I imagine that @andalusian is implying that the problem is the notion that the president is at a level to which one must "stoop" to reach. In theory, the highest office in the land should be held by someone to whose level people should aspire, not "stoop"
Leave the "stooping" to the talk shows and editorial pages. That's all I'm saying. If you're going to report his tweets, report them all - or most. If you're going to report them all, don't spend 23 hours 59 minutes on one, designed to do the presidency harm. The job is to report on the presidency, not drive favorable ratings. EDIT: One of the most stunning things I saw on CNN recently was their news anchor going on and on about Trump lying by omissions. That's how CNN works (lying by omission).
Almost word for word what I thought the answer would be. And my study is completed, my findings are accurate. Subject still has no idea.
I understand what you're saying. But let's go back to your initial statement about the media and Trump's level. My question to you regarding this is: which is worse for society? The president being awful, or the media being biased? Or put another way, which would be a better America: one led by a president with unimpeachable character who is continually assaulted by an unscrupulous, agenda-driven media, or one led by a legitimately horrific leader reported on by a pure and virtuous media. Honestly, I can see the argument for either position.
The media being biased. Beyond a doubt. If you can't trust them to be telling the truth, there's no way to have any real oversight into what government is doing. Presidents only serve a relatively short time (4 or 8 years). I'd be fine if they were reporting on the important issues, like how this administration is cracking down on immigration. And it goes something like this: Immigration way down. People being rounded up and evicted. Unlimited detention time. Dreamers. Let the people decide if it's good or bad. If they want to have experts present the benefits and costs, that's fine. Experts are quoted all the time. But stacking the deck so it's cherry picked 8 against and 1 who doesn't present well for, that's a problem. Instead of focusing on that, they're focused on the kind of shoes the first lady wears.
In fact, I quote from the PEW report: http://www.journalism.org/2017/10/02/covering-president-trump-in-a-polarized-media-environment/ News outlets whose audience leans to the left politically, those whose audience leans to the right and those appealing to a more mixed audience covered a similar news agenda and mostly framed their coverage around character and leadership rather than policy. But the types of sources included in the stories and the assessments of the administration’s words and actions often differed, according to this study of more than 3,000 news stories during the first 100 days of the Trump presidency across 24 media outlets with content from television, radio and the web.
That's great in theory but the level you're discussing is literally a matter of opinion. There's a time and place for opinion. I used to watch the McLaughlin group every weekend. I'd always HATE what Crandc... err, I mean Eleanor Clift was gonna say. They debated everything. The news doesn't, they just say whatever they want whenever they want. I read some story on yahoo that mentioned that Trump had been criticized for not doing anything about gun violence. That's the way they do it. Sneak a little shot in whenever they can.
So you admit that the media should in certain circumstances express opinions about people contrary to your views up above.
Not surprising. The man is a narcissistic asshole. Act like an asshole, you will be treated like an asshole. Simple.
