Trump's War on Journalism, and other codswallop

Trump's "War on Journalism", and other codswallop

Have we seen a war so bloodless and without casualty as President Trump’s so-called “war on journalism”? But imagery of war, and Trump as the menacing aggressor, is the narrative the LA Times’ Editorial Board gives us in its 4th part of a lengthy anti-Trump hit piece.

As we now know, most of the coverage of Trump’s campaign was hostile (91%), as was the coverage during the first month of his presidency (88%). Media critics Newsbusters and Media Research Center point out that the reporters always maintained a respectful tone when critical of Clinton, while the tone for the Republican front-runner was, as President Trump once mentioned in a press conference, “such hatred”. With this information a question arises: could it be that Trump’s war on journalism is in fact a defence against media hostility?

The author begins by lamenting that “in Donald Trump’s America, the mere act of reporting news unflattering to the president is held up as evidence of bias”, an immediate straw-man. President Trump has never used the term “unflattering” to describe the reporting, nor has he used unflattering reporting as evidence of bias. The author of the article is simply repeating the narrative instead of any facts of the matter. Sure, it is a truism that Trump would prefer flattering to unflattering coverage—anyone would—but President Trump has always and consistently used the terms “unfair” or “dishonest”, often emphasized with a flurry of hilarious epithets, to describe the reporting on him. His “Mainstream Media Accountability Survery” illustrates this by asking, in nearly every question, if republicans and himself are covered "fairly" by certain media outlets.

Fairness is, of course, a pillar of ethical journalism. Even the LA Times’ presents fairness as a guiding principle in its own ethics guidelines. Yet we have an unfair misrepresentation of Trump’s criticism in the very first sentence of the article.

To be fair to the author, this hit-piece is opinion, and should be treated like opinion. But tell that to those who believe and repeat it out of hand, and the mass of people whose trust in mass media is drastically sinking. The article doesn’t address the core of President Trump’s arguments, and by extension, the core of journalistic integrity, avoiding them in favour of repeating the narrative talking points. Given that individuals “who are shown in an adverse light should be given a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves” (as the LA Times own ethics guidelines stipulate) why isn’t Trump allowed this courtesy? Perhaps because the criticism is exactly right.

A subtle example can be found in the same article. The author goes on to admit that Trump isn’t the first president to whine about the press, mentioning how “President Obama’s press operation tried to exclude Fox News from interviews, blocked officials from talking to journalists, and prosecuted more national security whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous presidents combined”. But the author goes on to imply Trump’s behaviour towards the press is far more egregious: “But Trump being Trump, he has escalated the traditionally adversarial relationship in demagogic and potentially dangerous ways”. He compares Trump's rhetoric to Stalin's and other despots, as is by now typical. The implication hidden on this piece of equivocation is that Obama’s relationship with the press was merely “traditionally adversarial” while Trump’s is “demagogic and potentially dangerous”.

Obama’s treatment of the press, his prosecution of more whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous presidents combined, his tendency towards opacity despite promises of transparency, was not “traditionally adversarial”, but unprecedented and egregious[1][2][3]—and I would link to the LA Times article about Obama’s war on journalism, but I cannot find one. Trump does not exceed Obama in adversarial stance, and is more in line with a Jeffersonian view of the press. Even so, none of President Trump's posturing, his adversarial stance, or his attitude, means he will take necessary action against the press.

Trump’s abhorrent war-crimes against journalists consist of failing to acknowledge “that an independent press plays an essential role in American democracy”, he has “condemned legitimate reporting as ‘fake news.’”, “his administration has blocked mainstream news organizations, including The Times, from briefings”, and the secretary of state broke the longtime tradition of taking the press corps to Asia. In short, and for the most part, Trump has said some things about press that the press doesn’t like, and refuses to pay them any lip-service otherwise.

To drill the point into numbed minds even further, the author continues projecting his own attribution bias, ascribing invisible motives, hopes, and desires onto Trump like a mind reader, revealing his strategy via something surely less than psychic powers:

“By branding reporters as liars, he apparently hopes to discredit, disrupt or bully into silence anyone who challenges his version of reality. By undermining trust in news organizations and delegitimizing journalism and muddling the facts so that Americans no longer know who to believe, he can deny and distract and help push his administration’s far-fetched storyline”.

Are you sure of that? And this from the same author who goes on to advocate truth-telling, and the ethics of his craft, while writing for the same outlet that advises fairness as a fundamental principle.

There is no war on journalism, but complete and utter projection by the “fake news media”, the “enemy of the people”, who are engaging in a form of atrocity propaganda, waging war against their own president.

Thank you for reading,

LesMis

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thanks for the OP!

I became enraged today after doing my daily 10 minute scan of CNN for the daily "Lie of the Day" after I found that they now report, daily and hourly that Assad did the chemical attack in Syria. I discovered they apparently cue off the NYT that broke the story, claiming it was Assad's airforce that dropped the chemical bombs and reportng that as "fact". The truth of the matter is that no one really knows how it happened, but there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that other actors may have done the deed, which, when coupled with the reality that the only people who stand to gain from this attack are the rebels themselves, indicates there's serious doubt that Assad's Syrian Air Force did the bombing.

I am not here to defend dispicable Assad. What infuriates me is that the US MSM is so quick and sure in judgement without even so much as a scintilla of investigation. The US News media is utterly contemptible.

Media has and always will be Propaganda outlets for political parties, and corporations, they are not a "Frontier of Freedom"

but now you have both sides and 'muh freedom of the press'

a reply to: CB328

Retarded. Immature. Gangster want to be (30's gangster or modern day?).

Such an elegant rebut and deflection. How can it be the worst presidency when it has been 2.5 months?

originally posted by: CB328
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seems I've seen you post that as a whole thread topic at least 5 times in recent memory. Pot meet kettle

P S A

For ignorant Americans such as myself. Codswallop means nonsense.


Carry on.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You completely validate the views in the article you're trying to tear apart by how you wrote in the OP. I'm assuming without a hint of irony.

From the article:

In Donald Trump’s America, the mere act of reporting news unflattering to the president is held up as evidence of bias. Journalists are slandered as “enemies of the people.”

The Trump dance is getting more and more entertaining the more I watch people do it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Flag for using the word "codswallop".

a reply to: underwerks

Actually, the fake news media was called the enemy of the state, something you might know if you hadn't derived your own conclusions from someone else's lies. All without irony.

Always dropping that wisdom and insight

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Flag for using the word "codswallop".

I almost went with "bosh", but it was less hilarious.

How can it be the worst presidency when it has been 2.5 months?

Yes and he's already done more ridiculous or terrible things than any other President, even Bush. Every day with Trump is like having a Jerry Springer show in the white house.

Seriously, giving most governmental leadership to his children and a blowhard white supremacist is enough on it's own to make him terrible President, not to mention constantly using the office as a virtual Facebook page to broadcast all his petty likes and dislikes to the world instead of attempting to act like an adult and do something useful.

HIs budget will destroy the government and impoverish millions while the people who golfs with every weeks will save millions of dollars each for no reason except selfishness.

Oh, and I almost forgot, he and his entire cabinet are apparently traitors that are only in our government so they can do shady deals with the Russian to make millions. When "America was great" he would have been shot by a firing squad for treason already.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

Actually, the fake news media was called the Emmy of the state, something you might know if you hadn't derived your own conclusions from someone else's lies. All without irony.

What does that have to do with my comment at all? Are you not calling the news media and journalists "enemies of the people" and calling them biased because of negative stories about Trump?

The exact thing the article is talking about?

Trump isn't at war with FAKE NEWS. He is at war with news that doesn't suck up to him or news he doesn't like.

The evidence for that is all the FAKE NEWS he repeats and embraces. He loves fake news as long as he can use it.

Codswallop! S&F just for that. I saw one other person say that once here, and I about died laughing. Now I'll take a look at the thread...

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: CB328

Retarded. Immature. Gangster want to be (30's gangster or modern day?).

Such an elegant rebut and deflection. How can it be the worst presidency when it has been 2.5 months?

But he's got the inside scoop on some guy called Truck, who is apparently staging a coup to become the next President. We should listen to him.