." You seem to have missed the email leaks. They cooperate exclusively behind the scenes with the Democratic party to ensure the defeat of Republicans. They have the journalistic integrity of cold war era "Pravda".
  - beat 10y ago
    If that's the case, then they're not doing a very good job of it, huh?
    - VLM 10y ago
      They seem to work really hard. Every obsolete / dead political movement in history (religion, too) was staffed primarily by honest and genuine true believers. I don't think they're lazy or stupid or unmotivated. They just hitched their carriage to a dead horse, that's all. People involved in current day ascendant political movements and modern religions like to think they're somehow different than the dead past, but sooner or later they find out the hard way they're not. (edited to add, in my study of history I've never found an aspect of human nature quite as cross cultural and universal as this, nothing, nothing comes close, not monotheism or the golden rule or dualism or progressivism, nothing so universally human)
      - beat 10y ago
        See, when you start saying CNN (and every other major outlet, by extension) is basically Pravda, devoted to carrying the water for the Democratic Party at the expense of the GOP, I kind of assume you're totally blinded by partisanship and incapable of rational discussion of the subject.
        AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        See, when you say that CNN has journalistic integrity, and ignore VLM's counterexample, where they in fact were carrying water for Hillary, you seem to be incapable of rational discussion on the subject. They objectively did that. Whether they did "a good job" of it or not is completely not the point. [Edit: I saw your parallel post where your definition of "journalistic integrity" is "don't make up facts, even if you report them in a biased manner". First, I think that's way too low of a bar. Strive for objectivity, even if you can't perfectly achieve it. Second, though, what CNN did is like a sideline reporter jumping on the field and tackling someone. It's totally inappropriate, well outside of what is acceptable for journalists, even if it's not creating "false facts".]
BryantD 10y ago
Their words, not mine: "We’re sending surrogates to places where we think it makes sense to promote our agenda."
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Um, whose words? From what you said, I can't make out who you're talking about.
  - BryantD 10y ago
    That's a quote from a White House official who was unwilling to put his name on the record, sorry. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      Ah, I see. They, the White House, are not going to send "surrogates" (talking heads) to talk to the press where they don't feel like they're going to be fairly heard (for some definition of "fairly"). That's understandable, in a way, but it's also a very bad move. First, having to explain yourself to hostile questioners is part of what the White House is supposed to have to do, so that the public gets a more realistic view of whether their policies are sane than they would get from the White House alone. But second, if they think they're being unfairly treated by a biased media, not talking to that segment of the media is not going to make the divide any less...
wfo 10y ago
How else would you expect the press to cover that event -- someone who has explicitly stated a plan to enact vengeance upon and hatred for the very idea of a free press receiving unstoppable and unchecked power? Nobody whose job or life depends on facts, transparency, freedom, an open civil society in the US was okay with the results of that election. They did their best but there's only so much you can do to pretend to be objective when something truly terrible happens and we all know it. Lawyers defend horrible people to the best of their ability because it's their job, but they sure aren't happy about it.

oculusthrift 10y ago

"Last week, New York magazine reported that Trump’s feud with CNN has roots in his relationship with CNN President Jeff Zucker, a former NBC president who brought Trump's television show “The Apprentice” to the network. Trump, the magazine reported, has told White House staffers that he feels personally betrayed by Zucker and that Zucker should tilt CNN programming more favorably toward him because of their long relationship." http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Yeah, well, if Trump thinks anybody should tilt coverage toward him because of a long relationship, that's kind of a problem. Trump wanted the office, now he's got it - all of it, including having to face the music from the press.

beat 10y ago

I disagree. It's not about whether CNN and other outlets are "objective". It's about scapegoating an enemy. Beating on the "liberal media" has been a cartoon villain from the GOP ever since the rise of FOX News and right-wing talk radio two decades ago, but this is a new level. They can discourage even believing in facts, and focus supporters on "alt" media that isn't impeded by inconveniences like having to report the actual truth. CNN may be kinda dumb, but at least they have a bedrock of journalistic integrity. Heck, I've started crediting FOX as a "legitimate" news source, if only to counter arguments that the "liberal media" isn't covering whatever crazy fantasy is floating through the "alt-right" at the time. If even FOX isn't covering it, it's fake news, people! (And honestly, FOX has gotten a lot better over the past year or so.) This isn't about objectivity. It's about turning any journalistic outfit with a shred of integrity into an Enemy of the People. This sort of nonsense is exactly what makes Trump/Bannon different, and dangerous.

VLM 10y ago
"CNN may be kinda dumb, but at least they have a bedrock of journalistic integrity." You seem to have missed the email leaks. They cooperate exclusively behind the scenes with the Democratic party to ensure the defeat of Republicans. They have the journalistic integrity of cold war era "Pravda".
- beat 10y ago
  If that's the case, then they're not doing a very good job of it, huh?
  - VLM 10y ago
    They seem to work really hard. Every obsolete / dead political movement in history (religion, too) was staffed primarily by honest and genuine true believers. I don't think they're lazy or stupid or unmotivated. They just hitched their carriage to a dead horse, that's all. People involved in current day ascendant political movements and modern religions like to think they're somehow different than the dead past, but sooner or later they find out the hard way they're not. (edited to add, in my study of history I've never found an aspect of human nature quite as cross cultural and universal as this, nothing, nothing comes close, not monotheism or the golden rule or dualism or progressivism, nothing so universally human)
    - beat 10y ago
      See, when you start saying CNN (and every other major outlet, by extension) is basically Pravda, devoted to carrying the water for the Democratic Party at the expense of the GOP, I kind of assume you're totally blinded by partisanship and incapable of rational discussion of the subject.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        See, when you say that CNN has journalistic integrity, and ignore VLM's counterexample, where they in fact were carrying water for Hillary, you seem to be incapable of rational discussion on the subject. They objectively did that. Whether they did "a good job" of it or not is completely not the point. [Edit: I saw your parallel post where your definition of "journalistic integrity" is "don't make up facts, even if you report them in a biased manner". First, I think that's way too low of a bar. Strive for objectivity, even if you can't perfectly achieve it. Second, though, what CNN did is like a sideline reporter jumping on the field and tackling someone. It's totally inappropriate, well outside of what is acceptable for journalists, even if it's not creating "false facts".]

BryantD 10y ago

Their words, not mine: "We’re sending surrogates to places where we think it makes sense to promote our agenda."

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Um, whose words? From what you said, I can't make out who you're talking about.
- BryantD 10y ago
  That's a quote from a White House official who was unwilling to put his name on the record, sorry. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Ah, I see. They, the White House, are not going to send "surrogates" (talking heads) to talk to the press where they don't feel like they're going to be fairly heard (for some definition of "fairly"). That's understandable, in a way, but it's also a very bad move. First, having to explain yourself to hostile questioners is part of what the White House is supposed to have to do, so that the public gets a more realistic view of whether their policies are sane than they would get from the White House alone. But second, if they think they're being unfairly treated by a biased media, not talking to that segment of the media is not going to make the divide any less...

wfo 10y ago

How else would you expect the press to cover that event -- someone who has explicitly stated a plan to enact vengeance upon and hatred for the very idea of a free press receiving unstoppable and unchecked power? Nobody whose job or life depends on facts, transparency, freedom, an open civil society in the US was okay with the results of that election. They did their best but there's only so much you can do to pretend to be objective when something truly terrible happens and we all know it. Lawyers defend horrible people to the best of their ability because it's their job, but they sure aren't happy about it.