It is a more profound malaise than that. It isn't that the MSM lacks resources (although they may do) but that they are despised and no longer believed by a decisive proportion of the electorate.(Original post by nulli tertius)
The media has hollowed out. There are far fewer journalists. What you have got are commentators. Writing opinion pieces from Washington or New York or London is dead easy and cheap.
Trump's lies were no more challenged by the press than the Brexit lies. Trump got away with contradictions and inconsistencies in his own positions and statements about the Clintons that were simply untrue. In previous campaigns you would have had journalists asking him the same questions over and over again until you had drilled into the public consciousness that Trump was unreliable about any political views. "Mr Trump did you not on such and such a day say so and so" There was none of that this time around.
Really there was very little digging down into Trump's past and associates. Finally of course no-one was out and about getting an on the ground assessment of the level of Trump's support where he won.
The Clinton campaign concentrated on Trump's outrageous statements. The Trump campaign attacked Clinton's record. What is now clear is that the press will no longer go after a candidate's past. It doesn't have the resources to do so. If the other candidate doesn't do it, no-one will.
They are regarded as part of the establishment, part of the problem, and in need of a damn good kicking.
More, even when facts about Trump were revealed by the MSM that would have sunk any other candidate, his voters didn't care.
No-one can accuse the broadcast media especially, of not reporting the pussy grabbing incident, or the alleged assaults on other women. It was wall to wall coverage.
As was the massive hit that he supposedly took in the polls. That was what the non conservative MSM thought was the gotcha moment. The moment his campaign finally died. But they were reporting their own (in US terms) "metropolitan bubble" perceptions, not the electoral reality in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where the election was being decided.
He got a rougher ride from the liberal media than any other presidential candidate, I would posit. In fact no other politician that I can even think of has been more personally demonised and vilified, with the possible exception of Nigel Farage.
The more he was attacked the greater his support became. His candidacy was the zeitgeist, that is the point, not that the New York Times doesn't employ enough reporters any more.
Edit: Mention of the pussy grabbing incident and Nigel Farage reminds me of a joke the latter made the other day which really exemplifies the thesis I advance above. Of the disconnect between the establishment and the media who are outraged by Trump, and the millions of his voters who don't care about what they all care about.
He was musing that Trump ought to have a meeting with May to get close to her as soon as possible, but then laughed and said "I am not saying grab her by the pussy of course!"
It hasn't been widely reported, if it had it would have sparked outrage no doubt. Politicians aren't supposed to say stuff like that, but if you wanted an explanation of why Farage, like Trump is such a successful populist politician, there you have it, in one anti PC quip.
Turn on thread page Beta
Despite all the entire establishment and media against him...how did Trump win? watch
Last edited by astutehirstute; 12-11-2016 at 16:21.
- 12-11-2016 16:01
- 12-11-2016 22:22
People say that Hilary won the Popular vote by 300,000+ but can anyone answer Donald's points about the rigged system that gives this result?
He makes them from 3:26 onwards here.
In fact since the election I've been looking at his speeches and I see a completely different Donald to the one I got from the repeat clips from our mainstream media.
He obviosly understands and has personally thought about what he wants to do, he doesn't just speak platitudes using an earpiece/teleprompter.Last edited by NJA; 12-11-2016 at 22:28.
- 13-11-2016 20:06
Yeah, the media wasn't really as against him as the conspiracy theorists like to say. There are Breitbart types who think that any media that doesn't call for the rounding up of Muslims is egregiously biased towards left wing cuckoldry, but other than that the media were relatively normal by their own standards. Yes, they reported all the outrageous things that Trump said, but were they supposed to cover them up. Yes, he had a rough ride, and all he did to deserve it was demean the sacrifice of the family of an American soldier, brag about committing sexual assault, and say an American judge wasn't qualified to hear his case because of his ethnic background.
On factual matters, the media faced the same dilemma the BBC faces on climate change. There are two sides of the argument, and they have an obligation to put that forward in an unbiased manner. But one of the sides is wrong, and as journalists they also feel obliged to inform the public of that fact. These things are mutually exclusive. So when Trump says something stupid, then says the opposite, then denies that he ever said the first thing, the media doesn't really know what to do. So they compromise, and only sometimes call it out. When he brings his half baked conspiracy theories into a debate on policy with a prepared, professional politician, they can't exactly say "well he lost, and he obviously lost, and he was obviously going to lose" - they spend time beforehand lowering expectations and grading him on a curve.
To boot, the US media has a vested interest in 1. a close election, and 2. close debates. So during times where Clinton was considered to be leading handily, they certainly had an interest in being particularly kind to Trump.
- 24-11-2016 10:37
Many people are still suffering from the failure of the Authorities to do their job to protect "the little man". There seemed to be a cynical disregard.
Going back to 2009, here is testimony of the complete and utter failure of the Securities and Exchange Commission to act on proof he gave them about Bernard Madoff that cost Americans $billions. People lost retirement money, savings, charity-funded scholarships etc No doubt there are other Bernard Madoffs.
One good thing to come of it was the entertainment value of watching SEC officials trying to evade straight questions. It seems the SEC were afraid of what might happen to them personally.
I think they said Madoff was already a wanted man so he wouldn't care about further crimes against people. One of the Congressmen questioning them that they are the true enemies. They were the shield and they knowingly let it happen.
It could be worse, Iceland has been labelled a "failed state", so many of it's young & talented people may leave.