Mainstream Media in the Age of trump


Created another thread to discuss here:

Minstrelsy is something that’s entirely fascinating and complex, and that I find impossible to discuss dispassionately on the internet.


They probably don’t need the nuance. For most kids something like, “Bad people used to do that to make fun of black people, so we don’t do that anymore,” is going to be enough for them to get it.


like recognizes like


The day began with a Daily Mail report about the fractious negotiations over Kelly’s multimillion-dollar contract. “It’s all out war,” the headline blared.

Kelly “is looking to get her $69M payout PLUS a $10M bonus in exit package because NBC ‘destroyed her career’ — and is threatening to expose execs,” the report read.

People close to both sides of the negotiation denied that Kelly had asked for money above the value of her contract — but that was about the only thing the two sides could agree on.

I know, Daily Mail isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, etc. Still, I try not to miss an opportunity to reference microscopic violins.


She’s going to expose herself to execs? Wouldn’t that fall under harassment?


No. It wouldn’t.


Oh CNN, you terrible wasteland. Trump calls you an enemy of the people and you reward him with more than seven minutes of free airtime. Why? Because they are making big money off him.


Meh. From that same article:

In the case of Trump’s anti-immigrant ad, however, Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple said CNN’s coverage of the ad was actually appropriate.

He noted to The Daily Beast that the network repeatedly couched their coverage by labeling the ad “racist”—a descriptor many journalists have shied away from in light of the president’s incessant attacks on outlets that give him unfavorable coverage.

And later…

News anchors like CNN’s Chris Cuomo and MSNBC’s Ari Melber played only a portion of the racist ad while expressing their reticence to do so. CNN prime-time host Don Lemon played the clip multiple times, but ran a chyron calling the video “racist,” and said the video “shows just how willing this president is to use lies and scare tactics to terrify his base.”

CNN midday anchor Jake Tapper dubbed the video “propaganda,” and in a video package, overdubbed the clip with his own commentary pointing out how very few Republican lawmakers have condemned the ad.

Talking over it and explaining how racist and stupid it is doesn’t seem like they’re giving “free airtime”. Not like in 2016 where they’d simply air Trump’s rallies live.


…and read his tweets verbatim so we could hear “crooked Hillary” over and over again. They still do that and it pisses me off every time.


The only caravan crisis is the one Fox and Trump wanted to create in order to help Republicans triumph in the midterms. But the crisis in political journalism is real and ongoing. It doesn’t seem like editors and producers have learned much from their failures in recent years. They remain stymied by how to respond when political leaders seek to manipulate them in order to focus the public’s attention on the issues of their choice.


Dissing Hillary still huge business for media in 2018.

This is’s top story right now.



This is the song that never ends


With a headline like this, I don’t mind a journalistic response.


CNN and Acosta are suing Trump and his administration over Acosta being denied a White House press pass.

The legal grounds are a violation of Acosta’s 5th Amendment right to due process, based on a 1966 case.

(INAL and all that but it seems to me Acosta could have sued for libel as well. The legal requirement for libel against a public figure in the US is extraordinarily high - the defendant must have shown a “reckless disregard for the truth” - but if that doesn’t apply to the Trump admin’s bogus accusation of assault, what does?)


Last week were the midterms, with massive repercussions for Trump. Trump also revoked Acosta’s press pass, with massive repercussions for freedom of the press, and fired Sessions, with massive repercussions for US democracy in general.

So naturally for her big meaty Sunday piece, the New York Times’s White House Correspondent decided this was the perfect time to dig into …the subtle dynamics of the Ivanka/Meliana relationship.

(Not a direct link, because screw the NYT and its decision to make its main White House reporter a lightweight gossip columnist.)


Habers gonna Habe!


Notable inclusion: FoxNews
Notable exclusion: WSJ



Reinforcing the conclusion that the news division of Fox is not inherently evil (though Fox overall lets the opinion side walk, talk and quack like a news division).

Does all this raise a deeper question? When Trump started, we all decried the giving of WH press passes to Brietbart and, if I recall, even shadier ‘news’ outlets. If the next president revokes those passes, is it somehow equivalent? I’m not trying to ask just a rhetorical question. I guess you could make some definition of a ‘real’ news organization, but would it hold up as objective?


More of this guy, please.