HuffingtonPost makes this very crucial point.
Will the media try to rationalize this away?
"If The Media Treated Trump Like Other Candidates, Yesterday Would Have Ended His Campaign
Pretend Hillary Clinton had a day like Trump did. Now think about how the press would cover it."
"On Tuesday, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had the kind of day that, for any other candidate, would be a political nightmare. It started with a press conference in which Trump made misleading statements, attacked reporters for applying relatively routine levels of journalistic scrutiny, and questioned the impartiality of a federal judge presiding over a lawsuit against Trump University."
"The day ended with newly unsealed documents from that same lawsuit that revealed credible, if contested, allegations of shady business practices at the for-profit adult education program. The trove included a Trump University “playbook” that taught salespeople how to coax registration fees, which could run into the tens of thousands of dollars, from those desperate to get rich. One sales manager called the enterprise “a fraudulent scheme” that “preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.”
"That’s explosive stuff. But will Tuesday’s news still be a topic of discussion a few days from now? Will it be the subject of endless analysis and meta-analysis, and become a permanent part of the campaign narrative, the way it would be for almost any other presidential candidate — especially the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton?"
"Or will Tuesday’s events quickly become an afterthought — forgotten or at least rationalized away by pundits and political professionals, demonstrating once again that Trump has figured out how to manipulate media coverage and shape the national conversation in ways that give him an advantage?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-media_us_574f07c1e4b0ed593f12e5d0
It's a very good question. The media is being tested and why am I not super optimistic?
If Hilary had run the kind of scam Trump did or told the lies he did about vet donations she'd never be asked about anything ever again.
Yet, the media continues to claim that she is the untrustworthy one.
One way I notice the media rationalizes away Trump is by talking about what he did but then immediately saying: 'But then Hillary is not trusted either with her email server' or 'But will Trump's supporters care? He's proven the normal rules don't apply to him.'
Ignoring that they are the ones setting the rules on what's important.
This slate piece by Helanie Olen is a case in point. She calls Trump the Huckster in Chief but then says right away that it won't deter his supporters.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2016/06/what_the_trump_university_playbooks_really_teach_us.html
This is often the way it's rationalized away. It's a faulty way to look at it.
It's true Trump was Teflon during the GOP primary but the GOP primary is over. This is a general electorate now which is a whole different animal.
Why assume at the outset it doesn't matter?
Note how they never do this with Hillary's emails. No one in the press ever says 'But maybe the voters don't care about Hillary's damn emails.'
They always just presume they do. I notice that there has been no polls released that show this which tells me poling shows most people don't say it matters.
During the GOP primary the media often claimed to be concerned that someone like Trump is possible. What they never did was ask why. They never got that their own false equivalences they've drawn going back to Gore-Bush is what caused this in large part.
But now that Trump is the GOP nominee they have accepted it. During the primary they were sure he couldn't win but now that he won, they almost seem to be assuming he can't lose.
P.S. Helanie Olen just tweeted me back:
I won't predict the future! But this stuff has been out there and 2) Americans like wealth seminars."
https://twitter.com/helaineolen/status/738353085744066564
But she is predicting the future, she's already putting her finger on the scale that it won't matter.
All I'm asking the Olens of the world to do is not immediately assume it won't matter like they do with Hillary.
Is that so much to ask? Simply don't say 'Well Hillary has her server, and Trump's supporters won't care?'
UPDATE: More from Ms. Olen:
"That was my bigger point! He's a salesman. She's not. Americans love salesmen..."
https://twitter.com/helaineolen/status/738353912537878528
My response to her:
So if she had been a scam artist sale person people would decide they like her? I'm very doubtful."
https://twitter.com/helaineolen/status/738354904310423553
Her brilliant response?
you got me. But I need to get to work now!"
https://twitter.com/helaineolen/status/738354904310423553
Ok. Let's hope Ms. Olen enjoys her freedom of the press while she still can. If we get a President Trump, I'm afraid that she and her fellow pundits will have themselves to blame when their freedom is curtailed and they are prosecuted or their organization is bankrupted in a blaze of lawsuits if they ever dear criticize The Fuhrer.
Will the media try to rationalize this away?
"If The Media Treated Trump Like Other Candidates, Yesterday Would Have Ended His Campaign
Pretend Hillary Clinton had a day like Trump did. Now think about how the press would cover it."
"On Tuesday, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had the kind of day that, for any other candidate, would be a political nightmare. It started with a press conference in which Trump made misleading statements, attacked reporters for applying relatively routine levels of journalistic scrutiny, and questioned the impartiality of a federal judge presiding over a lawsuit against Trump University."
"The day ended with newly unsealed documents from that same lawsuit that revealed credible, if contested, allegations of shady business practices at the for-profit adult education program. The trove included a Trump University “playbook” that taught salespeople how to coax registration fees, which could run into the tens of thousands of dollars, from those desperate to get rich. One sales manager called the enterprise “a fraudulent scheme” that “preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.”
"That’s explosive stuff. But will Tuesday’s news still be a topic of discussion a few days from now? Will it be the subject of endless analysis and meta-analysis, and become a permanent part of the campaign narrative, the way it would be for almost any other presidential candidate — especially the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton?"
"Or will Tuesday’s events quickly become an afterthought — forgotten or at least rationalized away by pundits and political professionals, demonstrating once again that Trump has figured out how to manipulate media coverage and shape the national conversation in ways that give him an advantage?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-media_us_574f07c1e4b0ed593f12e5d0
It's a very good question. The media is being tested and why am I not super optimistic?
If Hilary had run the kind of scam Trump did or told the lies he did about vet donations she'd never be asked about anything ever again.
Yet, the media continues to claim that she is the untrustworthy one.
One way I notice the media rationalizes away Trump is by talking about what he did but then immediately saying: 'But then Hillary is not trusted either with her email server' or 'But will Trump's supporters care? He's proven the normal rules don't apply to him.'
Ignoring that they are the ones setting the rules on what's important.
This slate piece by Helanie Olen is a case in point. She calls Trump the Huckster in Chief but then says right away that it won't deter his supporters.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2016/06/what_the_trump_university_playbooks_really_teach_us.html
This is often the way it's rationalized away. It's a faulty way to look at it.
It's true Trump was Teflon during the GOP primary but the GOP primary is over. This is a general electorate now which is a whole different animal.
Why assume at the outset it doesn't matter?
Note how they never do this with Hillary's emails. No one in the press ever says 'But maybe the voters don't care about Hillary's damn emails.'
They always just presume they do. I notice that there has been no polls released that show this which tells me poling shows most people don't say it matters.
During the GOP primary the media often claimed to be concerned that someone like Trump is possible. What they never did was ask why. They never got that their own false equivalences they've drawn going back to Gore-Bush is what caused this in large part.
But now that Trump is the GOP nominee they have accepted it. During the primary they were sure he couldn't win but now that he won, they almost seem to be assuming he can't lose.
P.S. Helanie Olen just tweeted me back:
I won't predict the future! But this stuff has been out there and 2) Americans like wealth seminars."
https://twitter.com/helaineolen/status/738353085744066564
But she is predicting the future, she's already putting her finger on the scale that it won't matter.
All I'm asking the Olens of the world to do is not immediately assume it won't matter like they do with Hillary.
Is that so much to ask? Simply don't say 'Well Hillary has her server, and Trump's supporters won't care?'
UPDATE: More from Ms. Olen:
"That was my bigger point! He's a salesman. She's not. Americans love salesmen..."
https://twitter.com/helaineolen/status/738353912537878528
My response to her:
So if she had been a scam artist sale person people would decide they like her? I'm very doubtful."
https://twitter.com/helaineolen/status/738354904310423553
Her brilliant response?
you got me. But I need to get to work now!"
https://twitter.com/helaineolen/status/738354904310423553
Ok. Let's hope Ms. Olen enjoys her freedom of the press while she still can. If we get a President Trump, I'm afraid that she and her fellow pundits will have themselves to blame when their freedom is curtailed and they are prosecuted or their organization is bankrupted in a blaze of lawsuits if they ever dear criticize The Fuhrer.
I love it. She has to get back to her job. I thought this is her job? If she and her fellow pundits are systematically biased in their coverage, it's their job to figure this out and ask why.
UPDATE 2.0. Now I feel a little bad, as Ms. Olen tells me she will read this post tonight.
If you are reading this, Helanie, first of all, thank you. I appreciate you taking the time.
I know that I was a little critical of you in this post, but it's not personal. I don't mean to suggest you are not a fine journalist or have done anything wrong.
It's just a matter of judgement. My complaint isn't directed at you but the pack mentality of the media-of which you are a member.
My complaint is that the media tends to decide on its narrative and then there is just this amazing echo chamber. Every cable news show, print media or online publication seems to push the same narrative.
They simply ignore anything that doesn't fit their narrative. I've tried to talk to journalists before, and what I get from them is 'I'm an individual, I can't speak for what anyone else does.'
But if this is so, how do we as citizens hold the media accountable?
My only complaint with your piece is that it seems to contribute to a larger narrative that Trump is Teflon and nothing hurts him in the polls.
UPDATE 2.0. Now I feel a little bad, as Ms. Olen tells me she will read this post tonight.
If you are reading this, Helanie, first of all, thank you. I appreciate you taking the time.
I know that I was a little critical of you in this post, but it's not personal. I don't mean to suggest you are not a fine journalist or have done anything wrong.
It's just a matter of judgement. My complaint isn't directed at you but the pack mentality of the media-of which you are a member.
My complaint is that the media tends to decide on its narrative and then there is just this amazing echo chamber. Every cable news show, print media or online publication seems to push the same narrative.
They simply ignore anything that doesn't fit their narrative. I've tried to talk to journalists before, and what I get from them is 'I'm an individual, I can't speak for what anyone else does.'
But if this is so, how do we as citizens hold the media accountable?
My only complaint with your piece is that it seems to contribute to a larger narrative that Trump is Teflon and nothing hurts him in the polls.
As I suggested above, I think when you report the latest example of Trump's sleazy dishonesty, and lack of empathy, to immediately say 'But it won't matter anyway' is putting your thumb on the scale.
I would urge you and others in the media to try this, just once. Treat Trump entirely the same as you treat Hillary Clinton.
With Hillary, she is never allowed to relativize what she's done. When the email thing hits, no one says 'But that's nothing compared to Trump U and Trump's refusal to release a year of tax returns.'
The attitude is 'But we're talking about Hillary.'
And no one ever says of her emails 'But maybe people don't care about it.' Which is interesting as I've seen no proof anyone does.
No poll has shown this, which makes me suspect that maybe the polls show they don't care.
Yet the media-of which you are part-presumes the voters care. Why not just treat Trump the exact same way as you treat Hillary?
1. Don't immediately let him relativize what he's said or done by comparing it to her
2. Don't presume that no one will care anyway. Do what you do with Hillary: assume that they will.
Thanks for reading. All I'm asking for you-or any journalist or opinion maker-is to consider this.
I would urge you and others in the media to try this, just once. Treat Trump entirely the same as you treat Hillary Clinton.
With Hillary, she is never allowed to relativize what she's done. When the email thing hits, no one says 'But that's nothing compared to Trump U and Trump's refusal to release a year of tax returns.'
The attitude is 'But we're talking about Hillary.'
And no one ever says of her emails 'But maybe people don't care about it.' Which is interesting as I've seen no proof anyone does.
No poll has shown this, which makes me suspect that maybe the polls show they don't care.
Yet the media-of which you are part-presumes the voters care. Why not just treat Trump the exact same way as you treat Hillary?
1. Don't immediately let him relativize what he's said or done by comparing it to her
2. Don't presume that no one will care anyway. Do what you do with Hillary: assume that they will.
Thanks for reading. All I'm asking for you-or any journalist or opinion maker-is to consider this.
No comments:
Post a Comment