Instead, they should engage in ârigorous use of real-time fact-checking, pointing out Trumpâs falsehoods in the stories in which theyâre reported.â
Now, if only you spineless lazy fucks would do that to all the candidates - hey, maybe even all the people you actually interview - not only would we have a much less despicable ruling class in this country, but you and all your journalist friends would be fully employed and in-demand! Win-win!
The ânews industryâ is an eyeball-collection industry, which serves its customers, the advertisers, by delivering the eyeballs of gullible people. Trump is the best thing that ever happened to this industry. Why on Earth would they start acting like responsible journalists?
The media pet is now the master.
Todayâs news is paid off, under trump they will just be in jail. At least the jail option is more transparent.
Iâm in favor of applying this to every single person on the news including the âreportersâ
Exactly. Which is not to say that there arenât still such things as journalists or ethics out there, just that no story will ever again be spiked on account of those things. Clickbait is the new normal (he said with some degree of self-awareness in a comment on a boingboing.net thread).
The traditional media can, and I suspect probably will, collectively put a thumb on the scale for Clinton because of their outrage at Trumpâs treatment of them. (This as distinct from their usual M.O. of flogging the horse race, which means hyping the chances of whichever candidate is losing at the moment.) But only if they can do it without sacrificing precious clicks and pageviews.
And yet thatâs not what we need nor want either.
No, youâre right, itâs notâalthough you can see it as an exercise in realpolitik. Either the Fourth Estate has power or it doesnât. If it submits to mistreatment by one candidate, it either has no power or cedes whatever power it has.
The whole idea of saying out loud âHey, guys, letâs all deliberately apply rigorous standards of accuracy to this one specific candidate and by implication not the other oneâ is classic Milbank. He didnât mean that Clinton should get a free ride, but he effectively said as much, thereby neutering his own point.
And proves the fears of the projecting Right, they believe that the left wants the same as them, only the âoppositeâ instead of what we actually want, somewhat more objective (or with stated bias) news about things and people that matter, sans the circus.
Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel. - Mark Twain.
How about, âNo More tRumpâ, ever, never?
Drumpf will say WaPo overreacted since his guy John Miller will still call them.
So they are proposing journalism? Good luck with that. Money has crushed journalism.
Itâs about ethics in political journalism.
That works a lot better before the 24 hour news cycle, when you can literally dominate coverage by saying something shitty and letting those who buy bandwidth by the barrel promote your statements over and over and over again.
The Post has also put out an incredibly hilarious style guide for reporting on tRump:
Oh, come on; like Drumph even knows what âtumescent" means.
Agree with all the suggestions, but itâs not the WaPo thatâs making the suggestion, itâs op-ed by MIlbank. Not saying they donât likely agree, but itâs not the Post calling for the blackout, itâs Milbank, a columnist.
Just donât look! 
This is a great idea but I donât think it will work the way theyâre hoping. Someone should tell the Washington Post about the internet.
