MEDIA CROC TEARS
The responsible media (that means not CNN, NBC-MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, Salon, Huff Puff Post, and the like that are anti-Trump all the time) have a narrative that is both self-serving and destructive. They claim that the President's Twitter tweets distract from getting any real work done in Washington and over-ride any narrative of accomplishments.
Now frankly, I wish our President would reduce his tweeting. But the claim by Fox News and other outlets is kinda ridiculous. Think it through.
Consider these fragments from the primary piece by Chris Stirewalt in his daily Fox News Halftime Report e-mail:
"Now, we might rightly ignore the president’s insults. . .But we are compelled to pay attention to the president’s social media misconduct not only because it demands decent people to declare it unacceptable, but because in a very real way, the president is robbing the people who voted for him. . .By the end of today, no invective will have been spared in the decrying of Trump’s insult. References to what he said was a joke about sexual assault as well as other caddish comments will have all resurfaced. By the time you go to bed tonight, the president’s apologists will also be out in force complaining about media bias. . .But again, really, who cares?"
I'll tell you who cares: Chris Stirewalt. He got a 525 word article to write decrying being forced to write such stuff. Wahhh, crocodile tears. Trump made him do it.
The focus on Trump tweets, and on Morning Joe insults that prompt them, is all on the journalists--I use the term very lightly--that cover them. The decision of what to talk about, write about, obsess about, is that solely of the journalist. If he really, truly wanted to cover health care reform, or the opening of a new coal mine, or recent employment numbers, he would. And if he truly, really thought those things were more important than a tweet, he'd cover them in the same detail he now devotes to a tweet.
The anti-Trump TV media will devote a complete hour or day to the tweet, but even the responsible media gives it at least 10 minutes coverage at the top of the broadcast and another 10 minutes if they have a discussion panel. Print media put it as the lead story. This is a deliberate choice by them not to cover the more important issues; they just don't want to.
The TV news excuse use to be "we can't cover it well if it doesn't have video." Guess what, tweets are not videos, yet they cover them incessantly. So much for that excuse.
Now, am I saying don't cover the tweets and insults? Of course not. But a responsible media would have a minor segment at the end of its hour or column for "The Donald's Dumb Tweet of the Day" and "Morning Joe Judicious Malfeasance" or some such, mention it in passing, and let the viewer/reader form their opinion. Instead, we get reams of paper and miles of tape with punditry crying about how they are forced to cover such stuff and can't get to the real news that people need to know about.
Wahhh, wahhh.
The responsible media (that means not CNN, NBC-MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, Salon, Huff Puff Post, and the like that are anti-Trump all the time) have a narrative that is both self-serving and destructive. They claim that the President's Twitter tweets distract from getting any real work done in Washington and over-ride any narrative of accomplishments.
Now frankly, I wish our President would reduce his tweeting. But the claim by Fox News and other outlets is kinda ridiculous. Think it through.
Consider these fragments from the primary piece by Chris Stirewalt in his daily Fox News Halftime Report e-mail:
"Now, we might rightly ignore the president’s insults. . .But we are compelled to pay attention to the president’s social media misconduct not only because it demands decent people to declare it unacceptable, but because in a very real way, the president is robbing the people who voted for him. . .By the end of today, no invective will have been spared in the decrying of Trump’s insult. References to what he said was a joke about sexual assault as well as other caddish comments will have all resurfaced. By the time you go to bed tonight, the president’s apologists will also be out in force complaining about media bias. . .But again, really, who cares?"
I'll tell you who cares: Chris Stirewalt. He got a 525 word article to write decrying being forced to write such stuff. Wahhh, crocodile tears. Trump made him do it.
The focus on Trump tweets, and on Morning Joe insults that prompt them, is all on the journalists--I use the term very lightly--that cover them. The decision of what to talk about, write about, obsess about, is that solely of the journalist. If he really, truly wanted to cover health care reform, or the opening of a new coal mine, or recent employment numbers, he would. And if he truly, really thought those things were more important than a tweet, he'd cover them in the same detail he now devotes to a tweet.
The anti-Trump TV media will devote a complete hour or day to the tweet, but even the responsible media gives it at least 10 minutes coverage at the top of the broadcast and another 10 minutes if they have a discussion panel. Print media put it as the lead story. This is a deliberate choice by them not to cover the more important issues; they just don't want to.
The TV news excuse use to be "we can't cover it well if it doesn't have video." Guess what, tweets are not videos, yet they cover them incessantly. So much for that excuse.
Now, am I saying don't cover the tweets and insults? Of course not. But a responsible media would have a minor segment at the end of its hour or column for "The Donald's Dumb Tweet of the Day" and "Morning Joe Judicious Malfeasance" or some such, mention it in passing, and let the viewer/reader form their opinion. Instead, we get reams of paper and miles of tape with punditry crying about how they are forced to cover such stuff and can't get to the real news that people need to know about.
Wahhh, wahhh.