So having the media attack the president just confirms the people's negative opinion.
The truth is not an attack.
A lot of that is why they voted this guy for a second term. They feel he was unfairly targeted by the media.
You know it’s not nearly so simple as a monolithic “they”.
The media has to earn back the support of the people.
Funny, they’re losing support by cowering, denying, sanewashing and refusing to do even a modicum of actual journalism. They’re not building support by being de facto press organs of the regime.
The way they do that is play by the rules and give both sides a chance to express themselves.
This is so damn tedious. Facts are not “both sides.” Lies are lies. They do not become true because people shout loudly.
You don't deal with a tyrannical president by attacking him, because that just makes him a martyr.
So you bend the knee. That always works well. History is replete with examples of how tyrants were brought down by the press rolling over and playing dead.
The networks got hosed last night. They were told they were going to get some news, and instead they got a campaign speech.
Oh no, no, no….we are not going to paint them as some unwitting victims. They know exactly what he does. And has done for 10 years. They got enough of a preview of the content to know precisely nothing was going to be newsworthy. They are not innocent bystanders.
That was wrong. It shouldn't have happened. But the wrong way to respond is to have news people attack everything the president said.
Calling a lie a lie is not an attack. Calling the truth the truth is not an attack.
That just turns them into the enemy rather than what they're supposed to do.
Which is what, refuse to report facts?
In the meantime, the media is not just one thing. You still have reporters who are doing serious investigations.
Vanity Fair and Rolling Stone are two examples of outlets doing what precisely none of the “big three” broadcasters are doing. Props and respect to them when they step up.
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.
Which appears to be the fourth of never according to the apologists.
After a presidential address is not the time or the place.
Yeah, some random day in March three months from now is better. My bad.
Given that speech, there should have been a democratic response.
Are we going to pretend the networks were going to give time to that?
But it's not up to the media to take the place of the other party.
No, they’re squarely in the camp of one 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.
And what did the big three do?
🦗 🦗 🦗
