Classic NY Times. Steering into conservatism in the name of presenting both sides. Man. Sometimes there isn’t two sides to a story, and that’s been the case since 2012 with Donald Trump. This fucko has been spouting insane shit for over a decade and everyone just gives him a platform because when a rich guy says something, no matter how insane, that’s news worthy. We never woulda had a Trump presidency if the media hadn’t been like “Donald Trump keeps saying Barack Obama isn’t American. What’s that about?” And then treated him serious instead of dismissing it as what it was, the lunatic ramblings of a racist
This broader issue has been bad for a while. I honestly wonder if our climate change situation would be better today if the media hadn’t given equal time to scientists who didn’t think there was human-influenced climate change, even though they were an infinitesimally small fraction of climate scientists. I can understand why some people thought it was a debate among scientists long after it was broadly accepted.
Likewise, treating every wholly fabricated lie that Trump spouts out like it deserves consideration gives him underserved legitimacy.
Who controls the media? That’s the question to ask. Do they have an incentive to manufacture outrage? Do they have reason to favor one outcome over another? Even if what they’re presenting you is factually accurate, sometimes even deciding to give something coverage at all changes what the story is. Donald Trump coulda been a rich guy with weird thoughts with only the people already following him on twitter seeing his bullshit, or better yet, he coulda been thrown off twitter, but the news MADE him into a public figure by treating him as one. And then twitter didn’t kick him off the platform BECAUSE he was a public figure.
Classic NY Times. Steering into conservatism in the name of presenting both sides. Man. Sometimes there isn’t two sides to a story, and that’s been the case since 2012 with Donald Trump. This fucko has been spouting insane shit for over a decade and everyone just gives him a platform because when a rich guy says something, no matter how insane, that’s news worthy. We never woulda had a Trump presidency if the media hadn’t been like “Donald Trump keeps saying Barack Obama isn’t American. What’s that about?” And then treated him serious instead of dismissing it as what it was, the lunatic ramblings of a racist
This broader issue has been bad for a while. I honestly wonder if our climate change situation would be better today if the media hadn’t given equal time to scientists who didn’t think there was human-influenced climate change, even though they were an infinitesimally small fraction of climate scientists. I can understand why some people thought it was a debate among scientists long after it was broadly accepted.
Likewise, treating every wholly fabricated lie that Trump spouts out like it deserves consideration gives him underserved legitimacy.
Who controls the media? That’s the question to ask. Do they have an incentive to manufacture outrage? Do they have reason to favor one outcome over another? Even if what they’re presenting you is factually accurate, sometimes even deciding to give something coverage at all changes what the story is. Donald Trump coulda been a rich guy with weird thoughts with only the people already following him on twitter seeing his bullshit, or better yet, he coulda been thrown off twitter, but the news MADE him into a public figure by treating him as one. And then twitter didn’t kick him off the platform BECAUSE he was a public figure.