Trump and the Press

[NM11046]

 

I don't have a big problem with KAC and this photo (it's tacky but does that really surprise anyone)- but do have a question. This is the WHITE HOUSE and the PRESIDENT. Isn't there a paid WH Photographer that is to capture everything (there has been for every other administration). WTH are we depending on a high ranking staff member to snap shots on her iPhone? Isn't that probably some sort of potential security issue as well?

My guess is that she was taking her own personal photos.

 

I think you're probably right - and I think that's probably not allowed.

[Enhance]

 

 

I don't disagree with you, but the problem could be 100% solved if the news outlets stopped showing that kind of garbage.

 

Consumers will always want to consume the lowest common denominator of news. They are susceptible to suggestion and easily fall prey to propaganda. That's just the nature of the masses - they're herd animals.

 

Someone has to step up. Consumers, while responsible for what they consume, will not do this. So the media has to.

By contrast, would you argue it's entirely the police's responsibility to fix racial divides and address the use of excessive force, while telling the citizens and community leaders it's no longer their responsibility to address the problem, as well? I believe you would argue it's within both group's best interest to find common ground and work together, despite the reality that police should be held to a higher standard.

 

Just like atrocities in the name of religion are a human construct, propaganda news is not the fault of some obscure entity like "the media" but is instead a human construct.

 

News and consumers are not exclusive variables but instead must work together in unison. They're one. Furthermore, syndicated network news entities are money-driven businesses just like any other corporation. Leaving the power and responsibility in their hands, while they're making money, is a fractious approach.

 

 

I think a far better analogy is teacher/student sex. Presuming the relationship involves mutual attraction, the onus of the blame lies with the teacher as the more responsible party.

Except the student in this regard has no legal responsibility for their actions. The millions of adult Americans who consume network television, regardless of their education level, are legally responsible for their choices.

 

Journalism is a business and has a bottom line. Consumers play a role in determining the market.

[BigRedBuster]

You know....there was a time when the news rooms were shielded away from the business side of media.

[knapplc]

Journalism is a business and has a bottom line. Consumers play a role in determining the market.

When the news becomes controlled by monopolies, the consumer's role is diminished. If you have no choice in widgets, I can make you buy whatever widget I produce.

[commando]

[teachercd]

Seriously...no one ever questioned that they look identical?

[Enhance]

 

Journalism is a business and has a bottom line. Consumers play a role in determining the market.

When the news becomes controlled by monopolies, the consumer's role is diminished. If you have no choice in widgets, I can make you buy whatever widget I produce.

And as a consumer, you have the choice whether or not to buy the widget. The marketing strategies change based on your interests. Journalism is a business, after all.

 

Forcing what you think the consumer should want or needs is not how you stay profitable. We wouldn't have journalism as an industry if they solely based decisions off integrity and morals.

 

Our conversation reminds me a lot of a song by Jack Johnson called Cookie Jar.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Journalism is a business and has a bottom line. Consumers play a role in determining the market.

When the news becomes controlled by monopolies, the consumer's role is diminished. If you have no choice in widgets, I can make you buy whatever widget I produce.

And as a consumer, you have the choice whether or not to buy the widget. The marketing strategies change based on your interests. Journalism is a business, after all.

 

Forcing what you think the consumer should want or needs is not how you stay profitable. We wouldn't have journalism as an industry if they solely based decisions off integrity and morals.

 

Our conversation reminds me a lot of a song by Jack Johnson called Cookie Jar.

 

This conversation leaves me scratching my head as to why we should expect our news media to behave the same as any other product we buy.

 

They used to not do that.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

Journalism is a business and has a bottom line. Consumers play a role in determining the market.

When the news becomes controlled by monopolies, the consumer's role is diminished. If you have no choice in widgets, I can make you buy whatever widget I produce.

And as a consumer, you have the choice whether or not to buy the widget. The marketing strategies change based on your interests. Journalism is a business, after all.

 

Forcing what you think the consumer should want or needs is not how you stay profitable. We wouldn't have journalism as an industry if they solely based decisions off integrity and morals.

 

Our conversation reminds me a lot of a song by Jack Johnson called Cookie Jar.

 

This conversation leaves me scratching my head as to why we should expect our news media to behave the same as any other product we buy.

 

They used to not do that.

 

As I would argue, media and its consumers are a lot different than other buyer/seller relationships. They work off of one another continuously and in just about every facet.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

Journalism is a business and has a bottom line. Consumers play a role in determining the market.

When the news becomes controlled by monopolies, the consumer's role is diminished. If you have no choice in widgets, I can make you buy whatever widget I produce.

And as a consumer, you have the choice whether or not to buy the widget. The marketing strategies change based on your interests. Journalism is a business, after all.

 

Forcing what you think the consumer should want or needs is not how you stay profitable. We wouldn't have journalism as an industry if they solely based decisions off integrity and morals.

 

Our conversation reminds me a lot of a song by Jack Johnson called Cookie Jar.

 

This conversation leaves me scratching my head as to why we should expect our news media to behave the same as any other product we buy.

 

They used to not do that.

 

As I would argue, media and its consumers are a lot different than other buyer/seller relationships. They work off of one another continuously and in just about every facet.

 

Correction.....

 

They SHOULD be different than other buyer/seller relationships. One heck of a lot of the national media has become no different than the normal buyer/seller relationship. If a large part of the public doesn't like the report they put out because it doesn't support their political view, then they don't put it out or they change it so it is palatable. If a large part of the public LOVES you going on and on supporting a particular political figure....then that's what runs.

 

This is no different than Ford changing a car that doesn't sell to one that does.

 

This is not the way the media should view their jobs.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

 

Journalism is a business and has a bottom line. Consumers play a role in determining the market.

When the news becomes controlled by monopolies, the consumer's role is diminished. If you have no choice in widgets, I can make you buy whatever widget I produce.

And as a consumer, you have the choice whether or not to buy the widget. The marketing strategies change based on your interests. Journalism is a business, after all.

 

Forcing what you think the consumer should want or needs is not how you stay profitable. We wouldn't have journalism as an industry if they solely based decisions off integrity and morals.

 

Our conversation reminds me a lot of a song by Jack Johnson called Cookie Jar.

 

This conversation leaves me scratching my head as to why we should expect our news media to behave the same as any other product we buy.

 

They used to not do that.

 

As I would argue, media and its consumers are a lot different than other buyer/seller relationships. They work off of one another continuously and in just about every facet.

 

Correction.....

 

They SHOULD be different than other buyer/seller relationships. One heck of a lot of the national media has become no different than the normal buyer/seller relationship. If a large part of the public doesn't like the report they put out because it doesn't support their political view, then they don't put it out or they change it so it is palatable. If a large part of the public LOVES you going on and on supporting a particular political figure....then that's what runs.

 

This is no different than Ford changing a car that doesn't sell to one that does.

 

This is not the way the media should view their jobs.

I agree and disagree.

 

All I can say is that "the media" has always relied on its viewers/readers/audience to make content decisions. They are a symbiotic relationship. National networks are playing off what their audiences say it wants (data) but it's clear some are also playing off political influence.

 

But, again, whether this was your intention or not, you're pining from the position of a consumer who doesn't want to accept responsibility for why some national networks are doing what they're doing. We have incredible numbers of Americans who criticize networks like CNN for being too liberal while simultaneously propping Fox as some kind of standard for truth, and vice versa.

 

I guess this is also a good time for me to remind people that they should probably spend more time reading local papers (and just reading in general).

[QMany]

[Making Chimichangas]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sticking-with-trump-republicans-resist-call-for-broader-russian-inquiry/ar-AAnJaAX?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

 

Congressional Republicans, straining to defend the Trump administration amid investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, resisted growing calls on Thursday for a special prosecutor or select congressional committee to review the matter, even as Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from any inquiry.

 

 

Still, in both chambers, Republicans generally resisted impugning Mr. Sessions too forcefully. Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma lamented that “the implication is somehow he’s colluding behind the scenes.” "We don’t have any facts,” he added.

 

The committee’s Republican chairman, Representative Devin Nunes of California, raised a separate concern: “I’m sure some of you are in contact with the Russian Embassy, so be careful what you ask for here,” he told reporters. “Do you want us to conduct an investigation on you or other Americans because you were talking to the Russian Embassy?”

 

 

1. Sessions recused himself only because there was pressure to. If he would have had his way, he never would have done it.

2. We don't have any facts because the investigation of Trump and his underlings connections to Russia is being suppressed by republicans.

3. Rep Nunes vaguely threatens reporters because they are doing their jobs.

 

Republicans...you know for a party that prides itself on being moral, religious, and champions of law, they are the sleaziest, most lying, corrupt, crooked a-holes in this country.

 

Democrats lie and are corrupt also, but at least most them don't try and hide behind a bullcrap façade of religious righteousness, and morality.

[zoogs]

In his defense, he recused himself because it became politically impossible not to. Jeff Sessions has a lot of bad about him. I'm not sure where his contact with the Russian ambassador and subsequent nondisclosure rank among them.

[NM11046]

Are you frickin' kidding me?