Discussion for article #243579
Good! May be the start of his decline; no coverage, no Trump!
6 Likes
When you see that start, let me know.
2 Likes
Like buying snowsuits in summer, snap up copies of Idiocracy now. Itās a good investment.
3 Likes
And yet all Trump coverage all the time. This will illustrate that recent adage: thereās no such thing as bad media coverage. All this outrage is only going to feed the fascist machine. That said, the situation is a double bind. Itās important for people of any political stripe to be exposed to this virulent shit stainās rise. So the media coverage is, to a degree, also warranted. I donāt know where responsible media outlets will draw the line, but I do hope that they reflect on the larger implications and possible historical context of their role in this.
2 Likes
Who are these āresponsible media outletsā that you speak of?
7 Likes
Dem racists just love Trump. Heās one of them!!
2 Likes
I get your critique, and I agree. But to take your question seriously: Iām not really sure. But we could start right here at home with TPM. Case in point is that somehow the article on the TIME person of the year award (yawn) is actually, somehow, about Trumpās getting jilted. Really? Of course, Josh does reflect quite a bit about mediaās role and complicity in the rise of Trumpās fascist brand, and I donāt think there are too many Trump-supporters, let alone that mythical beast, the āundecided voter,ā getting their news and views from this site. But itās worth highlighting how strong the impulse to gravitate toward Trump is.
I rubberneck at the National Review discussion threads to get my regular dose of schadenfreude at the identity crisis happening within the GOP. Thereās a spectrum of more or less repugnant views represented there, but a lot of anti-GOP establishment types (the clear markers are words like āGOPeā and anything with ācuckā in it). Itās been interesting to see how the anti-establishment, pro-Trump faction has come to drone out other anti-establishment but anti-Trump commenters, even though NRO is trying to salvage its āconservative-adult-inthe-roomā image, ala Buckley, by not running pro-Trump articles and tepidly taking exception to the manās repugnant formulations. This is all NOT to say that NRO is anything like a āresponsible media outletāātheyāre not. But they putatively play that role on the right in a way that, say, Breitbart, doesnāt. Itās just a good illustration of how the fascination with Trump, the manās grotesque charisma (and the essential component to a good fascist leader), hasnāt yet peaked.
Apologies for the digression.
2 Likes
This was my favorite Wilmore skit so far. It channeled so much so simply. Perfect.
3 Likes
Really? Iām generally a fan of Wilmore, but I thought it was a bit weakly done, since they wanted to both (correctly) point out this is no longer funny and still do a funny bit without resorting to morbid humor.
They share an enclave near Area 51 with all the āresponsible gun owners,ā and it is lead by Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa.
4 Likes
Re: Media responsibility: Theyāve got a lot to answer for, but I honestly think the last 2-3 days have been a pretty good show of the newsmedia demonstrating that itās still got a little of the old spark in there, after the absolute nadir of the Press Tour of the San Bernadino apartment. I mean, I donāt watch TV news, really ā but Iāve caught a lot of it over the years by accident anyway, and I donāt remember a primetime news program basically op-eding on a candidate before.
If ANYONE else said the terrible things that Donald Trump has said we would not be having this conversation. WTH. Trump does say a lot abut the Republicans; base. .
"And to the GOP candidates and pundits who are calling him out now. āI canāt believe he said this.ā
The people who need calling out are the ones cheering and clapping at his rallies. This is the face of the right wing. To heck with what Trump (or Cruz or anyone) says, listening to what the supporters are saying if you want to be appalled.
1 Like
I know itās a comedy show, but itās absolutely imperative that our journalists cover Trump, his message and his supporters. Ignoring this stuff wonāt make it go away, it allows it to fester and grow.
1 Like
Just to focus on this thought in your post, yesterday was wall to wall coverage of Trump, and I could not stay around to read it. By this coverage we allow this never gonna be nominee to suck the air of any political discussion and then moan about how much coverage there is. Any of us could find Trump coverage on our own if thatās what we wanted, but we choose to come to TPM because of what it represents to us, namely a left wing take on events.
1 Like
As I post this, 15 of 27 articles on the front page of this site had āTrumpā in the headline or blurb.
Yesterday, at one point, it was more than 20, including every single article āabove the fold,ā i.e., visible at the top of the page as it loads.
So we have a ways to go. I mean, I donāt think he should really go uncovered. But heās a creature of the spotlight and blanket coverage like weāve seen (everywhere, not just here) probably only delays his end.
Unfortunately, no matter what anyone says, when heās gone weāll still have a huge number of people who just needed the tiniest nudge to sign on to anti-Latino, anti-protestor, anti-Muslim, anti-press, anti-whatever bandwagon. Trump didnāt create 99.99% of that, and he wonāt take it with him when he goes. But thatās a different problem.
2 Likes
I believe their message was āFuck Trump.ā Not āFuck, Trump.ā Commas matter.
1 Like
interrupts
Donald John Trump is currently the first choice for any Republican voter who is considering a president. The number two choice is either a retired brain surgeon or the junior senator from Texas; and both men are reportedly different guys.
Yes, but look what itās taken to reignite that old spark: a candidate so flamboyantly bigoted and fascistic that they pretty much had to react or they couldnāt look themselves in the mirror. And of course the fact that some on the right led the condemnation made it safe for the ābalancedā media to join in. But where were they not two weeks ago, after Paris, when several GOP candidates, including such āmoderateā Establishment luminaries as Jeb! Bush, proposed limiting immigration to Christians? How was that so different from what Trumpās saying now? But it was said calmly, by a āmainstreamā Republican, so no uproar, and barely any coverage at all. Then thereās John Kasichās so-completely-constitutional idea of a Judeo-Christian propaganda department. And on and on. But if somehow Trump exits the scene early, the media will breathe a sigh of relief that āsanityā has prevailed in the GOP, smugly comfortable in the knowledge that they lived up to the legacy of Edward R. Murrow. And they will continue to cover our politics in the grossly misleading ābalancedā way they have for decades now, even as one of our two parties has become ever more dangerously sick.
1 Like