He is coming completely unhinged. I sure hope the media start reporting more of it. The AP’s editing of his child care word salad so it made sense was really awful.
He is coming completely unhinged. I sure hope the media start reporting more of it. The AP’s editing of his child care word salad so it made sense was really awful.
Imagine ANY OTHER candidate for ANY office giving that incomprehensible rant.
They would be done for life.
Candidates have killed their political careers with a fist bump or a shout and DonOLD's rant is just another in a long string that he will likely be given a pass on.
Gary, the list is SO long of the “transgressions” he’s made in word or deed that would have torpedoed ANY other candidate. One thing, I guess, is true that he said: “When you’re a star they let you do it”.
Kinda reminds me of the ending of the movie “Sunset Boulevard” when an insane Nora Desmond is playing a role into a camera that she thinks is her comeback to fame and adoration, but it only is a documentary of her insanity.
So who owns the AP anyway? Does the AP have a political axe to grind these days? They used to just report the facts, leaving comment and slant to newspaper editors and columnists. Or have I been an innocent babe in the woods all these years?
The only story emanating from Trump's incoherent response to a question about daycare for children is that he doesn't know what he is talking about and has no plan or ideas at all regarding daycare.
You are correct at what AP used to be. I have no idea what’s going on there. I teach in a broadcasting department at a community college and that was always the place to send students to witness transparent news reporting. No longer.
AP is a nonprofit cooperative. It both creates original journalism and shares the journalism of its member news outlets. In its original journalism, it focuses hard on factual accuracy, which is great, but it ignores the need for *contextual* accuracy as well. The Times and, to a lesser extent, the Post do the same thing. And ignoring contextual accuracy is what gets them into trouble when they write about Trump. The ignored context here is that Trump's ravings should indicate to anyone with a pulse, and definitely to people with clinical backgrounds, that Trump is mentally unfit to be given the keys to the nuclear arsenal again.
Seriously? Is there a rule against ''contextual" accuracy? It's pretty much the only way "facts" make sense. Past time to address how to write w "contextual" accuracy in the media. Cannot even imagine how 'context' can be ignored. Context,not interpretation, seems like an important journalistic skill to acquire.
I would agree. As a hiring editor, I asked questions of people interviewing for reporting jobs that would tease out whether they understood the need for contextual accuracy and knew how to get at it. I was amazed how many editors like me I met over the years who did not do the same thing.
CGW, As DT.s behavior and speech deteriorate, I can only hope that whatever is motivating the pundits and press who engage in "sanewashing" - an excellent descriptive, by the way, will become less and less attractive to them. How can people who's lively hoods depend on robust first amendment rights support (tacitly or otherwise) someone who clearly wants to destroy them? "Sane" is not a term I would use here. Yet it is exactly what's going on. Thanks for the concept and descriptive CGW!
Mary Trump agrees with you about the media re: “…AP’s editing of his child care word salad so it made sense was really awful.”
Mary wrote this on her Substack today:
“ The corporate media, however, have decided that it is no longer the job of its journalists and pundits to report and analyze information; rather they believe they must translate Donald’s nonsensical ramblings into a version of the English language we can all understand. That’s a huge problem because, on the one hand, they’re not really translating his words—they’re imbuing them with a meaning that is not there; on the other hand, they’re doing this without telling us they’re doing it.
So, according to Politico, Donald, “laid out a sweeping economic vision of lower taxes, higher tariffs, and light-touch regulation in a speech to top Wall Street execs.”
AP chimed in by claiming that Donald “suggests tariffs can help solve rising child care costs in a major economic speech.”
The New York Times, at the forefront when it comes to covering for Donald, ran the following headline and sub-head:
“Trump Praises Tariffs, and William McKinley, to Power Brokers”.
He is coming completely unhinged. I sure hope the media start reporting more of it. The AP’s editing of his child care word salad so it made sense was really awful.
Imagine ANY OTHER candidate for ANY office giving that incomprehensible rant.
They would be done for life.
Candidates have killed their political careers with a fist bump or a shout and DonOLD's rant is just another in a long string that he will likely be given a pass on.
Gary, the list is SO long of the “transgressions” he’s made in word or deed that would have torpedoed ANY other candidate. One thing, I guess, is true that he said: “When you’re a star they let you do it”.
Kinda reminds me of the ending of the movie “Sunset Boulevard” when an insane Nora Desmond is playing a role into a camera that she thinks is her comeback to fame and adoration, but it only is a documentary of her insanity.
Great flick….boy would he and Nora be a pair!
Not too bright and terrified by propaganda. It's a dangerous combination.
So who owns the AP anyway? Does the AP have a political axe to grind these days? They used to just report the facts, leaving comment and slant to newspaper editors and columnists. Or have I been an innocent babe in the woods all these years?
The only story emanating from Trump's incoherent response to a question about daycare for children is that he doesn't know what he is talking about and has no plan or ideas at all regarding daycare.
You are correct at what AP used to be. I have no idea what’s going on there. I teach in a broadcasting department at a community college and that was always the place to send students to witness transparent news reporting. No longer.
AP is a nonprofit cooperative. It both creates original journalism and shares the journalism of its member news outlets. In its original journalism, it focuses hard on factual accuracy, which is great, but it ignores the need for *contextual* accuracy as well. The Times and, to a lesser extent, the Post do the same thing. And ignoring contextual accuracy is what gets them into trouble when they write about Trump. The ignored context here is that Trump's ravings should indicate to anyone with a pulse, and definitely to people with clinical backgrounds, that Trump is mentally unfit to be given the keys to the nuclear arsenal again.
Seriously? Is there a rule against ''contextual" accuracy? It's pretty much the only way "facts" make sense. Past time to address how to write w "contextual" accuracy in the media. Cannot even imagine how 'context' can be ignored. Context,not interpretation, seems like an important journalistic skill to acquire.
I would agree. As a hiring editor, I asked questions of people interviewing for reporting jobs that would tease out whether they understood the need for contextual accuracy and knew how to get at it. I was amazed how many editors like me I met over the years who did not do the same thing.
I want to see it mentioned daily on every newscast just like the media did with Biden. Trump is in much worse shape mentally.
You might find my comment on "sanewashing" <https://open.substack.com/pub/heathercoxrichardson/p/september-7-2024?r=z91m7&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=68209464> interesting.
CGW, As DT.s behavior and speech deteriorate, I can only hope that whatever is motivating the pundits and press who engage in "sanewashing" - an excellent descriptive, by the way, will become less and less attractive to them. How can people who's lively hoods depend on robust first amendment rights support (tacitly or otherwise) someone who clearly wants to destroy them? "Sane" is not a term I would use here. Yet it is exactly what's going on. Thanks for the concept and descriptive CGW!
Actually, “Sanewashing” was coined by journalist Aaron Rupar.
CGW acknowledges that in the comment he made in the link to the comment that he made.
Ally; you are right about that. I opened the link and saw it was attributed to Aaron Rupar after I posted my reply to Steve Abbott.
INSANEwashing is more like what’s happening.
Brilliant. Applies to the treatment by the MSM and right-wing media perfectly.
I was livid at AP for publishing that concoction. I don’t know why I expect better of them or any of the 4th Estate.
MSNBC has been....
Mary Trump agrees with you about the media re: “…AP’s editing of his child care word salad so it made sense was really awful.”
Mary wrote this on her Substack today:
“ The corporate media, however, have decided that it is no longer the job of its journalists and pundits to report and analyze information; rather they believe they must translate Donald’s nonsensical ramblings into a version of the English language we can all understand. That’s a huge problem because, on the one hand, they’re not really translating his words—they’re imbuing them with a meaning that is not there; on the other hand, they’re doing this without telling us they’re doing it.
So, according to Politico, Donald, “laid out a sweeping economic vision of lower taxes, higher tariffs, and light-touch regulation in a speech to top Wall Street execs.”
AP chimed in by claiming that Donald “suggests tariffs can help solve rising child care costs in a major economic speech.”
The New York Times, at the forefront when it comes to covering for Donald, ran the following headline and sub-head:
“Trump Praises Tariffs, and William McKinley, to Power Brokers”.