The media "blowing it again" in last days of election, but "not as badly" as last time

Originally published at:


For Faux News, it’s merely consistent with their mission as the propaganda arm of the GOP.

As for the rest…



An interesting observation on how the press is covering the liar in chief:

There are some good points and strategies inside of the piece. I especially like the “truth sandwich” but, all the air is let out at with this closing statement: “As for the reporters who cover him, we are still figuring it out as we go along.” It’s been two long years for the press to get their shit together on how to cover trump and if they don’t have it figured out by now they never will.


Gessen’s Rule #3: Institutions will not save you from the autocrat.

A free press is one of the institutions of liberal democracy, but it (especially its establishment outlets and certainly those designed as propaganda organs) can be hobbled and subverted easily enough by an autocrat.


“and for the trend of sucessfully ignoring vacuous Trumpspeak.”

This is perhaps the best news I’m going to get this Monday morning.


Trump’s lies are not scoops


Trump spews his newly-hatched idiotica “Jobs Not Mobs” and the media go nuts disseminating it. It’s obviously a PR phrase, no doubt developed by Stephen Miller, and honed in private sessions with focus groups. When it erupts from Trumps mouth, there are already posters created, bulletpoints on all right-wing media and GOP headliners. It’s not news. It’s a PR product. But the mainstream eats it up.

Calling this new migration a “caravan” is ridiculous. The media should be calling it a “so-called caravan”. They don’t call themselves that. Only Trump and the Right does, and they do so pejoratively. So why do the mainstream adopt the Right’s terminology lock, stock, and barrel? (I have not seen one media commentator object to the use of the term “caravan.” This is a homerun for Frank Luntz!)

In Georgia, Kemp is accusing Stacie Abrams at the very last minute of voter registration hacking. Let him. But why should the mainstream media plaster that on the front page? Especially when it is obviously a smoke screen to obscure his own blatant, malignant voter suppression and his conflict of interest when the tight vote inevitably goes to a recount and – oh, look at that! – he, as Secretary of State, gets to oversee the recount.

But, as in 2016, the media has made a devil’s bargain. The more outrageous the claims, whatever their merits, the higher the ratings. It pays to put sensationalist right-wing liars on TV. It doesnt pay to put truthful, policy-oriented Democrats on TV.


And it’s not even difficult really. The best thing is to not repeat any statement from Trump which includes a falsehood which is to say, never repeat anything Trump says. Instead, point out that the president made false or misleading statements which due to journalistic integrity cannot be repeated during a news program.


The media is a business, and they focus on whatever shiny object is in front of them, hoping that’s what their audience wants. It’s only partially about reporting the news, it’s at least equally about ad revenue and keeping an audience. To quote a comic book “the press loves blood as much as any tick ever born.”

And the migrant caravan could be the gift that keeps giving-- if the militias running to the border start shooting at innocent unarmed people the media gets to cash in again. It’s a win-win situation, well. . . except for those who get shot, I guess.


You could start by confronting him to his face when he lies in an interview or answering questions in a press briefing.



the answer is simple, just tell the press there are more Clinton emails coming out

seriously though, why in the age of 24/7 news with so many sources and so many issues going on, does the “newsmedia” vapor-lock onto single issues?

1 Like

Sadly, reporting PR as though it were news isn’t limited to Trump, nor to politics. News outlets do that to save money - someone else is paying to write the copy to we don’'t have to!

It’s ridiculous and I avoid those articles and sources whenever possible. Too many others do not even realize there’s a problem.


“Where do I go to report…”

An escort service sometime in the 90’s?


I made a picture for you (above) for use later this week on social media, when it really starts to sink in.

Here’s your sign?

1 Like

I think the biggest problem is that news relies on advertising to stay in business. If nobody’s watching, the advertising dollars drop off, and the news service is at risk for layoffs or closure. So of course they’re going to “report” on various “stories” that get people watching, whether it’s a bald-faced lie or not.

If media didn’t have to rely on advertising, they could just ignore the chump. It wouldn’t fix everything. Between Twitter, Breitbart/Fox News, and assorted neonazi bloggers, he for sure has an echo chamber. But at least his unhinged, toxic lies would have less of an audience.

I’m reminded of a granuloma, which is similar to a cyst. It’s pocket of pus and bacteria (or other infectious agents), contained within a fibrous sac to keep the infection from spreading. The body literally creates a barrier to prevent the infection from spreading and killing the host. We need something like that.


I’ve noticed a number of outfits saying “citing no evidence” or “without providing details or evidence”. I assume they are afraid to use the word “lie” because it implies an unknowable intent and “bull-shitting” isn’t widely accepted as a verb yet. I guess it’s a step in the right direction. Here are some ideas if any editors are reading this:

blather - used when the candidate is just doing word salad
dissemble - used when the candidate is bull-shitting (or just use bull-shitting)

But to be honest, I think we should expect elected representatives to know the facts and say they are lying when they get them wrong, sure we may accuse people of lying who are only bull-shitting but that feels like the right bar to hold them to.


The weirdest thing for me in the hyperactive news cycle leading up to the midterms is the media’s obsession with minute, tenth-of-a-decimal-point changes in polling numbers. After the last few elections, especially 2016, showed that polls are vague stabs in the dark and probably massively misleading, I’m not sure why anyone cares about them.

Polls are useless. The percentages you see are from the people who didn’t hang up or refuse to answer a polling call; the people with land-lines who are on polling number call lists; the people who will cheerfully tell a stranger who they’re voting for. In other words, we’re seeing percentages of bored retirees, not a representative spread of the electorate.


But if you do that, then you won’t be invited back, or given future interviews. And you have a mortgage to pay, and a bright future that you’re working toward. So you don’t rock the boat. Surely someone else will do it, plus he’s going to be indicted or impeached any day now. Annnnnny day.


That threat will only take trump so far. If everybody refuses to play his game he’ll end up only talking to Fox news.

1 Like

But there is always some fucker who is willing to play the game if they see it as their best way to get ahead of all the other fuckers they see as their competition. Always.

1 Like