POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

FYP

 

Dooz: Trump is wrong to attack the honesty and objectivity of the media, and should stop.

Also Dooz: Trump is a liar who peddles in sensationalistic bullshit & fear-mongering.

Also Dooz: Trump is a clown, and is not to be taken seriously.

Also Dooz: i rEad WhErE dRumPf wAnTS tO nUKe hURrIcANes.

 

Tweets written by Sarah Jeong, with some being just a few years old, and who was recently named to the NYT’s Editorial Board.

 

Umm...okay. Sweet melt?

 

she has some book or something coming out talking about this. Allegedly this was all taken out of context and was in jest. But the mob had saw what they wanted and there was no controlling it because the perception was more useful than the reality.

 

Isn’t it the content of their words which is discrediting, and not that they were found and publicized, instead?

Who scrutinizes those amongst the powerful in journalism? Clearly, not journalists.

Oh.

As he was only demoted from the NYT Editorial Board after his racist / anti-Semitic tweets were exposed, one could argue that perhaps he’s not at all misaligned with their standards.

Honestly, is every liberal a closeted racist, a bigot or both?

It absolutely is.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/25/us/politics/trump-allies-news-media.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

 

Perfect.

 

Indeed.

 

I guess the difference is that in the media you get fired or reprimanded, whereas in the administration you get appointments and promotions.

 

Entirely fair, IP.

I’ll gladly concede the point that she deserves an opportunity to explain herself and her words, and will grant her the benefit of the doubt that they aren’t indicative of her true character and were never intended as they have been presented.

For as sincerely as I loathe the NYT, it’s in no one’s best interests that a member of their Editorial Board to be serious in holding these views.

 

Let’s agree that each can be wrong.

Now settled, let’s focus on whether the media should be just as carefully scrutinized as those whom they report on, and if they haven’t been, should they be?

 

I sincerely never doubted that media can be wrong. It is every time, for something I happen to have first-hand knowledge of. It is usually some shade of the truth, but either not the whole picture or woefully slanted to a possible conclusion that hasn't actually been supported by the facts yet.

 

And I don't actually have a problem with media member's public stuff being dug up, but I also don't think it is fair to take things 10+ years old said in a private life and fire people over it. It isn't the same as a publicly elected office.

 

So...it mirrors their reporting, by and large?

 

It isn’t the same as a publicly elected official.

But it’s the people who purport to hold publicly elected officials accountable, and clearly, is not a standard which they have any interest in holding themselves equally accountable.

If they have made public statements, those should be made known for the sake of transparency, and thereby allowing the consumers of their work to ultimately decide how much / little they believe it could impact or affect their reporting, if even at all.

 

I don't have a problem with media members being held accountable for what they say and do. I do have a problem with politicians and their surrogates actively attacking media members, trying to expose them for their own political benefit. It's a dangerous line to play on the first amendment to actively seek out ways in which to silence the media.

 

It is hard to feel sorry for the Media when their coverage is so blatantly biased by their personal dislike for the President.

 

Why are you unconcerned with blatant bias and personal favor with the President?

 

That's a problem too, but I don't see it happening now

 

They are either an R or a D; they make no claim of being unbiased. In fact they are elected because of their bias.

* I may have misunderstood who you were referring to.