Aren't they already making it? I have canceled my subscriptions to both the New York Times and The Washington Post because I felt like they were treating Trump like he was just any other candidate until the last month or two. I fell like I get a more well rounded perspective reading a variety of different Substacks. Or maybe now I just hear what I want to hear. To be honest, I'm not sure I can tell anymore.
Agree! I'm not sure I can tell anymore either. That is exactly why we need trusted and reliable news sources. I swear I get more perspective from well written letters to the editor than I do from "traditional" news sources anymore.
It all comes down to business and the almighty dollar. If Trump didn’t have the legal issues that he currently has, would it be ratings gold as it was in 2015/16? I do not think it would. When Trump rode down that escalator, people at that early point were already enamored with him, the other side already detested him. There was the middle that didn’t know what to make of him, nor had made up their mind. The people that detested him, couldn’t turn away from the train wreck as there was no way this clown was going to be president. The four years that followed were met with glee and despair, again not being able to turn away from the train wreck for either side. After the horror of J6, IMO, that was in some ways the straw that broke the camels back for many of the haters of Trump. We entered the calming years of Biden, back to normalcy. Sickened by Trump, many tuned out (we were ones!) as we were back to a semblance of normalcy. We are fairly well read and follow enough to know what is going on in the country, as well as the world. When a big news story breaks we turn the news back on, CNN for the most part, to hear what is going on. If it’s a Trump thing, we may turn it on, hear the basics and back off again. We will be following 2024 in a completely different way than 2016 or 2020. We won’t be consumed by Trump, it’s beyond a train wreck, can’t stomach looking at him or listening to him. I’d imagine many feel the same way and won’t tune back in but think there will still be a bump, a speed bump, not mountain. It was and is a business, ratings converts to dollars. I do think that the media helped hype up Trump and he carried way too much, even for a presidential candidate. We knew what Trump said and did every second of the day. Hillary was not covered to that extent and when she was covered, it was “oh, but her emails”. We didn’t hear every utterance she made, every move she made. To me, they should have been covered equally, they were not. The almighty buck won. .
I appreciate you helping others to understand how the “business” of the “news business” works (I was an account executive, selling software to the Media & Entertainment industry prior to retiring a few months ago), so I’m clear on the old canard “If it bleeds, it leads”.
Unfortunately, given management’s fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders, the “business” aspect will ALWAYS win, even when it’s not as clear and obvious as it is now.
The industry at large will give Trump a HUGE boost in “unpaid advertising”, as they have in the past. My only hope is that we will see more “Trump’s cognitive decline is increasing” stories, as it would still be about Trump and allow them to run his gaffes on endless loop, and would (hopefully) have the side benefit of making it clear what you’ll get with a vote for Trump.
And that might be the one small positive in this situation.
I think what needs to be recognized is that news organizations jumped on the Trump train for easy money. Literally everyone could see that. And that lost a lot of credibility with a more serious and analytical segment of the US population. Add in the factor that staring at non-stop train wrecks for months upon months upon years, wears on anybody. Even the folks that enjoy watching train wrecks. So now you've lost two segments of viewers, that possibly overlap to some degree: folks who actually want serious, legitimate news; and folks who are bored of train wrecks. I am positively desperate for legitimate news sources that cover a wide variety of news and honest/legitimate opinions. It's come to more of a good story here and there thing, as opposed to a site or a channel bringing me lots of interesting content. They are resorting to absurd amounts of ads, clickbait, and shopping recommendations. I'm sorry, but right now I feel that the media has 100% done this to themselves. And I'm angry and frustrated.
I’ve found 3 news sources to be consistently reliable and 100% committed to journalistic integrity, and they happen to be international and among the oldest still reporting: Reuters (1851); Associated Press (1847); and BBC (1922). If I’m looking for opinion, and not hard news or analysis, I’ve found some good sources at Substack (obviously Chris Cillizza, Jay Kuo, Bulwark, Dan Rather/Eliot Kirschner), as well as HuffPost (on the left), CNN (center-right), and I don’t bother with opinion on the right, as it’s just a waste of time!
No, I think they’re both good center-left sources, but they don’t happen to be ones I follow much. I like Reuters & AP because they are consistently quoted by other news organizations.
I can speak by personal experience. When Trump was candidate and then president I was obssesed with CNN. I would spend my entire evenings watching it religously. Election night I took off work to watch it. And once he lost and stopped being the president, I first popped champagne and then almost stopped entirely watching cnn. I still watch it now and then but not nearly as much as when he was president. And worst part is that im canadian 😅
And I thought Canada was the refuse for me to go to if Trump is elected.
Figured if I moved to Quebec, I could elude the U.S. news, especially in the Francophone province to emerge 4 years later to return to the barren wilderness of the former Republic.
My rock-ribbed Republican wife wants to leave the country if Trump wins.
I said we should have a started period in Quebec. We were there in Spring 2019 (Magnifique---no tourists!).
Fredric, can you give us a tip as to a nice Quebec suburban/exurban town that may be attractive to a laid-back couple. I speak American and my wife speaks a bit of French.
I think a small town like saint adele or saint sauveur, in the laurentides would be nice! Its about 45 min north of montreal, so its not too far from the city but its small and quiet The scenery is beautiful. It does get cold in winter tho. It close to the mountain if ever ypu want to ski or do winter sports. Only issue is that people here mostly speak only french so its harder if you dont speak it.
If you re looking for something closer to the city and bigger, there is Laval (where I grew up!). Its a suburb directly north of montreal. It has nice residential area perfect to raise a family! There is also a nice place called centropolis where there are many bars and restaurant and a cinema so if you like something closer to the big city but still a suburb, I definitly recommend Laval! Most people are bilingual in Laval.
Where in QC did you visit?
Hope that helps and don t hesitate if you have more questions :)
Side note : if I were american and Trump would be reelected... Id probably consider doing the same!
Thanks for this, it expands on my comment on your prior post, 'Are we ignoring Joe Biden's good polls?'. I think, finally, the mainstream media *is* trying to highlight Trump's lies and authoritarian ideas. The question remains, what influence will this have?
“Trump back in office” will see media severely restricted by new rules governing what can be printed, particularly items about Trump himself but also about women’s issues, LGBTQ issues, issues regarding race and culture, and about religion. The media would do well to cover this potential Trump second-to-life term as the profound threat that it is, stop with the false equivalency garbage between MAGA and non-MAGA, and maybe improve their journalism to the extent that they don’t have to compete with tabloids for subscribers. The media is one of the most important features of our democracy….their health is the health of us all.
THE DEATH OF FAIRLY 'EDUCATING THE PUBLIC" - thanks to the Republican "god' Ronald Reagan.
It is fitting that the president, who so depended upon for his livelihood (lucrative "sponsors" during his years as California governor and president), and was the spokesman/chimp "American Greatness" was the forebearer of the chimp who will destroy the Republic.
The demise of the Federal Communications Commission FCC Fairness Doctrine has been cited as a contributing factor in the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[5][6]
As television was beginning to grow, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949 a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.[1]
In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine at the instance of President Ronald Reagan,[2] prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or congressional legislation.[3] However, later the FCC removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[4]
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements:
~ It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.
~ Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.
In 1969 the United States Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the court did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[7] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.
The fairness doctrine is not the same as the equal-time rule, which is still in place. The fairness doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.
[1.] "CBS v. Democratic Nat'l Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973)". Justia Law. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
[2.] Fletcher, Dan (February 20, 2009). "A Brief History of the Fairness Doctrine". Time. Retrieved October 10, 2021. It's as predictable as Rush Limbaugh sparking a controversy: every few years, someone in Congress brings up the Fairness Doctrine. In 1987 the FCC abolished the policy, which dictates that public broadcast license-holders have a duty to present important issues to the public and — here's the 'fairness' part — to give multiple perspectives while doing so.
[5.] E. Patterson, Thomas (2013). "The News Media: Communicating Political Images". We the People. 10th ed. McGraw-Hill Education: 336.
[6.] Rendall, Steve (January 1, 2005). "The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back". Extra!. Retrieved October 2, 2017.
[7.] Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, decided June 8, 1969, also at 395 U.S. 367 (1969) (Excerpt from majority opinion, III A; Senate report cited in footnote 26). Justice William O. Douglas did not participate in the decision, but there were no concurring or dissenting opinions.
I strongly suspect that if TV news wanted to make their ratings SOAR to height never seen before they could promise to televise, live and in color, someone getting tortured. Or televise a death row inmate getting the electric chair....with NO HOOD FOLKS!!!!
Humans have always been attracted to and cannot not only not turn away but actively seek out the grotesque....the brutal....the bloodiest....the most disgusting.
Tell us something new.
What we are witnessing now is the most vulgar, disgusting, obscene, grotesque, vile, immoral charlatan in American politician history and the slow motion death of democracy.
I made the following post in Chris’ writing about Biden’s poll numbers. I then read this piece that Chris put out and felt compelled to repost. It seemed more apropos. So pardon my indulgence.
The media, tv, newspapers, online outlets have so much control on how we view the political landscape. It feels that when more liberal outlets present information on the dangers of Trump, it creates a great deal of worry, concern and fear about what a second Trump term looks like for the future of America. I find that it provides motivation to vote. If I hear news that Biden is doing well in the polls or other positive news from the media, it may create apathy when, let’s face it, as a country we can’t afford to be complacent. But whatever the media’s messaging is, the one thing that they care about is ratings. Often, I feel that the negative Trump news keeps me tuned in and coming back for more. With more positive news, I may be less engaged.
The MSM clearly dropped the ball on Trump in 2016. So did the 2 dozen GOP candidates for president who didn't take Trump seriously and could have coalesced around one candidate and sent him packing, but many of them (like Ted Cruz) misread the room and thought they were the one. Now, the monster is out of control. Let's hope the MSM gets it right this time.
Is there REALLY any question that the media's gonna go where the money is? I teach US Government to high school Seniors; I've had to teach them that "news organizations" are indeed news organizations (to a greater or lesser extent), but that at the end of the day, they're businesses that'll do what they need to do to show a profit. Because that's what businesses DO. Am I wrong? Because if not, it's quite clear which way this'll go as far as coverage. It's exceedingly rare, I think, that moral/ethical factors weigh as much as profit/loss in corporate America. Not that they necessarily should- business is business. But when it comes to news/"news", we have a problem for which I see no solution. Wall-to-wall Trump is on the way. Stock your liquor cabinet now. 😂
After 40 years in show business (and the "news" media has been in show business at least since "Network," which - as Paddy Chayevsky said - was just a slight extrapolation from what could be seen on the TV every night), I have no doubt whatsoever that the morons who run the mee-dee-ya! will *always* go for the money. None of the entitled little trust fund babies think they'll ever be held responsible for anything and Trump would never do anything to them if he was back in power - which will make their surprised looks as they stare through the barbed-wire fence at the FEMA camp they have been rounded up and sent to almost worth seeing, but for the fact we'll all be in the world of shit the shitheads created with their moron stupidity.
Media cuts are happening in canada as well! TVA which is the biggest news organisation in Quebec cut a bunch of jobs a month ago and CBC, the biggest news organisation accross canada announced this morning that they cut 600 jobs which represents 10% of their workforce! My dad used to be a journalist there for more than 30 years before retiring a couple years ago! Its crazy!
Legalities aside, isn't the real difference between the two really about ego?
A firing bruises the psyche/personal confidence. You begin to question everything after a firing. Bc you've been released from you duties bc of something that was your fault.
A lay-off does similar but youve got a scapegoat! If it weren't for mis-management by leadership....Id still have a job! Or something along those lines would be your thought process....
A firing feels very public. Like a scarlet letter type shaming. And it weighs on the mind .....for as long as you let it.
Bc of ego, we place a real emphasis on the difference of that one word. When in reality, both are setbacks to varying degrees.
Aren't they already making it? I have canceled my subscriptions to both the New York Times and The Washington Post because I felt like they were treating Trump like he was just any other candidate until the last month or two. I fell like I get a more well rounded perspective reading a variety of different Substacks. Or maybe now I just hear what I want to hear. To be honest, I'm not sure I can tell anymore.
Agree! I'm not sure I can tell anymore either. That is exactly why we need trusted and reliable news sources. I swear I get more perspective from well written letters to the editor than I do from "traditional" news sources anymore.
It all comes down to business and the almighty dollar. If Trump didn’t have the legal issues that he currently has, would it be ratings gold as it was in 2015/16? I do not think it would. When Trump rode down that escalator, people at that early point were already enamored with him, the other side already detested him. There was the middle that didn’t know what to make of him, nor had made up their mind. The people that detested him, couldn’t turn away from the train wreck as there was no way this clown was going to be president. The four years that followed were met with glee and despair, again not being able to turn away from the train wreck for either side. After the horror of J6, IMO, that was in some ways the straw that broke the camels back for many of the haters of Trump. We entered the calming years of Biden, back to normalcy. Sickened by Trump, many tuned out (we were ones!) as we were back to a semblance of normalcy. We are fairly well read and follow enough to know what is going on in the country, as well as the world. When a big news story breaks we turn the news back on, CNN for the most part, to hear what is going on. If it’s a Trump thing, we may turn it on, hear the basics and back off again. We will be following 2024 in a completely different way than 2016 or 2020. We won’t be consumed by Trump, it’s beyond a train wreck, can’t stomach looking at him or listening to him. I’d imagine many feel the same way and won’t tune back in but think there will still be a bump, a speed bump, not mountain. It was and is a business, ratings converts to dollars. I do think that the media helped hype up Trump and he carried way too much, even for a presidential candidate. We knew what Trump said and did every second of the day. Hillary was not covered to that extent and when she was covered, it was “oh, but her emails”. We didn’t hear every utterance she made, every move she made. To me, they should have been covered equally, they were not. The almighty buck won. .
I appreciate you helping others to understand how the “business” of the “news business” works (I was an account executive, selling software to the Media & Entertainment industry prior to retiring a few months ago), so I’m clear on the old canard “If it bleeds, it leads”.
Unfortunately, given management’s fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders, the “business” aspect will ALWAYS win, even when it’s not as clear and obvious as it is now.
The industry at large will give Trump a HUGE boost in “unpaid advertising”, as they have in the past. My only hope is that we will see more “Trump’s cognitive decline is increasing” stories, as it would still be about Trump and allow them to run his gaffes on endless loop, and would (hopefully) have the side benefit of making it clear what you’ll get with a vote for Trump.
And that might be the one small positive in this situation.
I think what needs to be recognized is that news organizations jumped on the Trump train for easy money. Literally everyone could see that. And that lost a lot of credibility with a more serious and analytical segment of the US population. Add in the factor that staring at non-stop train wrecks for months upon months upon years, wears on anybody. Even the folks that enjoy watching train wrecks. So now you've lost two segments of viewers, that possibly overlap to some degree: folks who actually want serious, legitimate news; and folks who are bored of train wrecks. I am positively desperate for legitimate news sources that cover a wide variety of news and honest/legitimate opinions. It's come to more of a good story here and there thing, as opposed to a site or a channel bringing me lots of interesting content. They are resorting to absurd amounts of ads, clickbait, and shopping recommendations. I'm sorry, but right now I feel that the media has 100% done this to themselves. And I'm angry and frustrated.
I guess my point that was lost in my rant was, it was a self fulfilling predicament the news created for themselves. Sold credibility for profit.
I’ve found 3 news sources to be consistently reliable and 100% committed to journalistic integrity, and they happen to be international and among the oldest still reporting: Reuters (1851); Associated Press (1847); and BBC (1922). If I’m looking for opinion, and not hard news or analysis, I’ve found some good sources at Substack (obviously Chris Cillizza, Jay Kuo, Bulwark, Dan Rather/Eliot Kirschner), as well as HuffPost (on the left), CNN (center-right), and I don’t bother with opinion on the right, as it’s just a waste of time!
This is extremely helpful. Thank you!
Agree with AP and BBC --- so do you think NPR/PBS are squishes?
No, I think they’re both good center-left sources, but they don’t happen to be ones I follow much. I like Reuters & AP because they are consistently quoted by other news organizations.
I can speak by personal experience. When Trump was candidate and then president I was obssesed with CNN. I would spend my entire evenings watching it religously. Election night I took off work to watch it. And once he lost and stopped being the president, I first popped champagne and then almost stopped entirely watching cnn. I still watch it now and then but not nearly as much as when he was president. And worst part is that im canadian 😅
And I thought Canada was the refuse for me to go to if Trump is elected.
Figured if I moved to Quebec, I could elude the U.S. news, especially in the Francophone province to emerge 4 years later to return to the barren wilderness of the former Republic.
Haha im from QC but I speak both french and english so I watched cnn!
My rock-ribbed Republican wife wants to leave the country if Trump wins.
I said we should have a started period in Quebec. We were there in Spring 2019 (Magnifique---no tourists!).
Fredric, can you give us a tip as to a nice Quebec suburban/exurban town that may be attractive to a laid-back couple. I speak American and my wife speaks a bit of French.
Thanks,
Chris
Hi Chris!
I think a small town like saint adele or saint sauveur, in the laurentides would be nice! Its about 45 min north of montreal, so its not too far from the city but its small and quiet The scenery is beautiful. It does get cold in winter tho. It close to the mountain if ever ypu want to ski or do winter sports. Only issue is that people here mostly speak only french so its harder if you dont speak it.
If you re looking for something closer to the city and bigger, there is Laval (where I grew up!). Its a suburb directly north of montreal. It has nice residential area perfect to raise a family! There is also a nice place called centropolis where there are many bars and restaurant and a cinema so if you like something closer to the big city but still a suburb, I definitly recommend Laval! Most people are bilingual in Laval.
Where in QC did you visit?
Hope that helps and don t hesitate if you have more questions :)
Side note : if I were american and Trump would be reelected... Id probably consider doing the same!
My parents, who grew up in Manhattan of the teens and twenties, although surrounded by "the immigrant experience," wanted to visit Europe.
Quebec and the Gaspe gave us the experience of "European" in my 1960s youth.
Thats awesome! Yeah QC is very european :)
I grew-up in NYC (3-immigrant grandparents) in the 1950s and 1960s --- Everything "American" -- why learn another language??
My paternal grandmother spoke French, Spanish, some Danish, and English (from the Danish Indies --- Virgin Islands pre-US)
My maternal grandfather spoke Rhine Valley German and was a Sabboth Goy...helped Othodox Jews on lighting fires for their apartment kitchens in NYC.
I am so proud of my varies ethic background and immigrant forebears.
That is the country's issue...multi-generation Whites have no idea how their forebears were treated upon arrival on the North American shores.
Thanks for this, it expands on my comment on your prior post, 'Are we ignoring Joe Biden's good polls?'. I think, finally, the mainstream media *is* trying to highlight Trump's lies and authoritarian ideas. The question remains, what influence will this have?
Which is why they are indirectly cheering him on, the fact that he will end our democracy notwithstanding.
“Trump back in office” will see media severely restricted by new rules governing what can be printed, particularly items about Trump himself but also about women’s issues, LGBTQ issues, issues regarding race and culture, and about religion. The media would do well to cover this potential Trump second-to-life term as the profound threat that it is, stop with the false equivalency garbage between MAGA and non-MAGA, and maybe improve their journalism to the extent that they don’t have to compete with tabloids for subscribers. The media is one of the most important features of our democracy….their health is the health of us all.
RE: "What choice will the mainstream media make?"
The media outlets will go for the $$$.
THE DEATH OF FAIRLY 'EDUCATING THE PUBLIC" - thanks to the Republican "god' Ronald Reagan.
It is fitting that the president, who so depended upon for his livelihood (lucrative "sponsors" during his years as California governor and president), and was the spokesman/chimp "American Greatness" was the forebearer of the chimp who will destroy the Republic.
The demise of the Federal Communications Commission FCC Fairness Doctrine has been cited as a contributing factor in the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[5][6]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE:
As television was beginning to grow, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949 a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.[1]
In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine at the instance of President Ronald Reagan,[2] prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or congressional legislation.[3] However, later the FCC removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[4]
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements:
~ It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.
~ Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.
In 1969 the United States Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the court did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[7] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.
The fairness doctrine is not the same as the equal-time rule, which is still in place. The fairness doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.
------------------------------------------------------------
[1.] "CBS v. Democratic Nat'l Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973)". Justia Law. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
[2.] Fletcher, Dan (February 20, 2009). "A Brief History of the Fairness Doctrine". Time. Retrieved October 10, 2021. It's as predictable as Rush Limbaugh sparking a controversy: every few years, someone in Congress brings up the Fairness Doctrine. In 1987 the FCC abolished the policy, which dictates that public broadcast license-holders have a duty to present important issues to the public and — here's the 'fairness' part — to give multiple perspectives while doing so.
[3.] Clark, Drew (October 20, 2004). "How Fair Is Sinclair's Doctrine?". Slate.
[4.] Boliek, Brooks (August 22, 2011). "FCC finally kills off fairness doctrine". Politico.
[5.] E. Patterson, Thomas (2013). "The News Media: Communicating Political Images". We the People. 10th ed. McGraw-Hill Education: 336.
[6.] Rendall, Steve (January 1, 2005). "The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back". Extra!. Retrieved October 2, 2017.
[7.] Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, decided June 8, 1969, also at 395 U.S. 367 (1969) (Excerpt from majority opinion, III A; Senate report cited in footnote 26). Justice William O. Douglas did not participate in the decision, but there were no concurring or dissenting opinions.
I strongly suspect that if TV news wanted to make their ratings SOAR to height never seen before they could promise to televise, live and in color, someone getting tortured. Or televise a death row inmate getting the electric chair....with NO HOOD FOLKS!!!!
Humans have always been attracted to and cannot not only not turn away but actively seek out the grotesque....the brutal....the bloodiest....the most disgusting.
Tell us something new.
What we are witnessing now is the most vulgar, disgusting, obscene, grotesque, vile, immoral charlatan in American politician history and the slow motion death of democracy.
Great for ratings for sure!!!
I made the following post in Chris’ writing about Biden’s poll numbers. I then read this piece that Chris put out and felt compelled to repost. It seemed more apropos. So pardon my indulgence.
The media, tv, newspapers, online outlets have so much control on how we view the political landscape. It feels that when more liberal outlets present information on the dangers of Trump, it creates a great deal of worry, concern and fear about what a second Trump term looks like for the future of America. I find that it provides motivation to vote. If I hear news that Biden is doing well in the polls or other positive news from the media, it may create apathy when, let’s face it, as a country we can’t afford to be complacent. But whatever the media’s messaging is, the one thing that they care about is ratings. Often, I feel that the negative Trump news keeps me tuned in and coming back for more. With more positive news, I may be less engaged.
The MSM clearly dropped the ball on Trump in 2016. So did the 2 dozen GOP candidates for president who didn't take Trump seriously and could have coalesced around one candidate and sent him packing, but many of them (like Ted Cruz) misread the room and thought they were the one. Now, the monster is out of control. Let's hope the MSM gets it right this time.
Is there REALLY any question that the media's gonna go where the money is? I teach US Government to high school Seniors; I've had to teach them that "news organizations" are indeed news organizations (to a greater or lesser extent), but that at the end of the day, they're businesses that'll do what they need to do to show a profit. Because that's what businesses DO. Am I wrong? Because if not, it's quite clear which way this'll go as far as coverage. It's exceedingly rare, I think, that moral/ethical factors weigh as much as profit/loss in corporate America. Not that they necessarily should- business is business. But when it comes to news/"news", we have a problem for which I see no solution. Wall-to-wall Trump is on the way. Stock your liquor cabinet now. 😂
After 40 years in show business (and the "news" media has been in show business at least since "Network," which - as Paddy Chayevsky said - was just a slight extrapolation from what could be seen on the TV every night), I have no doubt whatsoever that the morons who run the mee-dee-ya! will *always* go for the money. None of the entitled little trust fund babies think they'll ever be held responsible for anything and Trump would never do anything to them if he was back in power - which will make their surprised looks as they stare through the barbed-wire fence at the FEMA camp they have been rounded up and sent to almost worth seeing, but for the fact we'll all be in the world of shit the shitheads created with their moron stupidity.
I wish I was wrong.
Media cuts are happening in canada as well! TVA which is the biggest news organisation in Quebec cut a bunch of jobs a month ago and CBC, the biggest news organisation accross canada announced this morning that they cut 600 jobs which represents 10% of their workforce! My dad used to be a journalist there for more than 30 years before retiring a couple years ago! Its crazy!
Legalities aside, isn't the real difference between the two really about ego?
A firing bruises the psyche/personal confidence. You begin to question everything after a firing. Bc you've been released from you duties bc of something that was your fault.
A lay-off does similar but youve got a scapegoat! If it weren't for mis-management by leadership....Id still have a job! Or something along those lines would be your thought process....
A firing feels very public. Like a scarlet letter type shaming. And it weighs on the mind .....for as long as you let it.
Bc of ego, we place a real emphasis on the difference of that one word. When in reality, both are setbacks to varying degrees.