Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Snow on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:34AM   Printer-friendly
from the head-in-the-sand dept.

Just before the dawn of the Trump administration, journalism in Washington, DC, faces an existential crisis -- but virtually no one in the profession is willing to diagnose it.

Here it is: For the first time, words don't matter. In August, as a guest on MSNBC's Meet the Press Daily, I noted that voters take Donald Trump seriously but not literally, while journalists take him literally, but not seriously.

[...] And journalists keep falling for it because they, like politicians, over-value words -- and they are now covering a politician who does not. President-elect Trump still takes the same cavalier approach to verbal description as he would in hawking a condo tower that's yet to be designed. And more than enough voters don't seem to mind. Trump has spent a career interacting with journalists, but as the first president never to serve in the military, the cabinet, or another public office before his election to the White House, he's never been immersed in the word culture that drives political journalism. [...] Most recently, when Trump announced he had chosen South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley to be his ambassador to the United Nations, journalists raced to re-tweet a March rant from Trump in which he said the people of South Carolina should be embarrassed by her.

[...] Writing endless columns on this or that flip-flop based on Trump's conflicting rhetoric is wasting the time of the readers and viewers who have decided that's not what matters with this particular President-elect. [...] If the press covers Trump the way it covered prior presidents -- too literally -- it may find its own customers take journalism itself a lot less seriously.

Source: CNN


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:58AM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:58AM (#435309) Journal

    Trump better leans to say what he means. Careless speech in international diplomacy can cause great damage. Especially given that there are some country leaders who are very easily offended.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:06AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:06AM (#435314)

    Especially given that there are some country leaders who are very easily offended.

    Yeah, the one we just elected, the snowflake of snowflakes. And soon he'll have all the power of the US government to sic on people to protect his thin skin and fragile ego.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by jmorris on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:59PM

      by jmorris (4844) on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:59PM (#435517)

      He clearly is not nearly as thin skinned as most people, especially the Democrat Media, seem (hint: they really don't) to believe. Gov. Haley was fairly rough in her criticism of Trump and is now set to join his administration. And look at Romney, that jerk didn't just insult Trump, he insulted everybody voting for him, and that after being a capital L Loser in2012. Still being considered for SecState; apparently Trump thinks he can work with him and get some use out of him, more importantly, after a bit of one on one time Romney apparently agrees so he too was just saying crap during the campaign for public consumption. The evidence clearly says Trump realizes the media (twitter included) is just a game, no more real than the WWE where, it must be remembered, he is in the Hall of Fame. Swagger and trash talk are simply the rules of the game, at least for winners. But it isn't reality and doesn't mean you can't do a deal with em after the show or just socialize.

      Now if these observations disturb you, and they should, you can be courageous and ask the next obvious question. Obvious for me at least, the very last question most will want to grapple with. Why? The answers are in WikiLeaks.

      Lets start with this one, from Bill Ivey to John Podesta [wikileaks.org]

      And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.

      Everything people like me have been saying were Progressive goals all the way back to Dewey, confirmed in a (believed to be) private conversation among the ruling elite. I don't really have to link to the multiple mails from the Podesta and DNC collections to back up the assertion that they confirm what our side has been saying that the media are not biased, they are on the DNC Org Chart, do I?

      We have got knock on problems from those two. As education has been gutted, we have got 'elites' who are dumb as an anvil. Again, just look at the ones the elite elevate to the highest position in the public eye, the media.

      The plan is failing because the masses now have the Internet and a small but growing subset are educating themselves to fill in the intentional gaps the government schools left. Mr. Ivey is wrong about an inportant detail: we aren't obedient because we aren't ignorant anymore. For example, the U.S. Constitution is actually very short, and once you read it vs accepting what the mass media tell us it says, it changes the game. When Glenn Beck published a 'translation to Modern English' of The Federalist and it went on the best seller lists it should have been a wakeup call for the ruling class. The fact it didn't raise an alarm is actually very telling. Of course it is happening erratically, with much error and conspiracy "Alex Jones" stuff. But Truth over time is conquering Error.

      Also, even a large number of the Americans still wallowing in government mandated ignorance are innately intelligent enough they have figured out that the mass media is lying biased liars who lie and don't even know much. You don't have to be too clueful to notice that even the NYT can't even get basics of spelling and grammar correct, often make painfully obvious factual errors, etc.

      Meanwhile the elite, having been taught that obedience is far more profitable than thought, since actual thought leads to CrimeThink and a dead career, remain mired in ignorance and sloppy thinking. Once yelling "Racist!!!!" doesn't work to end a problematic debate they more often than not have nothing else to say.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:33PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:33PM (#435648) Journal

        He clearly is not nearly as thin skinned as most people, especially the Democrat Media, seem (hint: they really don't) to believe. Gov. Haley was fairly rough in her criticism of Trump and is now set to join his administration. And look at Romney, that jerk didn't just insult Trump, he insulted everybody voting for him, and that after being a capital L Loser in2012. Still being considered for SecState; apparently Trump thinks he can work with him and get some use out of him

        Your examples don't show that he isn't "thin-skinned," but rather that he is capable of not holding a grudge. Those are two different things. "Thin-skinned" simply means sensitive to insults or criticism, touchy, etc. Usually that term is used to describe people who "fly off the handle" and are unable to contain their tempers or feelings in the moment. Many of these people can be more reasonable and reflective down the line, and in fact if their moods are as capricious as "thin-skinned" often is associated with, then it makes perfect sense that they'd react differently at a later date. "Thin-skinned," in terms of outward behavior, is basically the opposite of "passive aggressive" -- and THOSE are the people who tend to hold long-term grudges. The "thin-skinned" types tend to vent their feelings and annoyance quickly, not necessary bottling it up for later "revenge."

        Anyhow, maybe Trump's bloviating is only part of the "game," but he does actually seem to get worked up about stuff sometimes. And sending tweets at 3am (or critical emails or drunk-dialing the phone) is often the sign of somebody who is actually trying to vent. If it's all pretend, why not just send them during normal business hours?

        It doesn't much matter to me, in any case. My only concern is whether he'd be able to "control himself" in such reactions when dealing with serious issues, say an international crisis and talking to foreign leaders. Maybe you're right that it's all just bluster and he can rein it in when necessary, but the way the tweets sort of disappeared for a few days after the election and then returned seem to imply something else -- perhaps that he was advised to stop that, but can't really help himself.

        Lets start with this one, from Bill Ivey to John Podesta

        Believe it or not, I'm completely with you about the agenda to create a compliant citizenry, particularly in the original high-school movement and public school reform of the early 20th century. However, I'm not convinced that the email you quote says what you think it does. First off, it's pretty clear that "we" earlier in the email doesn't mean "you and me," but rather is a generic pronoun referring to broader groups (and not necessarily just Democrats or liberals or whatever). Second, a slightly more generous reading of this passage would take it as less conspiratorial and more as lamenting the state of modern politics -- i.e., something like "We -- political figures on all sides -- have been content to dumb things down, because it was politically expedient given the rhetoric of both parties. And we got both a dumber and obedient (because they didn't have to think for themselves) public. Alas, we've now ended up with the 'dumb' but the public is no longer willing to just comply with the Democratic vision."

        You're choosing to take "conspire" literally, as if it means Democratic party leaders are deliberately trying to keep the average citizen stupid. While I think there ARE likely Democrats (and Republicans) who believe in that strategy, I think it's much less prevalent than it was ca. 100 years ago. I'd guess this more refers to the unfortunate reality of the system (which IS a criticism of politics in general and how they dumb things down) and how the tide is turning against the Dems, rather than a deliberate hidden "conspiracy" outed in one Wikileaks email.

        So, I'd take this as lamenting the complacency with how Dems have participated in this crappy system that's been trending that way for a long time. You obviously choose to read it differently. This seems to be the reverse of the way we're reading Trump's 3am tweets, with me taking them as reflecting some more literal concern, and you assuming they're not to be taken literally. Unfortunately, written text is often ambiguous like this, so I don't think either of us can prove our cases for certain in terms of intent. But I don't think your single email is a clear "smoking gun."

        • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:33PM

          by jmorris (4844) on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:33PM (#435712)

          Your examples don't show that he isn't "thin-skinned," but rather that he is capable of not holding a grudge.

          Ok, fair enough point. However considering some of the mud that was slung and now apparently forgotten, it really is hard to believe any of them believed a lot of it. Normal campaigning is somewhat rough but these guys were calling each other everything but ax murderers and now happily breaking bread like nothing happened. So I say the simplest explanation is that nothing important actually happened. They were all just trash talking with about as much seriousness as the WWE.

          You're choosing to take "conspire" literally, as if it means Democratic party leaders are deliberately trying to keep the average citizen stupid.

          Having trouble here. You admit the Progressives once had that goal but what? Somewhere along the way they abandoned a successful plan? Why? Or is it just the case that you can believe people you have never really heard much about and who are long since dead could be that wicked but have a problem believing the nice lady on the TV is a direct intellectual descendant of the exact same school of thought? In the case of HRC she is on the record multiple times declaring that she sees herself as an old school Progressive.

          I see this same cognitive dissonance when modern Progs confront the historical reality that the KKK was created as the "Terror Wing" of the Democratic Party. When hit hard enough with the evidence they will admit it but then try the "but that all flipped and now the Republicans are the party of racism" gambit and either end there or force me to nuke their "Nixon's Southern strategy" theory one more time. Meanwhile they are the ones who are still obsessed with identity politics and race in the [current year] and there is no point in the timeline one can point to and say "here" is when Democrats weren't racists.

          The truth you have to confront is that they are adherents to a belief system directly opposed to everything it means (i.e. the ideas in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution along with pretty much everything the Founders wrote and the values of the Enlightenment in general) to be American, they have been for more than a hundred years and they absolutely will not stop unless and until some greater force stops them. They are bound by no morality beyond the pure Will to Power in their quest to remake the nation in their own image. The only difference between a Progressive and a Communist is the Communist lives for day of The Revolution while the Progressive believes the same end goal can be achieved by slow "progress" and small changes over time.

          something like "We -- political figures on all sides

          If -WE- said that you would have a point, since we could very well, probably even, be referring to "we" in the sense of America in general. But those guys aren't normal folks, they are the puppet masters who actually run things and the "we" they were referring to was clearly themselves. Before being assigned to run HRC's campaign Podesta was literally the Mouth of Soros.

          • (Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday December 04 2016, @10:03AM

            by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Sunday December 04 2016, @10:03AM (#436850) Journal

            I see this same cognitive dissonance when modern Progs confront the historical reality that the KKK was created as the "Terror Wing" of the Democratic Party. When hit hard enough with the evidence they will admit it but then try the "but that all flipped and now the Republicans are the party of racism" gambit and either end there or force me to nuke their "Nixon's Southern strategy" theory one more time.

            *sigh* I need to up my foe penalty so I don't see shit like this. That said, I did see it, and my curiosity to look at your intellectual train wrecks forces me to respond.

            What are you saying, exactly? That the former Confederacy didn't switch from solid Democrat to solid Republican? Probably not, because it's pretty clear it did. So either the parties changed, or the South changed.

            Is your claim that the South changed its political philosophy, and the parties stayed the same? Not many political scientists would agree with you on that, so maybe you mean something else, but what I couldn't guess. It's pretty clear to me that what happened is the South got butthurt over the Civil Rights Act and changed parties in retaliation. I have a (partially train wreck) curiosity as to how you see it differently.

            Btw I don't think either US political party could fairly be described as racist. Trump probably could be accurately described that way, but he performed a hostile takeover of the Republican party, and the rightful leaders of the party don't share his views. I expect that his takeover won't outlast his presidency.

            • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday December 04 2016, @06:23PM

              by jmorris (4844) on Sunday December 04 2016, @06:23PM (#436942)

              First off I'd just say to go watch Dinesh D'souza's latest film because he devotes more time to the topic that I can here and has pretty infographics.

              1. Nuking the Southern Strategy requires only a look at the election returns. If the racist southern democrats became Republican in reaction to the civil rights act (passed with Republican votes btw, fillibustered by Robert "Exalted Cyclops" Byrd). Popular mythology (i.e. lies) says that Nixon had a "Southern Strategy" but the returns do not show it. Reason also refutes the idea. Nixon was probably more crooked than Obama, far less so than either Clinton. But also probably as politically savvy as a Clinton. Why would a Progressive / Liberal Republican from CA believe he had a shot in the South with a stalking horse Dixiecrat muddying the waters?

              2. The South did not vote Republican at the Presidential level until 1980. Reagan was not a racist. Dispute that and I shall hunt your slandering ass down with my LART. So something else had to account for the flip. Also note Reagan won pretty much everywhere, not just the South. It was long after Reagan opened the door that the South began voting Republican farther down the ticket. Before Reagan the Republican Party was generally about as Progressive as the Democrats, not so much after. Reaganism captured the Republican Party and with that a national realignment. Trump appears likely to repeat it again, realigning the Rust Belt in.

              3. The voting patterns here in the South can best be explained by the Republican Party becoming unashamedly Conservative AND the old Southern "Yeller Dog Democrat" population dying. That and snowbirds continuing to migrate South during this period as air conditioning was remaking the South into a more habitable region.

              4. The best bullet point explanation for the whole story is this. When LBJ flipped from fillibustering civil rights legislation to ramrodding it he didn't change his beliefs, only tactics. He is documented in a popular biography as saying "I'll have those n*gg*rs voting Democrat for 200 years." Meaning he wanted them oppressed, only with the welfare state they would also be voting for their oppressors. Evil genius level unlocked.

              Combined with the Immigration Act of 1965, designed to import a more pliant population, the Democratic Party embarked on a plan to remake themselves into a party based on the "coalition of the ascendant". So after their first success of turning blacks into a driven down but reliable bloc of votes they began assembling a motley collection of rejects, losers and misfits, creating them when they couldn't find them. Their problem is they made a couple of mistakes. One, they allowed themselves to be driven into being an almost exclusive urban party of the upper East Coast and the "loony left coast" to such an extent they don't have many left who actually know what the rest of the country is like. The cities they live in are "diversitopias" where white people are a distinct ruling class minority. (Blacks might rule most large cities on paper but never confuse actual power with apparent.) So when books were written about how the coalition of the ascendant would soon be unstoppable they made the fatal mistake of getting ahead of themselves and neglecting the word "soon" because of what they saw as their world. So they went full retard and unleashed the politically correct weapons of war directly against whites decades before it was a viable plan. With the Democratic Party unmasked as a party still exactly as racist as a hundred years ago, only with a new enemy, the end result was painfully obvious to anyone who can read the Census results.

              They also made another fatal mistake. They thought they could keep the motley collection safely seen but unheard, only brought out on election day and then stuffed back in the universities and housing projects. Nope. Soon the Congressional Black Caucus will have to rename itself to simply the House Democratic Caucus after merging with the Hispanic Caucus. But there is a problem. Those people, almost to a man/woman, are utterly corrupt machine politicians who can win their seat without effort but are utterly unsuited for higher office. Oops.

              Look at a map, see that sea of red. The realignment isn't even over yet, diehards will again simply have to die off before it completes. The Democratic Party is a niche party of the big coastal cities now. All my team need do is grow a little stronger, strong enough to smash the machines in the cities and bring in economic prosperity to the huddled masses groaning under the yoke of Democrat oppression. Then the Democrats will have nothing. Then we will get a fresh realignment since there will always be two parties, the math demands it.

              • (Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Monday December 05 2016, @04:08AM

                by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Monday December 05 2016, @04:08AM (#437055) Journal

                Have you ever considered writing an alternate history novel? Authors who look at their fiction as describing full and complete worlds are the best. You'd have that advantage as well as the passion that comes from thinking you're writing about the /REAL/ world. You'd be S-rank.

                Just don't make D'Souza's mistake of marketing your work in the nonfiction aisle. I mean, you might make some money off of the people who share your reality distortion field, but the critics will eviscerate you, and the book won't be remembered, so you'll get no lasting fame. Selling it in the fiction aisle will get you fame AND money. Think of it as fooling the liberals into agreeing you. You could maybe look at the "Left Behind" series as a guide for how to put your psychosis to work, but don't be as blatant about it as that guy. The trick is in fooling people to believe that YOU ALSO think you're writing fiction, even though you secretly know you're not.

                Oh, also, a fun fact about reading maps. It's counter-intuitive, but you can't tell just from looking at a map how many people actually live in a place! Like, take a look at Canada. It's bigger than the US on the map, but 10 times more people live in the US! I know, right? Mind freak!

                The "sea of red" you see is mostly a bunch of places where almost nobody lives. There's a "sea of red" in the 2012 election, too, but the Republican didn't win, and it's because of this fun fact about maps! Actually, in 2016, the Democrat also got more votes -- a lot more, actually! -- but Trump won because of some anachronistic, anti-democratic features of our voting system.

                But don't let this stop you in your book! In your book, make it so the valiant hero would have won the popular vote by millions of votes, but a bunch of evil, sinister criminals from other countries are illegally voting against him, and it's the anachronistic, anti-democratic voting system that makes the result fair. That would be a good dose of dramatic irony.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:47PM (#435655)

        Trump is an arsehole. America just chose the bigger of two arseholes to be president. Thanks a bunch, signed the rest of your fellow human beings with whom you share a planet.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @09:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @09:16PM (#435677)

        So as long as you suck his dick, its ok if you were mean to him in the past?

        So the mass arrests or whatever the specialist snowflake has planned are find as long as those accused of "treason" or whatever repent.

        Got it.

        Fuck off.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:33PM (#435713)

        He just knows he has no idea how to be president and his pool of government experts is small. He knows that after he repays his cronies with positions the remainder have to be filled with the most competent people that will work with him or he's fucked.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by MostCynical on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:06AM

    by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:06AM (#435315) Journal

    So he doesn't mean what he says.
    What does he mean? Is everyone supposed to just *guess*?

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:25AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:25AM (#435322)

      Is everyone supposed to just *guess*?

      All part of the Art of the Deal ... or Dildo

    • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:36PM

      by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:36PM (#435534) Journal

      We'll have to elect the Trump to see what's in the Trump's policies.

      Ah good! I see we've accomplished the first half!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @03:33PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @03:33PM (#435461)

    Trump shoots from the lip without checking his "ammo".