useapen
2024-10-05 06:54:02 UTC
Reply
Permalinkbe facing the country, and she went on a riff about how the objective
media need to develop a consistent narrative about the danger Trump
poses.
If the term objective means anything, it would seem that outlets and
reporters can either remain objective or develop and drive a negative
narrative about a candidate they oppose.
Pick one.
As we all know, the press long ago chose the latter option, but theres
still a vocal left-of-center contingent that believes that the media
arent comprehensively and blatantly anti-Donald Trump enough.
They are constantly working the refs, even though the refs are already
wearing the jerseys of the home team and keeping their flags in their
pockets almost no matter what its infractions.
According to their theory, the press needs to do more to highlight all
the crazy things that Trump says, the assumption being that if the
public learns more about them or they are reported in a more alarmed
tone it will be a grievous political blow to him.
The media need to decide whether they really want to stop fascism in
America or not.
The fact of the matter is that Trump already gets buckets of harsh and
disapproving coverage, so its not clear whether a few gallons more
will make a difference one way or the other.
In a post titled Legacy Media Is Failing Us Hard, substacker Jay Kuo
complains of how the media covered Trump calling Kamala Harris
mentally disabled at a Wisconsin rally.
This was a crude and unworthy insult that, as Kuo grudgingly ac
knowledges, got extensive coverage.
There were headlines all over the media about it. To cite just a few,
The Memo: Trump sparks new furor with attacks on Harriss mental
capacity; Trump takes dark rhetoric to new level in final weeks of
2024 campaign: ANALYSIS; Donald Trump falsely calls Kamala Harris,
Joe Biden mentally impaired again, ramping up attacks; Trump
escalates attacks on Harris mental fitness and suggests she should be
prosecuted.
And Republicans were asked about it on Sunday shows.
The outrage level wasnt as high as that caused by other controversial
Trump remarks, but it definitely rated somewhere on the Richter scale.
Still, Kuo was especially upset by a New York Times headline about
Trumps speech, Trumps Answer to Harriss Border Trip: Calling Her
Mentally Disabled.
Doesnt the Times know that Trumps jibe wasnt really an answer?
But Kuo misses the critical tone of the headline, and its not as
though the content of the report was old-school, wire-service-style
copy.
The Times called Trumps effort a dark, often rambling speech lasting
longer than an hour, containing a startling series of broadsides in
the midst of a presidential campaign, even for a candidate who seems to
delight in offensive remarks.
Unfavorable articles
The paper ran a follow-up, by the way, Republicans Criticize Trump
Over His Insults of Harris, and another piece mentioning the same
rally, Trumps Consistent Message Online and Onstage: Be Afraid.
Neither article, needless to say, was favorable.
For Kuo, though, so long as those articles dont use Trumps insults to
establish that we are facing down looming autocracy, they are
inadequate to the moment.
Same with Trumps statement at the rally that migrants will break into
your kitchen and cut your throat. This, supposedly, is a genocidal
sentiment.
Michael Tomasky of The New Republic makes a similar point in a piece
headlined Oops, They Did It Again: The Mainstream Media Buries Trumps
Outrage.
Of the offending comment, Tomasky writes, Heres a man who wants to be
the president of the United States saying of immigrants all
immigrants: women, children, old people, everyone that they will
invade your home and attack you in one of the most violent and painful
(and terrifying) ways possible.
What he leaves out is that Trump was talking not about run-of-the-mill
migrants but about murderers who have been let into the country,
according to new numbers from ICE.
So hes accusing murderers of murderousness.
This could be really ascertained by watching the beginning of Trumps
remarks.
Maybe you think that this is still an overly incendiary way to make the
point, or that its only right and humane to ignore migrant crime and
instead to make a positive case for high levels of migration.
Yet, thats not what the left-wing media critics are saying.
They are taking a deceptively edited clip from influencer Aaron Rupar,
whom both Kuo and Tomasky cite as a model, that leaves out the context.
They then treat it as The Truth that nobody is getting from the rest of
the media and insisting the outrage over it get turned up to eleven.
In short, what they and the likes of Hillary are asking is that the
media further immolate their credibility in the hopes of harming Trump.
Even a hint of real neutrality incenses them.
Dan Rather wrote a harsh critique of the CBS pledge not to fact-check
the VP candidates in real time during the debate a pledge that, as it
turns out, the networks anchors didnt even adhere to.
In a post-debate harangue on MSNBC, Nicole Wallace seemed to be urging
the moderators to go even further in their contemptuous opposition to
J.D. Vance and drop the F-bomb in the course of rebutting the
candidates points.
All of this is of a piece with the lefts willingness to pervert and
undermine institutions in the hopes of stopping Trump.
Objectivity, credibility and professionalism are all worth sacrificing,
so long as the media are serving the Prime Directive.
https://nypost.com/2024/10/03/opinion/the-left-claims-the-medias-
coverage-is-objective-and-must-highlight-the-cons-of-donald-trump/