Having been part of the media (covering science for a while), I have a few real questions. 1. How to tens of thousands of people unite in having exactly one "agenda"? Is it at secret conferences? Are they all brainwashed, like in a cult, before they can join? (I avoided that somehow -- whew. Or my memory was erased.) Or do you think some sinister group of people controls it all from the top? 2. Wouldn't it make more sense to think for-profit media companies are just driven by money, clicks and audience numbers, trying to stay in business and make their millions of various investors happy? This doesn't make them flawless, and they go in too much for sensational headlines trying to get your clicks, views, (and anger and outrage, which is also good for their profits), but it makes a lot more sense than thinking the media will sacrifice everything to "fool people" with a certain brand of politics. What you really have, sir, is a President who gets really mad when stories he doesn't want aired get aired. Period. He can almost never dispute the facts reported but he just wants continuous praise. Everyone who has ever known him well says this is the core of his personality. He really wants to be worshipped and in that way, the presidency could be really bad for his psyche. We love to hate on our presidents. Always have in this country.
Okay, maybe we're closer to the same page. I just don't think they have an overt political agenda, with a few exceptions. Trump is a very different kind of figure. He's not, like, a calm person who says calm things, so I think any coverage of him is problematic. If he says something a little crazy or untrue, media has to decide what to do with that. But I think I totally understand what people like about him as a different kind of public figure. Cheers.
Having said that though I do believe there are other agendas in the mainstream media to sway the publics perception.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/...ore.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/ Interesting read on just how much coverage PT gets and how he is the most "famous" person ever based on the analytics available to us today. I know this just gives ammunition to Trump supporters saying there is a media agenda, but it's clear he is atttacting the media attention due to his own missteps. Oh well, fake news I guess, SAD!
I just dont get this at its most fundamental level. People trust Donald Trump. Just think about that. The guy still has his family running his business. The guy still has not turned in his tax information. He makes up facts as he goes along. He reports peoples random tweets as policy driving sources. He literally lies to your face. Its mind boggling. Forget the politics of it, the right vs left, dems vs repubs or even Trump vs Hillary. People trust Donald Trump. Its freaking surreal.
Because they're fools who have fallen for this ridiculous narrative that, despite the fact that he's a (supposed) billionaire who is the President of the United States, somehow everything in the world is rigged against Donald Trump. The people whining and b****ing about the "biased MSM" don't want unbiased media, they want media that doesn't call them and their Dear leader out for their constant BS and their complete disregard for reality. Trump knows this and its part of the reason he employs his psychotic behavior on a daily basis to enrage the other side. Its an abusive cycle: he acts like an idiot, the media covers him acting like an idiot by showing said idiotic behavior and then he turns around and accuses them of bias against him and his minions eat it up. It would be like if I went around robbing people on the streets and then b****ed and moaned that the police just have it out for me for no reason. The media has its issues, but not covering Donald Trump fairly or accurately isn't one of them. He deserves every ounce of negative coverage that he gets because he's brought it on himself. The "MSM" didn't just wake up one morning and decide to hate Donald Trump, there's a reason he gets covered this way.
I think it's always good to remember that people are just a type of mammal at the end of the day. Yeah, we talk a lot, we pretend to "think," but we rely on a lot of non-verbals, a lot of lower-brain reactions to things, and we are a hyper-tribal species. (I recommend reading the Sea of Cortez notebook of John Steinbeck, where, in one chapter, he really analyzes us as if we were being studied by biologists. If you're honest about it: not pretty.) Anyway, Trump looks like a confident dude. With confident, forthright gestures. He is tall. Obama had those things. And Reagan. Clinton somewhat. Trump also has the trappings of success. He's sometimes funny. He is dismissive of his rivals. A lot of mammals will line up behind these things even before the first word of content hits their ears.
There is a reason why almost no one on this forum said they vote for Trump. I guess there is some shame or embarrassment (not saying this to criticize or put down anyone) of Trump, but at the end of the day, it matters not. The dislike for the left, the my team, and/or the expected policies of a Trump presidency is enough to overcome that. It's a very dangerous game. The playing with fire is the right image to me. No one can convince anyone of how dangerous. Hopefully, either the danger never materialize or people see it before it's too late.
We've been living with this for a few days, and I can't believe it, but I'm going to try and defend Trump a bit. Everybody on the planet knows that Trump is a bull in a china shop. The man never met a subtle or strategically planned comment that he would in his wildest dreams say. To a very large degree, I think this translates from Trump speak to "I'm really, really angry with the press. They've really been annoying me more than they usually do," and not a whole lot more in normal English. Trump can't speak in subtle or nuanced tones. It's all or nothing. "I scored the greatest victory ever." or talking to the airlines, "You all are going to really love me. Nobody's going to be better for the airlines than Trump." The next time he says, "I don't know", or "It's OK." or "It's pretty good." will be the first. I really wish Trump would learn what finesse and subtlety mean, but I don't see it suddenly happening at 70. I am concerned about this aspect of his character, but at the same time, I'm beginning to think this isn't quite the declaration of war you'd view it as if it came from some extremely refined, soft spoken and thoughtful "real" politician. In the end, I think this bears about as much unspoken implication or sinister overtone as a 4 year old saying , "The press is a bunch of stupid, doo-doo heads." The only concern for me is that people who speak that way seem to think in equally extreme and absolute terms. If he starts responding to the press like a 4 year old throwing a tantrum, that would kick my concern up a notch.
Dude what? So he talks about the press like a four-year-old, but he's not responding to the press like a four-year-old . . . throwing a tantrum. And this somehow reassures you. I want Donald Trump to act like a 70-year-old.
To clarify: I think this is an idiot with no ability to think with nuance expressing dislike of the media. For spomeone like Trump, everything it either totally tubular and awesome - the greatest thing ever, or conversely, the most horrible think that every was. It is a childish world view. Idealization and devaluation. It represents mental illness, but it does not represent a sinister plan to destroy the free press. Incompetence is always preferable to sinister plotting and scheming.
Latest Quinnipiac poll: "The media, so demonized by the Trump administration, is actually a good deal more popular than President Trump," http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/02/trumps_been_president_for_a_month_heres_what_voter.html https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2431
Trump spent the first 30 minutes of his speech at CPAC railing against the media. He added a new challenge to the press... name your sources. After all, you know how dishonest it is to use unnamed sources. After all, only the lowest of low would make a claim based on an unnamed source, no mater how credible they may seem:
Obama never banned Fox News. Either admit this is wrong or you will never have an ounce of credibility on this board.
