4 ms·

I think media treatment of him was really weird. Some things were exaggerated, but something like suggesting, during the '16 campaign, in a plainly favorable to

I think media treatment of him was really weird. Some things were exaggerated, but something like suggesting, during the '16 campaign, in a plainly favorable tone, that his supporters might assassinate his opponent if she won, should have been the only thing anyone wanted to ask him or his proxies about until he was hounded out of public life. Instead it was dropped surprisingly quickly.

kenjackson 5y ago
I think the media treatment was fair and evenhanded. I think what has changed with the media is that nothing sticks for very long. As you note, what might have been a big story in the past has a really short news cycle now. What was remarkable about Trump was the shear volume of stories -- each lasted for days, but was then followed up immediately (or concurrently) with another. Even Jan 6 is having trouble sticking in the news. I think this was one of the issues that the Republicans ran into with the election. They thought that certain stories about Biden would stick and last. They missed that none of these stories last any more. You need a huge volume of stories to paint a narrative over a long period of time. Someone else mentioned the uncharitable interpretations of things he said. That was earned over years of such statements. It wasn't a new isolated incident.
- brimble 5y ago
  > Someone else mentioned the uncharitable interpretations of things he said. That was earned over years of such statements. It wasn't a new isolated incident. You're right to such a degree that I distinctly remember my first impression of him being formed by Rush Limbaugh (my dad was a listener) making fun of what a dishonest, sleazy joke of a human being Trump was. Must have been some time in the 90s. His reputation was decades in the making, and at one time that take on him was practically universal. The transformation was fascinating to watch.
brimble 5y ago
(can't edit, but not sure if the DV was over disbelief or for some other reason—if the latter, cool, no problem, I take no issue with whatever your reason was; if the former, it's on YouTube and it's exactly what I've said it is, though on review technically he may merely have been suggesting that the "2nd amendment people" [as he put it] might shoot Supreme Court justices... so, you know, not exactly better. It's not clear which of those—or, maybe both—were what he had in mind when he said it.)

kenjackson 5y ago

I think the media treatment was fair and evenhanded. I think what has changed with the media is that nothing sticks for very long. As you note, what might have been a big story in the past has a really short news cycle now. What was remarkable about Trump was the shear volume of stories -- each lasted for days, but was then followed up immediately (or concurrently) with another. Even Jan 6 is having trouble sticking in the news. I think this was one of the issues that the Republicans ran into with the election. They thought that certain stories about Biden would stick and last. They missed that none of these stories last any more. You need a huge volume of stories to paint a narrative over a long period of time. Someone else mentioned the uncharitable interpretations of things he said. That was earned over years of such statements. It wasn't a new isolated incident.

brimble 5y ago
> Someone else mentioned the uncharitable interpretations of things he said. That was earned over years of such statements. It wasn't a new isolated incident. You're right to such a degree that I distinctly remember my first impression of him being formed by Rush Limbaugh (my dad was a listener) making fun of what a dishonest, sleazy joke of a human being Trump was. Must have been some time in the 90s. His reputation was decades in the making, and at one time that take on him was practically universal. The transformation was fascinating to watch.

brimble 5y ago

(can't edit, but not sure if the DV was over disbelief or for some other reason—if the latter, cool, no problem, I take no issue with whatever your reason was; if the former, it's on YouTube and it's exactly what I've said it is, though on review technically he may merely have been suggesting that the "2nd amendment people" [as he put it] might shoot Supreme Court justices... so, you know, not exactly better. It's not clear which of those—or, maybe both—were what he had in mind when he said it.)