Good thing you guys learned from 2015 and not giving him 10x more press coverage than other candidates. No way that could go wrong.
It's not like there is no such thing as bad publicity...
An older relative is here for the holidays and was watching some YouTube yesterday. Somehow, there exists a 30 minute which talked all about what a genius Trump was and how he doesn't like electric vehicles. Just this endless stream of "Donald Trump visionary policies on..." and his brilliant predictions that were all true. No details, references, or a critical thought about how Trump probably doesn't know that there's anything inside the parts of the car he can't see.
Edit - what I am trying to point out is that this goes way beyond traditional news outlets. I don't think this guy watches a lot of news. I do think he considers himself well informed. We are Canadian, BTW. He's into cars (and an incredible mechanic as well as being a generally good person I enjoy spending time with) so this is on his feed.
He’s into cars (and an incredible mechanic as well as being a generally good person I enjoy spending time with) so this is on his feed.
Which aspect of cars is he into and which Youtube channels does he watch? I'm curious if there are any particular channels that have led him down the "pewdiepipeline" and what differences there might be between my feed and his that have spared me from any overt exposure to the same garbage.
Sorry, working and not going to dig in that deep :) but seems like he is into restoration of classic cars from the muscle car era back to the 1930s. I am not into cars at all.
That part can't completely change simply because the mechanics of it are too fundamental and too blunt. A Presidential candidate who is the front runner for one of the two parties saying they want to deploy troops is news. It's newsworthy. They can't just ignore it and if they did they would be doing the news anymore.
It's the same as all the way back in 2016 - after Trump won the election, the NYT published a lengthy, complicated story detailing his many conflicts of interest which probably took a team or reporters months to do. And on the same day it was published Trump tweeted that there had been "3 million fraudulent votes" (still waiting on the evidence of that btw).
That move drowned out the conflict of interest story by a lot, and more than that - the president elect saying shit like that is actually genuinely news. The news media can't just ignore it.
They've gotten a bit better over the years at dealing with him . Now they'll say stuff like "Trump asserted yet again, without evidence, that he won the 2020 election" instead of just regurgitating his nonsense without context. But them ignoring Trump isn't the answer.
The problem here is that many Americans want this guy as president the first place.
It’s the same as all the way back in 2016 - after Trump won the election, the NYT published a lengthy, complicated story detailing his many conflicts of interest which probably took a team or reporters months to do.
There's still plenty of room for criticism of the media, though -- like the fact that the piece you mention was published after the election instead of before it, for instance.
It's absolutely maddening. I'm not especially sharp about politics and the media, but in 2015 I was on Twitter and FB saying, "Stop fucking saying his name. This is how he's going to get elected." People can't not talk about him. Even if the story is about what a stupid, evil loser he is, you're giving him power by talking about him all the time.
He didnt get elected because of coverage. He was elected because the conservatives in America hated Democrats because of misinformation surrounding Obama's policies which they then transmuted into racism.
That's fair. I should have said - without the media giving him the spotlight every day, he would never have been taken seriously as a candidate. That's what I believe.
Bad take. Refusing to cover evil doesnt make evil go away. Removing the option for the public to see his sociopathy doesnt mitigate it.
Good thing you guys learned from 2015 and not giving him 10x more press coverage than other candidates. No way that could go wrong. It's not like there is no such thing as bad publicity...
An older relative is here for the holidays and was watching some YouTube yesterday. Somehow, there exists a 30 minute which talked all about what a genius Trump was and how he doesn't like electric vehicles. Just this endless stream of "Donald Trump visionary policies on..." and his brilliant predictions that were all true. No details, references, or a critical thought about how Trump probably doesn't know that there's anything inside the parts of the car he can't see.
Edit - what I am trying to point out is that this goes way beyond traditional news outlets. I don't think this guy watches a lot of news. I do think he considers himself well informed. We are Canadian, BTW. He's into cars (and an incredible mechanic as well as being a generally good person I enjoy spending time with) so this is on his feed.
Which aspect of cars is he into and which Youtube channels does he watch? I'm curious if there are any particular channels that have led him down the "pewdiepipeline" and what differences there might be between my feed and his that have spared me from any overt exposure to the same garbage.
Sorry, working and not going to dig in that deep :) but seems like he is into restoration of classic cars from the muscle car era back to the 1930s. I am not into cars at all.
That part can't completely change simply because the mechanics of it are too fundamental and too blunt. A Presidential candidate who is the front runner for one of the two parties saying they want to deploy troops is news. It's newsworthy. They can't just ignore it and if they did they would be doing the news anymore.
It's the same as all the way back in 2016 - after Trump won the election, the NYT published a lengthy, complicated story detailing his many conflicts of interest which probably took a team or reporters months to do. And on the same day it was published Trump tweeted that there had been "3 million fraudulent votes" (still waiting on the evidence of that btw).
That move drowned out the conflict of interest story by a lot, and more than that - the president elect saying shit like that is actually genuinely news. The news media can't just ignore it.
They've gotten a bit better over the years at dealing with him . Now they'll say stuff like "Trump asserted yet again, without evidence, that he won the 2020 election" instead of just regurgitating his nonsense without context. But them ignoring Trump isn't the answer.
The problem here is that many Americans want this guy as president the first place.
There's still plenty of room for criticism of the media, though -- like the fact that the piece you mention was published after the election instead of before it, for instance.
It's absolutely maddening. I'm not especially sharp about politics and the media, but in 2015 I was on Twitter and FB saying, "Stop fucking saying his name. This is how he's going to get elected." People can't not talk about him. Even if the story is about what a stupid, evil loser he is, you're giving him power by talking about him all the time.
He didnt get elected because of coverage. He was elected because the conservatives in America hated Democrats because of misinformation surrounding Obama's policies which they then transmuted into racism.
That's fair. I should have said - without the media giving him the spotlight every day, he would never have been taken seriously as a candidate. That's what I believe.
Bad take. Refusing to cover evil doesnt make evil go away. Removing the option for the public to see his sociopathy doesnt mitigate it.