I've been wondering that as well. It seems so obvious. My only guess is that the media chalk it up to Donald Being Donald, and the behavior has become so common from him as to no longer be considered newsworthy. Somehow.
It is, yet again, the double standard of how the Democrats are supposed to adhere to standards while the GOP can break them all with impunity. It says a lot about what this country has become. Increasingly, when I look for our collective morals and values anymore, I begin by looking in the toilet.
It’s quite a contradiction. The right is so caught up in their idea of “morality” when it comes to LGBTQ issues, while they violate every one of the Ten Commandments.
It's surpassingly weird that so many people who claim to be serving a moral cause also insist on defending and glorifying such a conspicuously amoral person as the main champion of their cause.
Amen, Sister. But we aren’t reinventing this; it’s the authoritarian playbook. More and more I realize Trump is just a useful figurehead, an empty vessel, ready to dance to whatever tune the right sings, and somehow the rubes follow along like lemmings. As has happened before.
While not seeming to notice that the Bible is pretty explicit about the sin of adultery. Yet we do not see them proposing laws to criminalize adultery.
Jeffrey Goldberg has written about the media's "bias toward coherence," and how their mindset is "Trump sounds nuts, but he can’t be nuts, because he’s the presumptive nominee for president of a major party, and no major party would nominate someone who is nuts." That has really stuck with me since I read it.
I know right? But Teddy's mom is right too, we have somehow arrived in an environment that gives him a pass. Both MAGA SIL and friend have said to me "I don't like some of the stuff he says" or "some of the stuff he says is crazy." I wonder if they have heard him speak or if they are repeating whatever RW media they listen to. Recently one said the deranged left has spent 8 years focusing all their energy into hating 1 man. So I guess if what he said were reported, they would get a lot of blowback about outright lying or being leftist or they have TDS.
I do minimal politic talk with them anymore. Recently I was called an accessory to murder, and incredibly close-minded. I let it pass, because there is no peruasion. One also jumped on me about posting that RW policies on abortion will yield your daughters dying or losing their fertility for lack of medical care for dangerous pregnancies. She was so mad, telling me that is not a thing, that God wants the women to be safe in these cases. I said that is not what you're voting for and cited a bunch of articles, and she just repeated her implication that I was exaggerating and lying.
The media has a bias for what's new, because what's new gets more clicks, and more clicks means more money.
I don't really have a fully thought out theory here, and it's inarguable that the media hasn't figure out how to cover Trump...but there is a real desire for something new in politics, reflected in all the data. In the area of this presidential race, to me it seems like ths media is the symptom, not the disease
It's not just the media. It's we humans who make up the media and we humans who consume the media. Humans learn to make the best of a bad situation when it serves their purposes. Plus humans get tired of writing about and reading or hearing about the same old thing over and over again.
I do not think he is making excuses. He is just explaining what he thinks is happening. He has a point. trump disrespecting women or calling anyone names is not news. And how exactly do we hold them accountable? It took two weeks to get the bulwark to make a stab at presenting the other side of the Biden issue.
JVL had a lengthy article a couple days ago making the case for keeping Biden, probably in response to all the people objecting to the one-sided presentations over the previous two weeks.
Again, how exactly do we hold the press accountable?
Tim had a guest on the flagship pod earlier this week arguing for keeping Biden, there's an article up right now about Biden sticking around because of the voters, and even as early as right after the debate they were discussing what Biden could do to turn it around (despite skepticism)
I get what you're saying, but I think media-wise Trumps antics *have* been normalized, that that ship has sailed. Dog bites man, we all know who Trump is. That's just kinda the situation. And that's why P 2025 is more useful to talk about than him being an asshole, because it's "dog has plan to bite all men at once"
This is indeed Trump's overall strategy. He does and says so much that is wrong that it is considered no longer news; it's "What else do you expect from Trump?". In fact, if he becomes president, the first few political opponent he kills by drones will be news. After that, well, it's just Trump being Trump.
I mean, yeah, that's what could happen, because that's how brains work. Political violence is somewhat to very normal in many countries--I'm not talking "banana republics," I'm talking Greece. That's part of why it's important to highlight things like 2025, to separate the signal from the noise
Y'know, I've been mulling this over in my head all day, and yeah we're just randos on the internet--but why not go hash out a central problem of the modern media?
Here's my thinking: MSM's job is to make money. To do that, they need clicks and viewers. If they report on every shit thing Trump says, as he does constantly, they will get fewer viewers because we all *know* Trump is an asshole who says horrific things, him saying another one is on a literal level not news because it's not new.
At core here is the problem of the normalization of Trump. I view that as a cognitive, social phenomenon more than anything else. It's worth being aware of and keeping an eye on, but demanding he not be normalized is demanding that people fight their own brains. I think it's more valuable to call out the most relevant instances than to invest in the everyday normal stuff, and that's the angle I judge the media from.
Anyway, thanks for the food for thought! It is important to keep this from being so normal we forget that it's only normal because it's normalized.
Okay so to be clear: the solution is to regulate the media, and make it semi-nonprofit right? I could get on board with that (especially if we do it with healthcare at the same time).
I do think you're over-selling the virtue of "2 sides" journalism, though. Firstly, there's often much more than 2 side. Secondly, that framework has actually been a key part of the very thing we started our disagreement over: normalizing Trump. Covering Trump as if he was just 'the other side' makes it seem like he is just another side in the endless 2-sides narrative
Yeah, the newly unsealed Epstein files aren't getting any coverage either. I keep telling myself this is baked in, the media owners need Trump to survive Wall Street. But I keep being surprised by it nevertheless.
Do you not understand how the game is played these days? YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR OWN COVERAGE. Reporters report on what people are talking about. Democratic politicians have to go on cable news, and talk to reporters, and express how unacceptable it is. But being Democrats, there are 300+ other things that each individual politician thinks are more important, which dilutes the story. For God's sake, does the DNC not do "talking points" to its members?
That doesn't mean they love Trump. It's more likely, like many other things, they chalk it up as Trump being Trump and don't report on it. It's the having different standards for Republicans than Democrats.
such as the one posited just above by Susan D, "It would only demean Kamala and not hurt Trump in the least way." A good analytic principle there are almost always more options than just two. It is called the fallacy of the excluded middle.
Terry, it was Liberal who first posted the story circulating. It wasn't covered in the press. So I assumed it was on social media. So this is for him, not me.
I ask people out loud: is that what you teach your children to do? Would that be acceptable behavior from them? If not, why is that man a role model for you?
Of course they don't want to talk about it. Nevertheless it is a discussion that our nation sorely needs to have.
One of the two campaign ads I have in my head is a mom and son in a living room with the tv on in the background. The tv first shows a clip of Trump making fun of the disabled reporter, adn the son asks the mom about why she is voting for him. Then, a clip of Trump calling for violence, and teh kid asking... you get the idea. The last scene is of the kid saying, "...but, Mom."
The Trumpite response is always "We're electing a president, not a role model.' Some even say that a "role model" wouldn't be a good president - just as Trump claimed he would be "totally ineffective" if he didn't have immunity to break the law.
Trumpites don't just insist that his lack of moral scruples must be indulged. They portray it as a strength - and then they pretend to find it inconceivable that he ever violated any laws.
Actually, we ARE electing a role model, in that the person who gets the job represents all of us and projects our image to the rest of the world. He indicates to them how we view ourselves and what our priorities are, what we accept, and in some cases what we do not accept when considering the alternative. But of course you know that. Sad that so many others do not, and that so many people fall for such an intellectually lazy approach to a serious issue.
The dumber MAGAs think the whole world respects and fears Trump. The smarter Trumpites must sometimes feel a twinge of embarrassment, but they always find lipstick to put on the pig - sometimes by saying it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks because most other countries are either lost to woke liberalism or they're third-world dumps
There's a clip going around of Trump calling Kamala a "fucking bitch". Too bad that couldn't get a little coverage.
I've been wondering that as well. It seems so obvious. My only guess is that the media chalk it up to Donald Being Donald, and the behavior has become so common from him as to no longer be considered newsworthy. Somehow.
It is, yet again, the double standard of how the Democrats are supposed to adhere to standards while the GOP can break them all with impunity. It says a lot about what this country has become. Increasingly, when I look for our collective morals and values anymore, I begin by looking in the toilet.
It’s quite a contradiction. The right is so caught up in their idea of “morality” when it comes to LGBTQ issues, while they violate every one of the Ten Commandments.
It's surpassingly weird that so many people who claim to be serving a moral cause also insist on defending and glorifying such a conspicuously amoral person as the main champion of their cause.
Amen, Sister. But we aren’t reinventing this; it’s the authoritarian playbook. More and more I realize Trump is just a useful figurehead, an empty vessel, ready to dance to whatever tune the right sings, and somehow the rubes follow along like lemmings. As has happened before.
His lack of moral scruples is a big part of what makes him so useful to others who actually have a political agenda.
The 'moral majority' ain't so moral, are they?
It’s a 100% inversion of the usual definition of morality. Theirs is basically about dominating others with a code of their own devising.
While not seeming to notice that the Bible is pretty explicit about the sin of adultery. Yet we do not see them proposing laws to criminalize adultery.
Give them time. Criminalizing adultery will only apply to their opponents, not to themselves. The Handmaids Tale feels more real every day.
Jeffrey Goldberg has written about the media's "bias toward coherence," and how their mindset is "Trump sounds nuts, but he can’t be nuts, because he’s the presumptive nominee for president of a major party, and no major party would nominate someone who is nuts." That has really stuck with me since I read it.
And I’d add that the media has a bias towards clicks. Trump has delivered.
Glad you brought that up. Here's the link: https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/editor-in-chief-newsletter/
Thx! ". . . reality is what we must live with long after the debates and rallies are over."
Trump wins.
Do you understand the context? Goldberg was addressing himself to the press.
I read something on Xitter recently and then lost it. I’d love to credit the guy who thought it up.
His take was that the media reports news. Because Trump says and does crazy things all the time, that’s not news so it doesn’t get reported.
We need reporters to treat him like hurricanes, where they’ve happened before but you still need to be prepared for this one.
I know right? But Teddy's mom is right too, we have somehow arrived in an environment that gives him a pass. Both MAGA SIL and friend have said to me "I don't like some of the stuff he says" or "some of the stuff he says is crazy." I wonder if they have heard him speak or if they are repeating whatever RW media they listen to. Recently one said the deranged left has spent 8 years focusing all their energy into hating 1 man. So I guess if what he said were reported, they would get a lot of blowback about outright lying or being leftist or they have TDS.
I do minimal politic talk with them anymore. Recently I was called an accessory to murder, and incredibly close-minded. I let it pass, because there is no peruasion. One also jumped on me about posting that RW policies on abortion will yield your daughters dying or losing their fertility for lack of medical care for dangerous pregnancies. She was so mad, telling me that is not a thing, that God wants the women to be safe in these cases. I said that is not what you're voting for and cited a bunch of articles, and she just repeated her implication that I was exaggerating and lying.
I mean...it is Donald Being Donald, though.
The media has a bias for what's new, because what's new gets more clicks, and more clicks means more money.
I don't really have a fully thought out theory here, and it's inarguable that the media hasn't figure out how to cover Trump...but there is a real desire for something new in politics, reflected in all the data. In the area of this presidential race, to me it seems like ths media is the symptom, not the disease
It's not just the media. It's we humans who make up the media and we humans who consume the media. Humans learn to make the best of a bad situation when it serves their purposes. Plus humans get tired of writing about and reading or hearing about the same old thing over and over again.
Because those things are not "new" when they come from him. Not an excuse but an explanation of why the media ignores it.
I do not think he is making excuses. He is just explaining what he thinks is happening. He has a point. trump disrespecting women or calling anyone names is not news. And how exactly do we hold them accountable? It took two weeks to get the bulwark to make a stab at presenting the other side of the Biden issue.
JVL had a lengthy article a couple days ago making the case for keeping Biden, probably in response to all the people objecting to the one-sided presentations over the previous two weeks.
Again, how exactly do we hold the press accountable?
Tim had a guest on the flagship pod earlier this week arguing for keeping Biden, there's an article up right now about Biden sticking around because of the voters, and even as early as right after the debate they were discussing what Biden could do to turn it around (despite skepticism)
I get what you're saying, but I think media-wise Trumps antics *have* been normalized, that that ship has sailed. Dog bites man, we all know who Trump is. That's just kinda the situation. And that's why P 2025 is more useful to talk about than him being an asshole, because it's "dog has plan to bite all men at once"
This is indeed Trump's overall strategy. He does and says so much that is wrong that it is considered no longer news; it's "What else do you expect from Trump?". In fact, if he becomes president, the first few political opponent he kills by drones will be news. After that, well, it's just Trump being Trump.
I mean, yeah, that's what could happen, because that's how brains work. Political violence is somewhat to very normal in many countries--I'm not talking "banana republics," I'm talking Greece. That's part of why it's important to highlight things like 2025, to separate the signal from the noise
Y'know, I've been mulling this over in my head all day, and yeah we're just randos on the internet--but why not go hash out a central problem of the modern media?
Here's my thinking: MSM's job is to make money. To do that, they need clicks and viewers. If they report on every shit thing Trump says, as he does constantly, they will get fewer viewers because we all *know* Trump is an asshole who says horrific things, him saying another one is on a literal level not news because it's not new.
At core here is the problem of the normalization of Trump. I view that as a cognitive, social phenomenon more than anything else. It's worth being aware of and keeping an eye on, but demanding he not be normalized is demanding that people fight their own brains. I think it's more valuable to call out the most relevant instances than to invest in the everyday normal stuff, and that's the angle I judge the media from.
Anyway, thanks for the food for thought! It is important to keep this from being so normal we forget that it's only normal because it's normalized.
Okay so to be clear: the solution is to regulate the media, and make it semi-nonprofit right? I could get on board with that (especially if we do it with healthcare at the same time).
I do think you're over-selling the virtue of "2 sides" journalism, though. Firstly, there's often much more than 2 side. Secondly, that framework has actually been a key part of the very thing we started our disagreement over: normalizing Trump. Covering Trump as if he was just 'the other side' makes it seem like he is just another side in the endless 2-sides narrative
Yeah, the newly unsealed Epstein files aren't getting any coverage either. I keep telling myself this is baked in, the media owners need Trump to survive Wall Street. But I keep being surprised by it nevertheless.
Scott Dworkin did a piece on Trump’s rally performance. Bill might want to view it and comment as well.
Trump would have a meltdown running against a black woman. That alone is a reason to do it.
Do you not understand how the game is played these days? YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR OWN COVERAGE. Reporters report on what people are talking about. Democratic politicians have to go on cable news, and talk to reporters, and express how unacceptable it is. But being Democrats, there are 300+ other things that each individual politician thinks are more important, which dilutes the story. For God's sake, does the DNC not do "talking points" to its members?
And if the media coverage happened the question would be "Is Trump right?" and "How big a bitch IS she?"
Wonder what percentage of Trump supporters enjoyed that description?
75%
My guess was at least 50%. You’re probably closer to the mark.
Why air it? It would only demean Kamala and not hurt Trump in the least way.
You do have a point there. It is part of the asymmetry we are dealing with.
The misogyny is baked into the cake already.
So either the press is ignoring it on purpose because they love Trump or it's not valid meaning it's fake. I see you have assumed it's the former.
There are more options than "the media loves Trump" and fake news.
Such as? You have assumed they've ignored it on purpose, yes?
Yes, I think they are ignoring it on purpose.
That doesn't mean they love Trump. It's more likely, like many other things, they chalk it up as Trump being Trump and don't report on it. It's the having different standards for Republicans than Democrats.
"they chalk it up as Trump being Trump and don't report on it." This is the correct answer. News people want to cover something that is "new."
I put up with it because it's my kink. 😉
such as the one posited just above by Susan D, "It would only demean Kamala and not hurt Trump in the least way." A good analytic principle there are almost always more options than just two. It is called the fallacy of the excluded middle.
Thx, Terry.
I still don't know if it's legit or not.
I don't understand. 1. How do you know the story that's been circulating on social media is false? 2. Is MSM covering it or not?
I would say avoid social media. It has proven to be a social net negative.
Terry, it was Liberal who first posted the story circulating. It wasn't covered in the press. So I assumed it was on social media. So this is for him, not me.
I ask people out loud: is that what you teach your children to do? Would that be acceptable behavior from them? If not, why is that man a role model for you?
Of course they don't want to talk about it. Nevertheless it is a discussion that our nation sorely needs to have.
One of the two campaign ads I have in my head is a mom and son in a living room with the tv on in the background. The tv first shows a clip of Trump making fun of the disabled reporter, adn the son asks the mom about why she is voting for him. Then, a clip of Trump calling for violence, and teh kid asking... you get the idea. The last scene is of the kid saying, "...but, Mom."
Better yet, same scenario, but the son is handicapped because of gun violence.
The Trumpite response is always "We're electing a president, not a role model.' Some even say that a "role model" wouldn't be a good president - just as Trump claimed he would be "totally ineffective" if he didn't have immunity to break the law.
Trumpites don't just insist that his lack of moral scruples must be indulged. They portray it as a strength - and then they pretend to find it inconceivable that he ever violated any laws.
Actually, we ARE electing a role model, in that the person who gets the job represents all of us and projects our image to the rest of the world. He indicates to them how we view ourselves and what our priorities are, what we accept, and in some cases what we do not accept when considering the alternative. But of course you know that. Sad that so many others do not, and that so many people fall for such an intellectually lazy approach to a serious issue.
The dumber MAGAs think the whole world respects and fears Trump. The smarter Trumpites must sometimes feel a twinge of embarrassment, but they always find lipstick to put on the pig - sometimes by saying it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks because most other countries are either lost to woke liberalism or they're third-world dumps
Calling magats and those undecided/swing voters who will vote trump because "vibez" intellectually lazy, is being kind.
For the Americanus Politicus member of the species, strong and wrong beats weak and right (Bill Clinton).
That is the perfect question to ask.
I mean, maybe it would influence some undecided black voters and female voters?
We all should hope it would ... or you can just flush.
I believe a lot of folks just don't want to think about any of it. Americans (and maybe others in the world) have got lazy when it comes to thinking.