President's Televised Address

[K.M. Richards]

Something occurred to me. Probably faulty logic, but ...

History is replete with examples of how tyrants were brought down by the press rolling over and playing dead.

Given the idiot-in-chief's ego (larger than the Grand Canyon, the Sahara Desert, and all the world's oceans combined) he would throw the biggest tantrum in the history of politics if his media coverage suddenly dropped to zero.

Not that I am advocating that, because one must know what their enemies are doing to formulate a defense, but that would be fun to watch. His head might even explode.

 

[kevtronics]

Given the idiot-in-chief's ego (larger than the Grand Canyon, the Sahara Desert, and all the world's oceans combined) he would throw the biggest tantrum in the history of politics if his media coverage suddenly dropped to zero.

It does seem ironic that he gloats all the time about how the TV networks are "failing" and have low ratings, but yet he was so desperate to get a prime-time slot on those TV networks, just to have some low ratings of his own.

 

[davideduardo]

But I'm not slamming him as president. None of my posts have mentioned his policies or what he said. My criticism is as him as a TV performer. This is an Emmy-nominated TV star. He knows how to use TV. Or Mark Burnett knows. This is not how to use TV. He yelled, he rushed through too many topics, he was angry, he didn't smile once, and none of this helps his cause. I turned the sound off and just looked at his face, and it was not pleasant. I can't even imagine how bad it sounded on radio.

I agree. He was loud and insincere... almost angry as you say.

 

[vchimpanzee]

In the meantime, the media is not just one thing. You still have reporters who are doing serious investigations. You have MS-Now that's been going non-stop on this story. But you have to pick the right time and place to do that. After a presidential address is not the time or the place. Given that speech, there should have been a democratic response. But it's not up to the media to take the place of the other party. That's the wrong place for the media to be. Last night, Lawrence O'Donnell had the house minority leader on his show, and he gave him the opportunity to give a democratic response. That's the right time & place for the media.

One of my Facebook friends posted this video. It starts at 3:30.

 

[TheBigA]

he would throw the biggest tantrum in the history of politics if his media coverage suddenly dropped to zero.

It would never happen because he's good for ratings, and the media is supported by advertising. That's the part of this that's completely ignored. The media is a business, not some kind of quest or mission. It's a business. Yes, some approach it as a mission. But this constant referring to the media as though it's one thing is totally false. It's not one thing.

 

[cc333]

Yes, some approach it as a mission.

Notably, this tends to mainly apply to smaller, listener, viewer or reader-supported outlets and small corporations that are at the fringes of the mainstream (unfortunately, though, for every such outlet which is honest and reputable, there are an equal number of dishonest, clickbait-y ones that are rife with the same kinds of misinformation that POTUS peddles in).

A few of the larger ones nominally try to be mission-based as well (from what I can tell, this happens relatively little compared to the past), but ultimately, when push comes to shove and their profits are at stake, that mission takes a back seat.

c

 

[tall_guy1]

That depends. The president views ANY criticism as an attack on him, the government, and the country. In that way, it's possible for him to designate the media as a terrorist organization. But also, who determines what the truth is? The president feels what he says is the truth. In his mind, he's the president, so he gets to decide truth, and therefore determine which government licensees can continue to operate. Since there are no limits to his authority, either by congress or the courts, the end result is the media is simply shut down, and his problem is solved.

You saw how it was done with public broadcasting. He decided that NPR and PBS are biased and leftist, convinced the congress of the same, and took away all their funding. No trial, no due process, no recourse, no nothing. His FCC is still investigating public broadcasting, and could very easily find ways to make their jobs even more difficult.

I get it. You're angry with the president. You want someone else to fight your battle for you. You've decided that's the job of the media. It's not. All you're doing is providing more fodder for the people who already think the media is elitist and biased. As I've pointed out, there are some journalists, reporters, and organizations who are doing what you want. Most of them are independent.

But the idea that profit-making companies are going to fight the next revolution is naive at best. The constitution put that responsibility in the hands of the people. That means get off your butt, go out and do something, rather than sit and wait for others to do it for you.

The media has billions poured into it...what they do is far more impactful than what ordinary citizens do.

 

[TexasTom]

But I'm not slamming him as president. None of my posts have mentioned his policies or what he said. My criticism is as him as a TV performer. This is an Emmy-nominated TV star. He knows how to use TV. Or Mark Burnett knows. This is not how to use TV. He yelled, he rushed through too many topics, he was angry, he didn't smile once, and none of this helps his cause. I turned the sound off and just looked at his face, and it was not pleasant. I can't even imagine how bad it sounded on radio.

A lot of his people behave the same way. His press secretary is nasty. They wonder why they get bad press. Reagan never had this problem because Reagan (and his people) knew how to present their views in simple, understandable ways. That wasn't the case last night. Too much information. It was boring TV, no pictures, no graphics, even he wouldn't sit through it. My take is he didn't win anyone over, because they were turned off to his presentation. Nobody likes a sore winner. This white house better start learning how to use the media, because it's going to hurt them in the long run.

Yeah, Mark Burnett is the one who knows...I suspect that Trump lacks the discipline needed to be a top notch TV performers, and there were reports that back in his "Apprentice" days it took a lot of post production work to clean up Trump's performances. As I recall, the clean up work involved redubbing quite a bit of Trump's dialogue. Now, of course, there is no one who can serve the same function as Burnett did, because no one around him is willing to risk crossing the president.

Reagan, in contrast, was disciplined and professional when it came to giving speeches. Beyond that, Reagan also had some pretty solid instincts when it came to reaching out to people.

 

[cc333]

Reagan, in contrast, was disciplined and professional when it came to giving speeches. Beyond that, Reagan also had some pretty solid instincts when it came to reaching out to people.

I agree, however, my mother, who never voted for him, always calls him, disparagingly, the "Howdy Duty" president, because she grew up seeing him on TV in one western or another, and she also took great exception to his approach to mental healthcare funding, first as governor of California and then as president, which his to say, he cut it down to almost nothing, and as an aspiring young therapist intern, she was angry and frustrated because the field she was trying to get a career in was decimated practically overnight.

I wasn't there (wasn't born yet), but looking back at the history and seeing how it led almost directly to many of the social problems we've been struggling with now, particularly regarding homelessness and drug addiction (among other mental problems), I can't say I blame her for being angry.

However, as an orator, he was quite good. Even George W Bush (the second one) was a better speaker, and he wasn't that great. But even at his worst, he puts Trump to shame (for the record, W has declared that he is opposed to Trump, which says a lot because he is otherwise staunchly conservative).

"We now return you to regular programming...."

c

 

[CTListener]

It does seem ironic that he gloats all the time about how the TV networks are "failing" and have low ratings, but yet he was so desperate to get a prime-time slot on those TV networks, just to have some low ratings of his own.

Looks like at least 20 million people watched the speech on TV, although how many of them were just sitting through it and not really listening as they waited for the interrupted shows they'd been watching before the speech to resume will never be known.

Nielsen: 20 million watch Trump's prime-time speech on top networks

Nearly 20 million Americans watched President Donald Trump's prime-time address to the nation on top broadcast and cable networks this week, according to finalized ratings data from Nielsen.

thedesk.net

 

[Larry]

Something occurred to me. Probably faulty logic, but ...



Given the idiot-in-chief's ego (larger than the Grand Canyon, the Sahara Desert, and all the world's oceans combined) he would throw the biggest tantrum in the history of politics if his media coverage suddenly dropped to zero.

Not that I am advocating that, because one must know what their enemies are doing to formulate a defense, but that would be fun to watch. His head might even explode.

What would be very scary would be what POTUS would do to get media coverage if the current coverage dropped to zero. Bomb an American city? Nationally televise an execution with POTUS administering death penalty?

 

[CTListener]

What would be very scary would be what POTUS would do to get media coverage if the current coverage dropped to zero. Bomb an American city? Nationally televise an execution with POTUS administering death penalty?

I could definitely see the latter happening.

 

[newsmark]

What would be very scary would be what POTUS would do to get media coverage if the current coverage dropped to zero. Bomb an American city? Nationally televise an execution with POTUS administering death penalty?

Instead of “You’re fired!” It would be “You’re fried.”

 

[TheBigA]

Looks like at least 20 million people watched the speech on TV, although how many of them were just sitting through it and not really listening as they waited for the interrupted shows they'd been watching before the speech to resume will never be known.

The 20 million is lower than he received for his first state of the union, which attracted 36.6 million people

Trump reaches 36.6 million television viewers for first address to Congress in second term

President Donald Trump reached an estimated 36.6 million television viewers for his address to Congress, the Nielsen company said.

apnews.com

The main thing I see is a quarter of the viewers were for Fox News. In 2nd place was CBS, mainly because of the Survivor finale, which won the night. So the reality TV star did best on the channel airing a reality show. As I said, he's mainly preaching to the converted.

 

[ted chittenden]

While I tend to side with poster Abraham J. Simpson (see above) on the media's role and what it should be in a democratic society, it should be pointed out that media is not the only source of belief on any given issue and that what we believe often determines what we do, regardless of what the facts might say.

Several years ago (I think it was 2011 or 2012), my younger brother sent me an article from "mother Jones" magazine that discussed the scientific basis of why we believe what we believe. While not directly related to the media, it is a fascinating read and I haven't seen anything since that time that overturns the conclusions it reports.

https://medium.com/mother-jones/the-science-of-why-we-dont-believe-science-adfa0d026a7e

 

[TheBigA]

Biden's name came up a lot, so how did he fare in TV ratings compared to the president? Biden won:

TV Ratings: 29M Viewers Watch Biden’s Oval Office Address on Ending Campaign

President Joe Biden’s Oval Office address on ending his re-election campaign Wednesday drew a large TV audience. Nearly 29 million people — 28.9 million, to be precise — watched the 15-minute speech a...

www.yahoo.com

He even attracted a million more viewers on Fox News!

ABC had the largest single-network audience for Biden’s address with 6.82 million viewers. Fox News drew 5.37 million viewers, followed by CBS (4.22 million), NBC (3.82 million), MSNBC (3.53 million), CNN (2.53 million), the Fox broadcast network (1.62 million) and Fox Business (145,000). Scripps News, Telemundo, Univision, CNNe, Newsmax, NewsNation and PBS accounted for the remaining viewers.

 

[gr8oldies]

Looks like at least 20 million people watched the speech on TV, although how many of them were just sitting through it and not really listening as they waited for the interrupted shows they'd been watching before the speech to resume will never be known.

Nielsen: 20 million watch Trump's prime-time speech on top networks

Nearly 20 million Americans watched President Donald Trump's prime-time address to the nation on top broadcast and cable networks this week, according to finalized ratings data from Nielsen.

thedesk.net

Great time to hit the john and grab snacks

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

That depends. The president views ANY criticism as an attack on him, the government, and the country.

He views a lot of things as true that are objectively false. He lies. Calling a lie a lie is not an attack. It does not “depend.” Reciting the truth in an objective way is not an attack.

In that way, it's possible for him to designate the media as a terrorist organization. But also, who determines what the truth is?

Facts. Facts determine the truth.

The president feels what he says is the truth.

If I feel I’m a billionaire, it’s still not the truth.

In his mind, he's the president, so he gets to decide truth, and therefore determine which government licensees can continue to operate.

I wouldn’t put much stock in the guy whose mind is so sharp he has to take repeated cognitive tests and random MRIs.

Since there are no limits to his authority, either by congress or the courts, the end result is the media is simply shut down, and his problem is solved.

Which is problematic. But it does not change what is true and what is false.

You saw how it was done with public broadcasting. He decided that NPR and PBS are biased and leftist, convinced the congress of the same, and took away all their funding.

Let’s not pretend the Republican Party wasn’t trying to get PBS and NPR shut down before Trump ran for office. Yes. They got it done now. But objectively, this has been a wish list item for a long time. It’s more than a bit plausible he was the one manipulated.

No trial, no due process, no recourse, no nothing. His FCC is still investigating public broadcasting, and could very easily find ways to make their jobs even more difficult.

Yeah, we predicted as much.

I get it. You're angry with the president.

Spare us the patronizing BS.

You want someone else to fight your battle for you.

I want organizations that claim to do journalism to do so.

You've decided that's the job of the media.

Journalism is the actual job of the media that has teams of people they call journalists working in what they call a news division.

It's not.

Do news departments have an actual function to the apologists?

All you're doing is providing more fodder for the people who already think the media is elitist and biased.

Somehow I doubt there is a single person on this planet who gives two shakes of a rat’s rear end what I think.

As I've pointed out, there are some journalists, reporters, and organizations who are doing what you want. Most of them are independent.

So that completely excuses the corporate ones who are acting like Pravda. Perhaps to you.

But the idea that profit-making companies are going to fight the next revolution is naive at best.

Then shut down the no-longer-newsrooms.

The constitution put that responsibility in the hands of the people. That means get off your butt, go out and do something, rather than sit and wait for others to do it for you.

You quite frankly don’t know a damn thing about what I’ve done. You can take that and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

 

[TheBigA]

I want organizations that claim to do journalism to do so.

Some do, some don't. You're applying a one-size-fits-all to an entire industry.

Then shut down the no-longer-newsrooms.

Fine. How do we do that?

 

[K.M. Richards]

As this thread grows, it becomes more and more like the rest of the ones we have had about the administration's actions ... the focus is shifting to discussing Trump instead of focusing on the actual impacts to our industry.

No wonder Lance keeps having minor coronaries over RD. He's right: There are plenty of other places to discuss politics in general. When I come here, I expect a more focused discussion.

TheBigA shouldn't be feeling the need to make posts like this one:

I get it. You're angry with the president.

Actually, that should be a valid presumption, given what he's been doing to tear us -- tear all media -- down.