Crying Wolf
-
In this post, I'm not discussing the validity of any of the attacks.
There has been a tidal wave of anti-Trump stories from a shooting gallery of attackers.
It seems to me that with so many attacks, none of the attacks gets much attention because
the other attacks draw attention away from it.
Seems like the public gives just as much weight to a story about whether Melania wore a scarf on her head
as they do about major issues. :pleasant: -
I agree - I have genuine reservations about Trump, however, certain media outlets just constantly pump out the anti-Trump narrative, often with trivial complaints backed by the weakest of evidence. It's hard to take some seriously anymore. They are making themselves irrelevant.
I live in the UK and the BBC - the national, tax-payer funded, supposedly unbiased media organization - posted an 'article' (link below) of condescending tweets of what Trump might have placed in the Western Wall. They never would have done this to Hilary.
hxxp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40003636
We should always be aware and critical of the decisions our leaders make but whether people like it or not, he is the democratically elected President of the US. Deal with it. Deal with Brexit. Deal with Macron. This is how democracies work.
-
The public gave just as much weight to Melania wearing a scarf on her head as Trump gave to the same exact issue. The Presidents words and opinions matter and they should be reported on.
-
I'm perfectly fine with media outlets getting on the anti-trump train, because there is good reason to it. Yes there will be fake stories, but just as Liberals will see fake stories about Trump, the conservatives see fake stories about anyone on the democratic side. I saw so much fake news, it hurt. Just check Snopes, they show a bunch of articles from both sides with fake news. Neither side is innocent, only Trump is getting more attending because of his rather… Questionable choices. Like firing people who investigate him. Also: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-community/
-
The real problem with fake stories runs deeper than Trump. This election was one where Trump was the clear outsider, the guy the media did not want to see win. Even FOX News was split on whether they wanted him. Trump won much in the same way as FDR & JFK did: he used a new medium to bypass traditional media and project an image that the traditional media of the time could not control. In FDR's case, the radio, JFK's case, the television, and in Trump's case, social media.
The real problem is that beginning probably in Bush's second term, social media started to evolve. Yeah, Obama used it, but used it just to organize his own supporters to be subordinate to him. Never before have we seen groups self-organize on the internet to back a candidate.
While this was going on, many media outlets, loss of ad revenue, had reverted to clickbait articles on their own in order to draw large audiences instead of insuring that they got the story right, which takes more time. The problem is that when you get a story wrong, and you're likely to do so if you're too worried about being first is that you lose the only asset that is important in journalism: credibility.
So, when they turned a blind eye to Trump's massive social media reach, ignored the fact Hillary wasn't campaigning (yes, she lost because Trump flat outworked her, as she often was off the trail for days and even weeks at a time), told the country there's no way Trump could win, and then went into a meltdown when he did win, their credibility took a massive hit.
Both sides have fake articles. Both sides have conspiracy theories. Dems have Russian Collusion. GOP has Seth Rich. The traditional media pushes Russian Collusion, and calls Seth Rich a conspiracy theory. There's valid points that deserve investigation in both. Instead of assigning real investigative reporters to take their time, get to the bottom of these stories, and give an honest assessment as to what they find, traditional outlets are jumping the gun. This is what is going to destroy traditional journalism. Clickbait instead of an even-handed facts matter approach.
However, we shouldn't be surprised at this. NBC gives contracts to the Bush and Clinton daughters. ABC hires George Stephanopolus, a Clinton campaign aide and Clinton Foundation donor, and I could keep going, but the problem is that traditional media has tried to play inside baseball by hiring political hacks from both sides of the aisle instead of promoting real journalists based on merit.
So, it's no surprise to see traditional media on the way out. The only question is what will replace it and how effective will it be. I have no clue, but it's an interesting time to be alive.
-
Dems have Russian Collusion.
No, no, no. We know for a fact that it was Russia who hacked the DNC and that the Republican candidate called for them to hack Hillary's emails. That is not disputed anymore, it is a fact. What is being investigated right now is the possibility of collusion between his campaign and later administration and the Russians, and also the possibility that he's been trying to obstruct the investigations. This is not a partisan thing no matter how bad you want it to be. The investigations are bipartisan and both sides have openly criticized the president's recent action related to the investigations. This isn't "Dems have Russian collusion," it's there was enough evidence for intelligence agencies (including the Congressional intelligence committees) to begin investigations. Are you aware that Republicans control Congress right now and it was Republicans who began the investigations in both the House and Senate?
-
The real problem with fake stories runs deeper than Trump. This election was one where Trump was the clear outsider, the guy the media did not want to see win. Even FOX News was split on whether they wanted him. Trump won much in the same way as FDR & JFK did: he used a new medium to bypass traditional media and project an image that the traditional media of the time could not control. In FDR's case, the radio, JFK's case, the television, and in Trump's case, social media.
The real problem is that beginning probably in Bush's second term, social media started to evolve. Yeah, Obama used it, but used it just to organize his own supporters to be subordinate to him. Never before have we seen groups self-organize on the internet to back a candidate.
While this was going on, many media outlets, loss of ad revenue, had reverted to clickbait articles on their own in order to draw large audiences instead of insuring that they got the story right, which takes more time. The problem is that when you get a story wrong, and you're likely to do so if you're too worried about being first is that you lose the only asset that is important in journalism: credibility.
So, when they turned a blind eye to Trump's massive social media reach, ignored the fact Hillary wasn't campaigning (yes, she lost because Trump flat outworked her, as she often was off the trail for days and even weeks at a time), told the country there's no way Trump could win, and then went into a meltdown when he did win, their credibility took a massive hit.
Both sides have fake articles. Both sides have conspiracy theories. Dems have Russian Collusion. GOP has Seth Rich. The traditional media pushes Russian Collusion, and calls Seth Rich a conspiracy theory. There's valid points that deserve investigation in both. Instead of assigning real investigative reporters to take their time, get to the bottom of these stories, and give an honest assessment as to what they find, traditional outlets are jumping the gun. This is what is going to destroy traditional journalism. Clickbait instead of an even-handed facts matter approach.
However, we shouldn't be surprised at this. NBC gives contracts to the Bush and Clinton daughters. ABC hires George Stephanopolus, a Clinton campaign aide and Clinton Foundation donor, and I could keep going, but the problem is that traditional media has tried to play inside baseball by hiring political hacks from both sides of the aisle instead of promoting real journalists based on merit.
So, it's no surprise to see traditional media on the way out. The only question is what will replace it and how effective will it be. I have no clue, but it's an interesting time to be alive.
The media interjecting itself into politics has always been a disaster. It goes way back.. including the "muckrakers" of roughly 120 years ago.
-
The media interjecting itself into politics has always been a disaster. It goes way back.. including the "muckrakers" of roughly 120 years ago.
That pesky First Amendment really is a problem…...we should abolish it.......
Seriously, why don't you just move to North Korea? It sounds like you would be much happier there.
-
I'm not arguing First Amendment rights. I'm pointing out that with the internet anyone can become a journalist and utilize their First Amendment rights as a media outlet. If traditional media is going to survive in this atmosphere, it is important that they be perceived by their audience as an unbiased umpire, which given the number of political cronies they hire, unlikely & give both sides of the political divide a fair shake in that they assign investigative reporters who actually want to see a story through to every allegation made by both sides. Otherwise, their purpose as a credible neutral arbitrator of facts will cease to exist in the eyes of the public. Without that credibility, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, et. al. will be as relevant as Buzzfeed and bloggers.
-
I'm not arguing First Amendment rights. I'm pointing out that with the internet anyone can become a journalist and utilize their First Amendment rights as a media outlet. If traditional media is going to survive in this atmosphere, it is important that they be perceived by their audience as an unbiased umpire, which given the number of political cronies they hire, unlikely & give both sides of the political divide a fair shake in that they assign investigative reporters who actually want to see a story through to every allegation made by both sides. Otherwise, their purpose as a credible neutral arbitrator of facts will cease to exist in the eyes of the public. Without that credibility, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, et. al. will be as relevant as Buzzfeed and bloggers.
I get what you are saying, but it is not quite true in this regard.
One can NOT exercise their First Amendment rights on social media. I know this for a fact, because during the 2016 campaign, and even after, I had multiple Facebook and YouTube accounts permanently banned for no reason other than my comments about liberals.
Apparently free speech is only granted to people that agree with the agenda's of Facebook's Mark Fuckaburger and YouTube.P.S. Facebook and YouTube are ripe for being sued out of existence much like Terry Bollea (Hulk Hogan) put Gawker out of business.
-
As a lawyer, here's the legality to the First Amendment. You're free to act as a journalist, but if you use someone else's platform, they're free to kick you off for any reason. If you start your own website, have your own server, you can do whatever the hell you want and have full 1A Constitutional Amendment protection.
Now, here's the part that have put Social Media Tech Stocks in legal jeopardy. There's actually lawsuits over Dallas Police Massacre and Pulse Massacre pending because of it. If a tech company provides a platform but doesn't unduly interfere on that platform, then the Tech Company enjoys immunity from any actions that occur in real life because of that speech.
Since Twitter and Facebook have been actively stamping out hate speech on the right while permitting ISIS to hold accounts and BLM to thrive, lawyers are arguing that their immunity has gone by the wayside because they have actually interfered in the organic flow of information.
These lawsuits have been permitted to go forward. I look for the trial judges to permit these suits to be heard, and I honestly expect a victory at trial, but these are more litmus test cases, and the way platforms are given latitude based off these cases will be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.
