I thought this was an interesting opinion piece on the media...and particular in it's incredibly negative coverage of Trump, which Trump then never ceases to rail about. For Trump, the latest coverage has just been "another terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day"
A Harvard study reported some 80% of his coverage has been negative - an unprecedent number for an American president. Conservatives are hooting that it's evidence of unfairness in the media.
Isn’t that terribly unfair?
Here’s the author's carefully nuanced answer:
She goes on to explain and to pose the questions that are really relevent (as opposed to "fairness"):
Perspective | Is media coverage of Trump too negative? You’re asking the wrong question.
A Harvard study reported some 80% of his coverage has been negative - an unprecedent number for an American president. Conservatives are hooting that it's evidence of unfairness in the media.
Isn’t that terribly unfair?
Here’s the author's carefully nuanced answer:
Hell, no.
That’s because when we consider negative vs. positive coverage of an elected official, we’re asking the wrong question.
That’s because when we consider negative vs. positive coverage of an elected official, we’re asking the wrong question.
She goes on to explain and to pose the questions that are really relevent (as opposed to "fairness"):
Perspective | Is media coverage of Trump too negative? You’re asking the wrong question.
The president’s supporters often say his accomplishments get short shrift. But let’s face it: Politicians have no right to expect equally balanced positive and negative coverage, or anything close to it. If a president is doing a rotten job, it’s the duty of the press to report how and why he’s doing a rotten job.
The idea of balance is suspect on its face. Should positive coverage be provided, as if it were a birthright, to a president who consistently lies, who has spilled classified information to an adversary, and who fired the FBI director who was investigating his administration?
Certainly not. That’s why efforts like a New York Times op-ed’s pitch to “say something nice about Donald Trump” is so absurd, even if it was meant as tongue-in-cheek.
It’s reasonable, however — in fact, crucial — to consider some different questions: those involving fairness, focus and overkill.
â—ŹWhen news organizations get something wrong, do they acknowledge and correct it quickly? Or do they just move on and hope nobody notices?
â—ŹDo journalists allow the president and his administration to respond to criticism and give his response prominent placement?
â—ŹDo news sites give serious, sustained attention to policy issues as well as publishing innumerable hot takes about the personality-driven dust-up of the moment?
The idea of balance is suspect on its face. Should positive coverage be provided, as if it were a birthright, to a president who consistently lies, who has spilled classified information to an adversary, and who fired the FBI director who was investigating his administration?
Certainly not. That’s why efforts like a New York Times op-ed’s pitch to “say something nice about Donald Trump” is so absurd, even if it was meant as tongue-in-cheek.
It’s reasonable, however — in fact, crucial — to consider some different questions: those involving fairness, focus and overkill.
â—ŹWhen news organizations get something wrong, do they acknowledge and correct it quickly? Or do they just move on and hope nobody notices?
â—ŹDo journalists allow the president and his administration to respond to criticism and give his response prominent placement?
â—ŹDo news sites give serious, sustained attention to policy issues as well as publishing innumerable hot takes about the personality-driven dust-up of the moment?
Take a particularly sleazy organization like WaPo, if they get called on their lies by the administration they will NOT print the rebuttal in it's original format. but instead pick it apart word by word to continue to the narrative they began with.
