'This Is An Emergency': Left-Leaning Sites Grapple With Trump's Attempts To Undercut The Media

BI ^ | 1-26-2017 | Maxwell Tani

[Grampa Dave]

We don’t need the “old gotcha” press conferences with the whining and lying liberal mediots attacking our president. We are tired of the mediots lying and telling us what to believe and how to vote! Ban them from the White House. Trump’s comments and statements are for his voters, and we don’t need lying liberal mediots to tell us what he says to us.

Official Washington is being traumatized by the tweets of Donald Trump.

Politico has chronicled the pearl clutching concern by the inside the beltway types over Trump's tweets. It seems Trump speaking directly to the people via Twitter is causing a crisis among mediots, politicians and lobbyists, who just don't know how to handle it as reflected in the article title, Trump’s Twitter feed traumatizes Washington.

[Cen-Tejas]

I TOTALLY agree. In a perfect world, I say help the good kids, old folks and women and let the bangers meet their destiny. To hell with them. Their conception partners and night it happened are sad but society has to move on and this slaughter of innocent needs to STOP.

[jmacusa]

There is absolutely no law that say’s anyone has to read a newspaper, a magazine or turn on a tv or a computer for any reason at all, certainly not for the news. Even before Trump ever considered running the print media was dying. At one point the NY Time’s stock was worth less than the papers daily price which I think might be as much as $2.00. The Leftist media is in a panic because they’re losing an audience and they have no idea as what to do about it.

[Secret Agent Man]

now, now.....

we use the ‘ch’ ending here for decorum.

:-)

[jmacusa]

I thought ‘’Izvestia’’ meant ‘’spark’’ in Russian.

[RightGeek]

Didn’t HuffPo promise it’s readers that it would only cover Trump under entertainment?

LOL - thanks for the memory

[null and void]

Ooops!

I meant to say Reagan bypassed the congress and went directly to the American people.

Trump is bypassing congress and the press and going directly to the American people.

[null and void]

Can you say that without an f bomb?

[Montaignes Cat]

My source is Wikipedia, which mentions that it used to be translated as “news.” To call the “news” “delivered messages” suggests someone, some power or principality who is sanctioning those messages.

[kearnyirish2]

I kid you not, here in NJ I’ve seen 3 stories in the last week about the homeless problem after silence for years.

Six weeks ago a homeless man died in a church basement where the pastor let some stay; it was briefly mentioned in the news then forgotten because OBAMA WAS STILL PRESIDENT.

Once people know the game, it is incredible how easy this crap is to spot...

[seawolf101]

CNN staff members on lunch break.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It will get better when and if you re-discover “journalism” and “integrity”

For business reasons, journalism has always been about bad news. If the headline worries you, you find it difficult to avoid reading further. Although journalism claims to be about the pubic interest, it is actually about interesting the public - which is not the same thing.

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evi - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

Inasmuch as journalism focuses on the failures and limited benevolence of people, journalism is negative toward society. In full knowledge of its own negativity, journalism claims objectivity. But what is cynicism, if not the belief that negativity is objective? Clearly “objective journalism” is cynical. At least towards society.

Inasmuch as journalism controls PR and therefore believes that it controls public opinion and thereby controls democratic government, journalism is positive - to the point of naïveté - toward the (potential, at least) benefit of government.

IMHO, cynicism towards society combined with naïveté towards government is the precise description of socialism (what in America journalists - and other socialists - began calling “liberalism” in the 1920s). Such people are naturally the “writers who have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them.” Conflation of “society” (“in every state a blessing) with “government”(at best a necessary evil) is, of course, a slander on society and puffery of government.