President's Televised Address

[TheBigA]

Why isn't the media more freaked out about this? It's Taco Tuesday:

TACO Trump Caught Delaying His War Deadlines Again

Trump has seemingly become the boy who cried wolf as his deadline has once again been pushed back.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Online is not on air time. This is the kind of thing that should be dominating their coverage, not another day of “crazy uncle Don’s” muttering. How you approach something matters.

If Putin threatened to end our civilization, tonight, what kind of broadcast and cable coverage might we see? Wall to wall. Not a two minute hit and then on to the viral video of the day.

Update the Reuters and Associated Press Youtube page is airing a hearing in the UN in response to Iran situation. Please explain the difference between Online and Air Time today given that the story is released one way or another on the White House.

 

[Don CT]

Americans don’t want news, they want sound bites that make themselves feel better. Nobody watches or pays attention to what Congress is going. Fox News isn’t going to shine a light on the “bad parts”. They want their viewers to remain ignorant. CNN and MSNow will graze those issues but only in short snippets as they need to fit their 30 minutes of commercials in.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Why isn't the media more freaked out about this? It's Taco Tuesday:

TACO Trump Caught Delaying His War Deadlines Again

Trump has seemingly become the boy who cried wolf as his deadline has once again been pushed back.

www.thedailybeast.com

And god willing it will be again. But if threatening genocide is not a bright red line, what is? At what point do they set aside the other crud and really dive into how an unhinged loon is threatening to kill an entire civilization? This is not one of his dumb tariff gimmicks. If any of us made a threat against someone or something we could and should be charged with a crime. A dementia-addled sociopath with the nuclear codes is a clear and present danger.

 

[Don CT]

And god willing it will be again. But if threatening genocide is not a bright red line, what is? At what point do they set aside the other crud and really dive into how an unhinged loon is threatening to kill an entire civilization? This is not one of his dumb tariff gimmicks. If any of us made a threat against someone or something we could and should be charged with a crime. A dementia-addled sociopath with the nuclear codes is a clear and present danger.

Fox News is still praising him over those comments.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Americans don’t want news,

I know it’s a broad, general statement but there is a not insignificant population that does want facts and news.

they want sound bites that make themselves feel better.

At the moment, feeling better is appealing, but truth still matters more.

Fox News isn’t going to shine a light on the “bad parts”.

Well, obviously. 😉

They want their viewers to remain ignorant.

Mission accomplished.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Fox News is still praising him over those comments.

Ugh. Of course. I trust they wouldn’t be so magnanimous if anyone made a similar threat that impacted them.

 

[Larry]

Why isn't the media more freaked out about this?

I think part of his strategy is to throw so many outrageous things out there (some more than others) that the public becomes exhausted from hearing about the latest outrage and the media looks like the boy who cried wolf one time too many.

 

[Don CT]

Ugh. Of course. I trust they wouldn’t be so magnanimous if anyone made a similar threat that impacted them.

Imagine if Obama said the exact same thing.

 

[ted chittenden]

So you're equating an email response from a media rep to a public post by the president of the US? Really?

A lot of presidents have used salty language. LBJ was one. So was Nixon. But they tried to keep it private.

I would also point out that since the deployment of ICE officers to Los Angeles in 2025, Mr. Newsom has written diatribes in the same vein as the President's on his own social media portal. Apparently, moving to base vocabulary has become quite popular on both sides of the aisle.

But I'm in agreement with @TheBigA on this. Do we really need a U.S. President who is always in the fray, no matter what the topic is? Sure, it makes good ratings for some of the media involved, but is it really in the best interests of the country as a whole to have a President who behaves like that?

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Imagine if Obama said the exact same thing.

They criticized him for so, so much less on that network. Heck, they criticized him for things that never happened.

And over on Fox Lite CNN, Tapper told us endlessly the bad shape Biden was in. Today, he at least grudgingly acknowledged the threat of wiping out a whole country might be a tad bit bad.

 

[cc333]

Are you suggesting that there was a time that the news media didn't care about ratings?

I would guess that there was a time when radio and TV broadcasters were much more altruistic and excited about reaching their respective audiences, preferring to extol the virtues of the various new media technologies (radio in the late teens and 20s, mechanical TV in the 20s and 30s, and electronic TV in the 30s and 40s) instead of basing every decision on ratings, shares, etc.

Indeed, that included news, which basically didn't care about ratings at all.

Of course, it seemed to all become much more uniformly well regulated and commercial in a recognizably modern way by the early-mid 50s, and, of course this meant that ratings mattered more, not that they ever didn't.

This is just me supposing, of course. The resident experts here know best.

As for everything else, the news (such as it is) speaks for itself quite plainly.

c

 

[gr8oldies]

Fox News is still praising him over those comments.

"Oh Glorious Leader Trump, we support you in annihilating the Middle East"

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

"Oh Glorious Leader Trump, we support you in annihilating the Middle East"

At one point they were too busy breathlessly fawning over MarkBillyBobWayneJohnnyDaveFrankCletus Mullen to bother with tedium like threats of genocide. That network really has its priorities in order.

 

[ted chittenden]

If Putin threatened to end our civilization, tonight, what kind of broadcast and cable coverage might we see? Wall to wall. Not a two minute hit and then on to the viral video of the day.

Actually, no. While there would have been initial wall-to-wall coverage of the threat, unless action in fact occurred, the media would have (mostly) left the threat after the first 24-48 hours or so. And, anybody threatening the U.S. would have been given more media time than the U.S. threatening anybody else, no matter who was President at the time the threat was made.

What worries me if this threat should ever be carried out is not Iran's response but Russia's and China's response, especially the latter. The People's Republic of China gets most of its oil from Iran and if the U.S. decided to bomb Iran's oil wells in to oblivion, China might react by deciding to declare war on the U.S. And, unlike Iran, China is a nuclear power that is in the midst of a major military modernization operation.

(Okay, I'm getting off the media angle so I'd better stop here.)

 

[Don CT]

Actually, no. While there would have been initial wall-to-wall coverage of the threat, unless action in fact occurred, the media would have (mostly) left the threat after the first 24-48 hours or so. And, anybody threatening the U.S. would have been given more media time than the U.S. threatening anybody else, no matter who was President at the time the threat was made.

What worries me if this threat should ever be carried out is not Iran's response but Russia's and China's response, especially the latter. The People's Republic of China gets most of its oil from Iran and if the U.S. decided to bomb Iran's oil wells in to oblivion, China might react by deciding to declare war on the U.S. And, unlike Iran, China is a nuclear power that is in the midst of a major military modernization operation.

(Okay, I'm getting off the media angle so I'd better stop here.)

That’s my fear as well. Trump is too ignorant to know and his handlers are too chicken shit to tell him.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Actually, no. While there would have been initial wall-to-wall coverage of the threat, unless action in fact occurred, the media would have (mostly) left the threat after the first 24-48 hours or so.

And we are well within the 24 hour (more like 16 or so when the threat was made), and no president has ever made this kind of threat. We’re not talking a threat to decimate their military as we had previously. The words matter and shouldn’t be minimized.

And, anybody threatening the U.S. would have been given more media time than the U.S. threatening anybody else, no matter who was President at the time the threat was made.

There’s a rather huge problem right there.

What worries me if this threat should ever be carried out is not Iran's response but Russia's and China's response, especially the latter. The People's Republic of China gets most of its oil from Iran and if the U.S. decided to bomb Iran's oil wells in to oblivion, China might react by deciding to declare war on the U.S. And, unlike Iran, China is a nuclear power that is in the midst of a major military modernization operation.

And of course the media knows that and it should be front and center in coverage. Even if we assume it’s a bluff, an analysis of potential outcomes and ripple effects is warranted. This is the closest we’ve come to setting off a far wider war (call it World War III or something else, that’s a side issue) that could result in both economic and human catastrophes. And if this ends without him carrying through, it should not be just pushed aside as if a the US didn’t just make that threat with the capacity, if not the will, to do it. That’s where the media should be focusing, if they were serious news organizations.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

I would also point out that since the deployment of ICE officers to Los Angeles in 2025, Mr. Newsom has written diatribes in the same vein as the President's on his own social media portal. Apparently, moving to base vocabulary has become quite popular on both sides of the aisle.

But I'm in agreement with @TheBigA on this. Do we really need a U.S. President who is always in the fray, no matter what the topic is? Sure, it makes good ratings for some of the media involved, but is it really in the best interests of the country as a whole to have a President who behaves like that?

Yes I remember how Newsom became that way with Trump. It’s because Trump campaign and MAGA allies decided to do attack ads on Newsom and Biden in 2024 even though they were not running for president it was former VP Harris at that time. But back to this how to convince the rest of the world to fact check with Reuters and AP we have to expect a range within 1% to follow that for media literacy reasons.

 

[kwthom]

<...>Do we really need a U.S. President who is always in the fray, no matter what the topic is? Sure, it makes good ratings for some of the media involved, but is it really in the best interests of the country as a whole to have a President who behaves like that?

C'mon, Ted - if POTUS is out of the limelight for two hours...bad times.

Look, he even had issues with the planned chit-chat with the Artemis 2 mission yesterday. Said something ignorant about Gretzky the (former) hockey player and Canadian, and the astronauts were speechless for nearly a minute afterwards.

The well-worn phrase "I have no words..." seemed to fit perfectly - a WTF moment (yes, one of many) captured for eternity.

 

[cc333]

(Okay, I'm getting off the media angle so I'd better stop here.)

Agreed, but you have a very excellent point. Nobody wants WWIII, especially if it goes nuclear.

That’s my fear as well. Trump is too ignorant to know and his handlers are too chicken shit to tell him.

Also agree.

However, let's keep it focused on broadcasting, lest lanceventa comes in and shuts the thread down.

That said....


How is media coverage going on the rapidly approaching deadline of complete destruction?

CNN, for it's part, seems to be devoting a bit of time to it (not wall-to-wall, of course; that will probably, maybe, hopefully? happen as we get closer).

c