Even prior to his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump was notorious for disseminating falsehoods. This pattern isn't unprecedented in history; figures like McCarthy readily come to mind, and there are undoubtedly more contemporary examples that readers can contribute. However, what sets Trump's era apart is the collective failure of the media, Democrats, pundits, and public officials to effectively counter these falsehoods.
In the face of Trump's and other MAGA leaders' outlandish claims—equivalent to asserting the moon is made of cheese or that the earth is flat—the media often fell into a trap of amplifying these statements in headlines without proper context or correction. This tendency, compounded by the prevalence of social media and the reliance on notifications for news consumption, has exacerbated the problem.
Indeed, as my 30-year-old reminded me, many in the younger generation primarily engage with news through notifications on their smartphones. These notifications, often driven by clickbait-worthy headlines, frequently prioritize sensationalism over accuracy, perpetuating a cycle where misinformation gains undue prominence.
It's imperative for all stakeholders—journalists, politicians, educators, and citizens—to recognize the gravity of this situation and collectively work towards a solution. This includes developing strategies to counter misinformation effectively, promoting media literacy, and holding those in positions of power accountable for their words and actions. Only through concerted effort can we hope to mitigate the impact of falsehoods on public discourse and decision-making.
I would ask that the writers provide examples of the media , political leaders or pundits getting it right
The big question is WHY !!! Why is the media being so overly careful to the point of missing the point when it comes to calling out the real facts of those who seek to damage our country. There was a time, I grew up in the days of Walter Cronkite, when we could totally trust the media to give us the facts, even if those facts were things we didn't necessarily want to hear. Now the media seems to be bending over backwards to soften the blows to those who seek to do harm to our country, those who seek to warp the truth, those who fail to obey the Constitution, those who feel they should have a different, lesser, standard in comporting themselves, those who fail to treat everyone equally, as our founding fathers set forth in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It has gone beyond the network we call "state tv". It is now in the mainstream media; and that is not good for our Democracy. I think I choose reliable, trustworthy sources to get my news, e.g. The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, NBS. However, I can't even trust those sources any longer. Where do we find the truth? Or has the cult destroyed that and taken away a basic tenet of our culture? God Bless America 🇺🇸
On something like "widely seen as Anti-Semitic" I wouldn't mind it as a lead-in to giving a bunch of examples of his statements. Same goes for "criticized for Russian ties" if it goes on to explain why criticized--which the WaPo article did do, after summarizing what he was convicted for. I guess the headline could have said "despite" The problem the media has with that one is that he wasn't CONVICTED of Russian ties. So there's a line they have to walk. They also could have put the security risk problem into the headline: "widely criticized for Russian ties that could be a major security risk." or better "despite fears he poses a security risk." THAT would be the teaser that would cause folks to read the article and find out why.
The bigger problem is unequal coverage--recently all on Trump and his bloodbath/not human bits and almost nothing on Biden's campaign speeches at the same time. Because being sane is boring.
And even worse, the headlines that actually contradict what the article says. I'd think the writers of the articles would be furious. I write to the papers about those.
Thank you. You said what I’ve been thinking. Say the facts and get it out there. I like this presentation. Honest and concise. Gets the job done and helps people to understand what’s going on. Appreciate your efforts.
Mark Robinson is self-hating, homophobic, racist, misogynistic Black man with no sense of irony concerning his many hateful stances. His own background is screaming that his soul is broken and lord knows, we don’t need any more broken humans is any seat of power. They think nothing of inflicting on others that which was inflicted on them.
I'm especially mad at the NYTimes for this kind of thing. They seem to be taking sides, rather than staying neutral. For example, about Biden's age vs. Trump's mental decline. I don't read their political news, just some of their columnists like Nick Kristoff and Jamile Bouie. I expect columnists to have a point of view, but not straight news reports.
what they are can be attributed to a fear of being sued, but I don’t think that’s it. I think it’s a way
of communicating that started with Fox News and
Republicans, most notably Mitch McConnell, to
speak in euphemisms as a manipulative tool. For example, are people undocumented workers or
illegal aliens? The term “Illegal aliens” is used by republicans for purposes of political polarization. What Republicans refer to as “tax reform” is called “tax breaks for the rich” by Dems. Democrats talk about “estate taxes,” and republicans refer to them as “death taxes.” (Chicagobooth. edu, 12/1/15, J. Porter)
Unfortunately, political euphemisms find their way into our daily use of language and in this era of hyper-political speech, media outlets are often identified as conservative or liberal by how they
use words and phrases. But, even the words “conservative” and “liberal” don’t mean what they used to mean.
Journalism classes I took had descriptions like Social responsibilities of the mass media,codes of ethics, Social responsibilities of the press,Writing and interpreting news. But news reporting is much different now. I think of Dan Rather as a journalist, reporter. Those who go on the scene as he did, now are given maybe 3 minutes to tell what they see, and then, it's back to the program host, generally just a reader.
There is contention now between the gov't wanting to curtail false info and owners of social media saying gov't has no business in deciding what they can do. People make mistakes, but I always liked Don Lemon, but let him zero in on Elon Musk and his future programing is affected , and Musk writes on his X there had better be a red wave or our country is gone. Rupert Murdock is a Republican, ergo Fox News, Wall Street Journal and NY Post reporting .At least I can count on Rachael Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell.
Your topic today reminded me of a comedy sketch by George Carlin-on soft language- where the true, descriptive words find some ridiculous substitutions. For example, thru the wars, it was shell shock, battle fatigue, operational exhaustion,post traumatic distress disorder. Sneakers became running shoes; toilet paper became bathroom tissue. So, Jan.6 insurrectionists became hostages, immigrants are vermin, similar to dispensing with the facts instead of lies, racially hinges instead of racist, etc. Evasive language that seems always used when referencing trump and the notGOP.
Even prior to his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump was notorious for disseminating falsehoods. This pattern isn't unprecedented in history; figures like McCarthy readily come to mind, and there are undoubtedly more contemporary examples that readers can contribute. However, what sets Trump's era apart is the collective failure of the media, Democrats, pundits, and public officials to effectively counter these falsehoods.
In the face of Trump's and other MAGA leaders' outlandish claims—equivalent to asserting the moon is made of cheese or that the earth is flat—the media often fell into a trap of amplifying these statements in headlines without proper context or correction. This tendency, compounded by the prevalence of social media and the reliance on notifications for news consumption, has exacerbated the problem.
Indeed, as my 30-year-old reminded me, many in the younger generation primarily engage with news through notifications on their smartphones. These notifications, often driven by clickbait-worthy headlines, frequently prioritize sensationalism over accuracy, perpetuating a cycle where misinformation gains undue prominence.
It's imperative for all stakeholders—journalists, politicians, educators, and citizens—to recognize the gravity of this situation and collectively work towards a solution. This includes developing strategies to counter misinformation effectively, promoting media literacy, and holding those in positions of power accountable for their words and actions. Only through concerted effort can we hope to mitigate the impact of falsehoods on public discourse and decision-making.
I would ask that the writers provide examples of the media , political leaders or pundits getting it right
The big question is WHY !!! Why is the media being so overly careful to the point of missing the point when it comes to calling out the real facts of those who seek to damage our country. There was a time, I grew up in the days of Walter Cronkite, when we could totally trust the media to give us the facts, even if those facts were things we didn't necessarily want to hear. Now the media seems to be bending over backwards to soften the blows to those who seek to do harm to our country, those who seek to warp the truth, those who fail to obey the Constitution, those who feel they should have a different, lesser, standard in comporting themselves, those who fail to treat everyone equally, as our founding fathers set forth in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It has gone beyond the network we call "state tv". It is now in the mainstream media; and that is not good for our Democracy. I think I choose reliable, trustworthy sources to get my news, e.g. The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, NBS. However, I can't even trust those sources any longer. Where do we find the truth? Or has the cult destroyed that and taken away a basic tenet of our culture? God Bless America 🇺🇸
On something like "widely seen as Anti-Semitic" I wouldn't mind it as a lead-in to giving a bunch of examples of his statements. Same goes for "criticized for Russian ties" if it goes on to explain why criticized--which the WaPo article did do, after summarizing what he was convicted for. I guess the headline could have said "despite" The problem the media has with that one is that he wasn't CONVICTED of Russian ties. So there's a line they have to walk. They also could have put the security risk problem into the headline: "widely criticized for Russian ties that could be a major security risk." or better "despite fears he poses a security risk." THAT would be the teaser that would cause folks to read the article and find out why.
The bigger problem is unequal coverage--recently all on Trump and his bloodbath/not human bits and almost nothing on Biden's campaign speeches at the same time. Because being sane is boring.
And even worse, the headlines that actually contradict what the article says. I'd think the writers of the articles would be furious. I write to the papers about those.
Can't speak to TV MSM. I don't watch it.
Thank you. You said what I’ve been thinking. Say the facts and get it out there. I like this presentation. Honest and concise. Gets the job done and helps people to understand what’s going on. Appreciate your efforts.
Sometimes I feel like these MAGA people have been dropped from another planet to destroy ours!
Mark Robinson is self-hating, homophobic, racist, misogynistic Black man with no sense of irony concerning his many hateful stances. His own background is screaming that his soul is broken and lord knows, we don’t need any more broken humans is any seat of power. They think nothing of inflicting on others that which was inflicted on them.
I'm especially mad at the NYTimes for this kind of thing. They seem to be taking sides, rather than staying neutral. For example, about Biden's age vs. Trump's mental decline. I don't read their political news, just some of their columnists like Nick Kristoff and Jamile Bouie. I expect columnists to have a point of view, but not straight news reports.
Maybe some of the media reticence to call lies
what they are can be attributed to a fear of being sued, but I don’t think that’s it. I think it’s a way
of communicating that started with Fox News and
Republicans, most notably Mitch McConnell, to
speak in euphemisms as a manipulative tool. For example, are people undocumented workers or
illegal aliens? The term “Illegal aliens” is used by republicans for purposes of political polarization. What Republicans refer to as “tax reform” is called “tax breaks for the rich” by Dems. Democrats talk about “estate taxes,” and republicans refer to them as “death taxes.” (Chicagobooth. edu, 12/1/15, J. Porter)
Unfortunately, political euphemisms find their way into our daily use of language and in this era of hyper-political speech, media outlets are often identified as conservative or liberal by how they
use words and phrases. But, even the words “conservative” and “liberal” don’t mean what they used to mean.
Journalism classes I took had descriptions like Social responsibilities of the mass media,codes of ethics, Social responsibilities of the press,Writing and interpreting news. But news reporting is much different now. I think of Dan Rather as a journalist, reporter. Those who go on the scene as he did, now are given maybe 3 minutes to tell what they see, and then, it's back to the program host, generally just a reader.
There is contention now between the gov't wanting to curtail false info and owners of social media saying gov't has no business in deciding what they can do. People make mistakes, but I always liked Don Lemon, but let him zero in on Elon Musk and his future programing is affected , and Musk writes on his X there had better be a red wave or our country is gone. Rupert Murdock is a Republican, ergo Fox News, Wall Street Journal and NY Post reporting .At least I can count on Rachael Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell.
Your topic today reminded me of a comedy sketch by George Carlin-on soft language- where the true, descriptive words find some ridiculous substitutions. For example, thru the wars, it was shell shock, battle fatigue, operational exhaustion,post traumatic distress disorder. Sneakers became running shoes; toilet paper became bathroom tissue. So, Jan.6 insurrectionists became hostages, immigrants are vermin, similar to dispensing with the facts instead of lies, racially hinges instead of racist, etc. Evasive language that seems always used when referencing trump and the notGOP.