The Media/Journalism Thread

[Vee]

A tale of two papers. The NYT's take on Trump's bizarre PA rally:

Versus the Post:

I am pleased that most papers and TV media have openly begun addressing the age/competence question with Trump more and more directly and clearly in recent days. But while I actually felt the full NYT article's tone was more bemusement and bafflement than anything else, it is presented in such a bloodless way that it absolutely does sound like attempting to rationalize his behavior yet again.

[Vee]

 

[Xanthe]

Watched a couple of minutes on CNN about whether Kamala Harris is too scripted or simply disciplined about her messaging. (She appears to have been very frank about it.) I was very pleased with the guest for smoothly referring to the Republican candidate without mentioning his name. Every time I hear the name it reminds me of the Far Side cartoon about what dogs hear and it makes me worry about it translating into votes from people who take that as the message. 

[jasonminer1974]

She knows she can't make any mistakes.

[DRW50]

TIME Magazine showing just why Kamala Harris was right to avoid them.

I've been wary of that magazine since an article they had about how gay youth were lost and broken (written by a man who a few years later became an ex-gay activist), and this was the last time they had any relevance:

Please register in order to view this content

 

[DRW50]

Another NYMag snob keening over any whispers against "the paper of record."

 

[Vee]

What baffles me is how too many of them (including Jonathan Weisman) now regularly return to 'we have no impact with Trump voters' as an excuse for their coverage. You want to be the greatest paper on Earth but whenever pressed on coverage you say you have no impact?

[Vee]

Meanwhile:

 

[DRW50]

This is insane.

 

[Vee]

It is remarkable how off the wall Bret Baier was on Fox tonight - if you don't watch the whole thing you may not see, but he was filibustering and interrupting Harris even before she could begin to delve into his first question. The story emerging in media seems to be not just that Harris was strong and held her own/did well, but that Baier was way out of line. I wonder if this will ever trigger a reevaluation from the Jake Tappers of the world (or Stelter, who was impressed with Harris) who used to ferociously defend the supposed 'old line' journalists at Fox News.

[DramatistDreamer]

Although I didn’t see the interview, I have seen reports from media outlets like the BBC and CNN say it was combative and that Fox News didn’t even try to engage during the interview, FNC was only interested in a debate, not an interview. And the consensus seems to be, that it was unlikely to change most people’s minds but that the VP held fast to the message that she was intent on delivering.

One analyst also said that it was probably the first time that regular viewers of Fox News channel had ever heard someone speak so directly on these facts about Trump. Meaning, everyone on that channel is too afraid and timid to speak out about how damaging his presidency was and would again be-my interpretation of what the analyst said.

[Vee]

Baier does an unexpected bit of damage control. I'm surprised they bothered with this with that audience, but it must also be for media who have been very critical of Baier (and complimentary of Harris):

 

[j swift]

It is ironic that Brett Baire says the VP Harris was trying to get a viral anti-Trump moment.  Because why else would she go on Fox, except to get attention?  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that because she is campaigning.  If anything, it only speaks to the Fox bias, that VP Harris didn't expect to get an objective interview.  So, he's just telling on himself.

Also, no matter how inept Trump seemed, I am still not in favor of these town hall meetings with inept people asking questions that have nothing to do with the job of being president.  

Finally, I can't find the clip, but Kyle Clark from Colorado who did that amazing debate with Boebert, had a fantastic followup with a GOP congressional candidate.  The candidate parroted the party line about abortion being up to the state.  So, the journalist countered by asking what other civil rights would the congressmen be willing to put to the plurality?  If the majority of Colorado voters wanted to limit accessible walkways to handicapped citizens, would that be OK?  Kyle Clark is great, and I hope he gets a broader platform.

Edited October 18, 2024 by j swift

[janea4old]

Univision's live town halls (with Harris on Oct. 10; and with Trump Oct. 16) had audience members asking relevant questions.

youtube links:
Harris Oct. 10 (Spanish feed) (Link) 
Harris Oct. 10 (English feed) (Link) 
Trump Oct. 16 (Spanish feed) (Link) 
Trump Oct. 16 (English feed) (Link)  

Some of the audience members asked better questions than some news reporters tend to ask.

Edited October 18, 2024 by janea4old

[j swift]

Yes, but while the questions about Trump's cabinet not endorsing him was while executed (pardon the pun), the lack of follow up or fact checking, just allows him to spew lies. For example, he said that 90% of his staff endorsed him, when in fact only 4 out of 44 cabinet members from his time in office support him currently.