The media is not trumps enemy, nor trumps friends, rather the media is trumps most easy and pathetic mark. Trump has used any attention for his behavior, no matter how abhorrent to get free press, I'm sure we have all noticed that. But I believe there is another angle as well: trump uses the media as cover: he will distract the media with something shiny while doing something else. While trumps legal resident - visa - migrant ban is one way for trump to say he will do what he promised in his campaign trail, it may also be to distract the media from what ever else he is doing
I think that most of the mainstream media are Trump's visceral enemies. The days of objective, dispassionate unbiased journalism are long gone. Most media people hate Trump with a flaming passion and they ridiculed him (at first when they thought that he would fail badly) and then caricaturized him (when it became apparent that he was succeeding). What's striking is how ineffective it was. I agree that it worked to Trump's advantage during his election campaign. When the news pundits and hollywood entertainment celebrities made fun of him, they were essentially attacking his voters too. And voters who were attracted by his positions, reclaiming control of America's borders, opposition to America's continued de-industrialization and distrust for 'globalism' (all but the first were Bernie Sanders' positions too) didn't like it and just rallied to his cause. The media and the celebrities simply didn't realize how unpopular and disliked they are out there in middle America, the personifications of a fat, happy and increasingly arrogant elite talking-down to real-life people who were struggling. That served Trump since he didn't have to buy a lot of political advertising, since he was always topic #1 anyway. He did 'rope-a-dope' the media very skillfully. That sounds like an incipient conspiracy theory to me. There may be some truth to it though, since Trump hasn't done anything terrible yet, but the volume on the media shrieking has already been turned up to 10. If that continues, thoughtful people with real lives with just get used to the TV, internet and newspaper hysteria as the new normal and tune it out. So what if Trump really does something that deserves everyone's close attention? How will the news/opinion media convince the public that whatever it is, is important? What we are seeing might be the modern equivalent of 'the boy crying 'wolf''. Nobody will be able to discern when Trump's critics suddenly really mean it and aren't just attacking him because he's different and not one of them.
I think that Trump says so many things that are stupid and outrageous that it only seems timed to those moments the press is reporting something bad on him. One might suspect there is a method to this madness, but not really. He has said stupid things when there was damaging reports on Clinton and he had the PR advantage. It's just the effect of being such a non-stop cornucorpia of bullshit that some of it looks intentionally timed. It isn't. It's just stupidity and blundering ineptness.
It was ineffective because Trump is USING them, regardless is they like him or hate him, they are his bitch, whether they know it or not. Yes! It is a theory to be tested: what is he doing right now while everyone is talking about the Muslim ban?
But that's part of the problem, isn't it? I live in the Pacific Northwest. Every once in a while, hunters come back with a wild cat or canine that took down a jogger or some such, and for some reason, we're always surprised when nature takes a bite. The "modern equivalent of 'the boy crying wolf'" and your notion that "Trump hasn't done anything terrible" yet suggests, to the one, a difference in definitions 'twixt, say, you and me, but I also get your meaning; if we advance to terrible too early in the administration, it will be like handing out perfect scores early in the figure skating or gymnastics competitions. To the other, though, it's not just the media. I mean, fine, so Angela Merkel is shrieking. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is shrieking. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is shrieking. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) is shrieking. Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX23) is shrieking. Yes, yes, from sea to shining sea, and the shrieks heard 'round the world. If the audience normalizes and carries on, it would seem at some point that outcome is on the audience. That is to say, we know the wolves are there; we wander out among them. And then someone gets hurt and we're so surprised. Though it is also true Jesus Christ never said anything about building your house where the wolves run.
Leaving aside Trump and the media, I sometimes wonder what is meant by'' freedom of the press''? In the Uk the press do back political parties, not financially?? but by blowing that party's horn at election times. This all seems funny when these papers talk of freedom of the press. How can a paper cry ''freedom of the press'' and then go on backing a political party and slating the opposition parties? It's so weird.
The press are too busy giving Americans what they want. You know, info on Lady Gaga and the Kardashians. They are way too busy to do any real investigative journalism.
It's just a matter of what we mean by the phrase. (1) American idyll ― Fourth Estate, a Guardian of the People against Tyranny. (2) Free political actors ― Something akin to the British framework described. (3) Freedom to profit ― Everything about the news is subordinate to ratings, which in turn describe access to profitability, such as we see in what many describe as the American "mainstream" media. Like this bit with #AlternativeFacts; the American press should be careful, because they have been coddling #AlternativeFacts for years, in the name of journalistic fairness, because they deliberately pander to Republicans in order to avoid the appearance of liberal media bias. For the most part the American press has not done so for particularly ideological reasons in terms of Democrats and Republicans, but for their owners, whose ideological influence over the outlet's content has more to do with profit margins.
You can say it much simpler, and it's been what Republicans have been doing for decades. Create chaos, because in chaos, you can steal.
He lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. That's a success? Why is it tyrants first destroy the free press and then the academics? It's an old pattern of behavior often repeated by tyrants. Why is it tyrants hate a free press? Just because the truth makes a candidate look bad, it doesn't mean the press is biased. And actually, the press was quite easy on Trump. The let him float his many lies and never once called him out on them. They never called him out for the liar he clearly is. You do realize Fox News is part of the media? Fox was a virtual unpaid Trump campaign member as they always are with respect to Republican candidates. You also realize right wing radio was all in for Trump and broadcast Trump propaganda at all hours 7 days a week. Democrats do not have anything even remotely comparable to Fox News and right wing talk radio. With right wing media, it really isn't surprising Trump received enough ballot is a few key states to win in the Electoral College. Except that media bias didn't and doesn't exist. Democrats have fought for the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine which was at one time the law of the land. It required all public media outlets to present a fair and honest forum for issues of national importance. It was a Republican president which killed the law. Democrats have fought to reinstate it, and Republicans have fought against it. Why do you think that is? Why would Republicans be against a fair and honest airing of all issues of national importance? So you don't think the unprecedented chaos now reigning in Washington is terrible?
