Trump could make the press great again, all they have to do is their jobs

Yet another lie. Donald Dumpf is very sensitive about his little-boy fingers. His lies are so blatant and frequent, but the corporate press just refuses to report on them (not that Vanity Fair isn’t also corporate press):


You don’t say?


Well, I guess he must be a rapist, a racist, a KKK supporter, and a white supremacist. If he double-dips his chips, it’s all over.

1 Like

I’m waiting for him to turn around and fart into the mic. Any day now…


This article says a lot of stuff that I’m relieved to hear anyone saying in public (especially the parts about how terrorism is not, and never has been, a particularly major problem). However, at this point I’m no longer worried about whether journalists are good journalists; I’d settle for them just acting like good people.

Because, if you’re still writing chin-stroking essays about what all those good people might see in Trump, you’re just whitewashing fascism. Trump supporters know he’s a liar, and they know he’s inciting racism, and they are in favor of that. By pretending there could be non-bigoted reasons for supporting Trump, however explicit he is, you make him into the acceptable face of bigotry that a horribly large number of people have been looking for.

Here’s what I would love to hear Hillary, or Obama, or Jimmy Carter say to Trump supporters:

“I get that you’re sick of bullshit. You have a point there. So here’s some bullshit I’d like to clear up: You are racists. You’re misogynists, and xenophobes, and sadistic warmongers. OK. Democracy means you get to vote for that. But you’ve taken your masks off, and everyone knows-- you know-- exactly what you are and what you really stand for”

(optional mic drop)


If he says: “Pull my finger” first, then I’ll be OK with that.

But if he says “literally”, when we all know he means “figuratively”, then there’s no excuse.


In the UK, “trump” is a less-used synonym for “fart”. I’m surprised it didn’t come up in that John Oliver bit actually


Well it was probably a good idea to stop hyperinflating, so he’s got that for him. Shame about literally every other aspect of his life.

1 Like

Reporting — especially humorous or satirical reporting — on facts which damage the market value of investments in the “Trump” brand make a potentially large difference in valuation of the brand.

And publicizing that Drumpf lies about settling lawsuits, about his failed ventures for selling steaks, vodka, airplane rides, magazines and mortgages about his actual net worth and so on are exactly the sorts of facts which damage a brand.

Investors are less likely invest, and consumers are less likely to buy from a cheap or fraudulent or otherwise mistrusted brand.

I wonder if @doctorow agrees that the more practical and central question is about the commodification of journalism. Will concerns like share value, libel suits and quarterly income limit reporters from reporting?

As a matter of day-to-day survival, how do journalists in small cities across the U.S. pay for groceries, rent and student debt without a job?


But the election is never about the far edges of the partisan divide, as they say “elections are won in the center.”

Currently its still about the horse-race aspect of the election. I still hold out hope that if Trump wins the GOP nomination the press will start dissecting whatever policies he actually puts forth. Show after show of arguing pundits will compare what he proposes to what Hillary or Bernie proposes, and people will be forced to decide if he has anything realistic to offer the country, or if he’s just a TV personality with an ego and a wallet.

The GOP faithful who don’t like Trump, might hold their nose and pull the lever for him, but also have to consider that if he wins he could do even more harm to the party than he already has: electing a stuffed shirt with a bad attitude might not be the best thing for them.

1 Like

Articles exposing Drumpf draw just as many clicks, is my uninformed guess. It works on me.

Appeal to established fact is the last refuge of the scoundrel!

Also, diehard Conservatives hate having their stories limited by history, science, and other buzz killers. You’d lose part of the potential audience when you start fact checking.

And, one hopes, bloggers.

1 Like

He’s been basically doing that since the '80s, only from that butt on his face.

Yup, just called Donald Trump a butt face. It just got KINDERGARTEN up in this biz.


Ninja has long fingers.

One of the things I’ve found bewildering all along is what the Republican party has to lose by just telling him to fuck off. So he might steal their votes as an independent; isn’t that what he’s doing anyway, except this way the GOP won’t even get to field their own candidate? It’s not like he’s going to do what they want if he gets elctd.

(not to mention that it’d be nice to imagine they had some kind of, you know, principles)


Investors are less likely invest, and consumers are less likely to buy
from a cheap or fraudulent or otherwise mistrusted brand.

I would love to believe that things like John Oliver’s story on Trump will make a difference, but I’m skeptical because he’s really just preaching to the choir. However, if Rubio or Cruz pick some of the threads and start to pull, that could make a difference.

Or eats pizza with a fork.

So, the anti-Trump, then?

[quote=“GulliverFoyle, post:4, topic:74441, full:true”]

Journalists deal in facts

They use to. Now they just read random tweets about events. Reporting has gone the way of the dodo. The only people in the media dealing in facts anymore are comedians.[/quote]

I’ve seen a couple stories by old-time reporters about the movie Spotlight. They make the point that the story likely wouldn’t happen today. With subscriber numbers way down and the newspapers cutting way back or folding, newspapers like the Boston Globe simply don’t have the power to take on a large establishment like they used to. Their “Spotlight” team just wouldn’t have the same power.

Fox News, Facebook and Gawker simply aren’t filling that void.