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, refl…
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?
Clearly none of the media cares about my subscription or yours. Just as clearly there is not going to be any large scale boycott. The media responds to advertisers, not subscribers. There is really nothing any of us can do.
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)
Oh Tim thinks Biden should go (and had a civil disagreement with the guest I mentioned), but Tim and literally every other Bulwark person has said directly and repeatedly that they will absolutely vote for Biden if ends up on the ballot, and if Biden does turn out to be the nominee they'll work like hell to get him elected. Their main goal is defeating Trump, and they think another candidate is a better way to defeat Trump, so that's what they want and why.
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
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?
Clearly none of the media cares about my subscription or yours. Just as clearly there is not going to be any large scale boycott. The media responds to advertisers, not subscribers. There is really nothing any of us can do.
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)
Oh Tim thinks Biden should go (and had a civil disagreement with the guest I mentioned), but Tim and literally every other Bulwark person has said directly and repeatedly that they will absolutely vote for Biden if ends up on the ballot, and if Biden does turn out to be the nominee they'll work like hell to get him elected. Their main goal is defeating Trump, and they think another candidate is a better way to defeat Trump, so that's what they want and why.
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