Trump was bragging about sexual assault. There isn’t really anything that’s comparable (at least publicly… maybe the tapes of Nixon making deeply anti-semetic statements).
I honestly don’t understand why people feel the need to defend his statements here, even if only at a distance. The unacceptable behavior of other people doesn’t mean that what Trump does and says is not a problem, when he is running for president right now.
I am not defending those statements. I am saying they are par of the course. I also wasn’t discussing Trump himself, but “real” journalism.
It seems quite improbable that journalists exist in a vaccum, one without rape culture, or that they somehow were unaware that most Presidents were complete bastards. I know why they are doing it; people don’t care about policy. They care about Sex & Impropriety. They are just giving people what they want. Which makes them no different than tabloid journalist.
I didn’t think you were mounting a defense, rather you are downplaying Trump’s statements, where he is indeed admitting sexual assault. That rises about “being an asshole,” I’d argue.
I think the argument about journalism is a different discussion.
So, instead of praising journalists for studying history and learning what problems we’ve faced in the past, and then covering issues in the present day to make sure we as a society don’t repeat the same mistakes, you’re suggesting that ‘real’ journalists should just accept the fact that powerful politicians as a group always commit unethical and sometimes illegal acts?
Damn it! I didn’t get here fast enough after reading my email notification. I knew this would happen.
Yes, my post above was responded to with no useful info, just an insult. Fine. But, @doop responded to that with a long, well-argued post that was worth reading. Because the insult was flagged, the response was lost too.
THIS IS WHY I ALMOST NEVER FLAG. One of the strengths of this forum is the wisdom, humor, experience, and humanity of most of the posters. We lost an excellent post because one guy wrote a jerky little post.
Recreated from my email notification. Originally posted by @doop.
“That is not what I am saying”
You did suggest that this scandal was the same as TMZ going after Mel Gibson though, which I take to mean that you think this is not newsworthy. @anon67050589 is trying to explain to you why it is newsworthy. Now you’re just throwing insults.
Once upon a time it would not have been newsworthy that the president owned slaves. Times change, and your appeals to the past are boring. It’s also pretty boring the way every time Trump shits himself, somebody feels the need to say “somebody else shat themselves once, too! What’s the big deal?” As if Trump doesn’t shit himself in myriad, colourful, explosive and unique ways every other day.
“Politics requires people to be assholes.”
You can shrug your shoulders but this is a profound problem. We are all out of frontiers to conquer, and continued competitive economic growth and the unrestricted resource consumption that entails appears to be a trajectory leading us all to massive ecological disaster. A transition from competitive to cooperative politics is crucial if we are to avoid a tragedy of the commons played out at a global scale. That makes any item that exposes Trump as a rampant sociopath newsworthy, not only in the context of his candidacy but also as a part of the broader narrative of predatory corporations and the narrow-minded egotists who run them. People like Trump have altogether too much influence in this world, so in a democracy it’s vitally important that the public understands exactly what people who are like Trump are like.
I mean, come on: that last paragraph is a must-read.
Aw, thanks. 
I’ve never had the chance to like one of my own posts before. 
Also I had no idea what happened and it made me sad.
Again both of you disregard the fact that the discussion was about journalism and not Trump. Yes I understand it is easy to lather up simple prepared statements against imagined arguments, but it is not that difficult to follow the reply chain and read what the other person is saying in context. I can summarize the whole chain to you, but you probably stopped reading 2 sentences ago.
I understand that some user might find this post as an insult as well, and some moderator might read this and think ‘what a condescending asshole?’, and delete the post, but I hope you understand the frustration caused by people reply with an argument about fields during a discussion about horses.
What’s this, then?
The discussion is about journalism and Trump, and the intersection of the two. To state otherwise strikes me as pretence or deflection, and also I’d point out that this is a public forum and declaring what the topic of discussion will or will not be is petulant behaviour that won’t get you far. Any assertion that you make here is fair game for criticism, so if you don’t want to talk about Trump then don’t tell us all what his problem isn’t.
We’re doing our best to explain to you why this item meets journalistic standards for newsworthiness. We are talking about journalism. The post you were replying to that got you flagged doesn’t even mention Trump at all. You’re welcome to disagree, but if you feel like you’re not getting your point across then clarify, for fuck’s sake. Blaming communication problems on the listener is not often constructive.
Let’s take a look then:
Right, no, that’s what I thought you said. My response was that par changes over time. None of the comparative examples you’ve given come from this century.
This is the other part of your argument that I responded to. I get that it’s a point about journalism, because if it doesn’t matter that Trump’s an asshole then the item loses newsworthiness. But I wanted to disagree with this because I think it very much does matter, not only that Trump is an asshole but that the upper echelons of society are brimming with assholes, and that therefore the item is newsworthy.
I did not. I’ve read everything you’ve said, and more than once. I’ve made an honest effort to engage you and the arguments that you’ve made, and when I didn’t seem to hit home with you I tried again. You could do the same, if you want.
At no point did I say it was not newsworthy. I said the coverage is no different from TMZ, because it isn’t, and that there isn’t any difference between tabloid jounalists and real journalists. It isn’t about policy, it is about sex, and sexiness of the story. Which is the only metric TMZ uses, and mainstream media too. All of the pearl clutching and hand-wringing and “On no! Not in Macklemore’s America” seems to disregard history and context that they are clearly aware of, for the sake of cheap views. My favorite was Jake Tapper claiming he was part of a fraternity and he had never heard talk like this. Apparently he was part of the only Frat in America not full of Rapey Bros. At no point did I say that this should not have been reported at all. I just provided an example to illustrate my point, and you seem to think that those examples are more worthy of discussion. Trump should be condemned and it is right for all this media personalities to condemn him. However their offense is as pretentious as their claims lofty ideals of journalism.
I was maybe unfair; that all journalists do this. Print media is full of people covering important things without pretense of faux-outrage. Unfortunately Print media is dying and we have nothing to replace it with. Which makes me sad.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
