New York Times to air anti-Trump ad during Oscars, Trump fights back

In all my life I’ve never seen anything like this. First Trump goes after the press, which of course has alienated the media to the point that it’s striking back—not explicitly at the President, but at the cavalier attitude towards truth held by him and his administration. Here’s a 30-second ad, prepared by the New York Times, that will air during the Oscars.

The message, involving conflicting claims, is clear: it is journalism (e.g., the Times) that is the seeker of the truth, and the truth will out.  It worries me a bit that the press is getting explicitly adversarial, though that doesn’t worry me near as much as do Trump and his shenanigans. I get the feeling, and I may be wrong, that even the good gray Times is becoming somewhat less than objective. But of course what’s happening in our government may have made me mistake rancor for objective press coverage of pervasive idiocy.

Such displays on both sides are unprecedented, even during Nixon’s anti-press Watergate debacle.

Also unprecedented is Trump’s response—on Twitter, of course:

Governance through Twitter repels and sickens me, as does Trump’s nasty remarks about “fake news” and the Times itself.

Expect a lot of political speeches at the Oscars tonight. I won’t be watching, as that ceremony never excites me, and I’m not in the mood for virtue-signaling from Hollywood. I know where I stand—firmly against Trump and his Republican cronies—and I don’t need Meryl Streep to tell me.

 

72 Comments

  1. Robert Ryder
    Posted February 26, 2017 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    Extreme times warrant extreme measures. Trump has not merely criticized the press, he has virtually denied its need to exist. In that he demonstrates his true authoritarian nature. I completely understand the action by the NY Times.

    • kesheck
      Posted February 26, 2017 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

      Agreed, 100%.

  2. Posted February 26, 2017 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    Well, it was the media’s fault, anyway. They let that guy and his surrogates get away with so much lies, and they were barely challenged … during the campaign…. and that was for the sake of neutrality. They could say the earth is flat…. and the media would give this guys surrogates the platform to expound on this…. for the sake of neutrality.

    • Rita
      Posted February 26, 2017 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

      It wasn’t for the sake of neutrality, it was for the sake of ratings.

      • Posted February 26, 2017 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

        Right ! ! ! I forgot about that. The CEO of the Networks,including MSNBC actually admitted that. Thanks for reminding me.

    • Mike
      Posted February 27, 2017 at 8:34 am | Permalink

      +1

  3. Posted February 26, 2017 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    I am heartened that some of the press is getting explicitly adversarial. Wake up, smell coffee, press! Doing journalism makes you “enemies of the people” in Trump’s book (a Dallas News reporter has an excellent reply.) So keep right on doing it, please, without flinching. Don’t let coach Trump “work the refs”; keep calling em as you see em. Know that this will make you his adversaries, and be fine with it.

  4. Posted February 26, 2017 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    The truth will out. A quaint notion with our corrupted internet media cacophony.

  5. Cindy
    Posted February 26, 2017 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Legacy media is losing relevancy fast.

    Trump is the social media president.

    This irritates the legacy media to no end.

    • rickflick
      Posted February 26, 2017 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

      It irritates me to no end too.

      • Merilee
        Posted February 26, 2017 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

        +mucho

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted February 26, 2017 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

        I concur in Justice flick’s opinion.

    • kesheck
      Posted February 26, 2017 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

      “Trump is the social media president.”

      We should all be well beyond irritated by that.

    • Historian
      Posted February 26, 2017 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

      We have heard for 20 years that news organizations such as the New York Times and the Washington Post are legacy organization, thus implying that they will disappear any day. Yet, they are still around even if many people get their content in electronic format. If they are so irrelevant, I wonder why Trump gets so upset by them. Meanwhile, social media, a vacuous term if I ever heard one, to the extent that it influences people is a sad commentary on the state of knowledge of so much of the American public. Perhaps, it is not wise to take advice from people whose whole lives consist of staring at their smartphones in a zombie-like trance as they feed their delusion that they are somehow “more in the know” than people who don’t use Facebook or twitter, but rather get their news from reputable sources. Those who predicted that newspapers and real books were simply going to disappear are still anxiously waiting

      • Cindy
        Posted February 26, 2017 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

        Disappear? No. Increasingly irrelevant and distrusted, yes.

        The WSJ recently went after famous Youtuber Pewdiepie, labeling him a literal Nazi etc. PDP has 53 million subs and counting…

        The WSJ can only dream of having that kind of reach. And it is those tweens who are fans of PDP, and who are plugged into social media, not the WSJ or the NYT or even CNN. They are a demographic that cannot be ignored, especially since they will be eligible to vote in 2020.

        The legacy media hates Trump and they went after him throughout the entire election. Trump won because he appealed to people through his rallies and social media.

        • Historian
          Posted February 26, 2017 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

          No, it was FOX news that was the biggest supplier of “news” to Trump supporters. In your apparent disdain for the supposed legacy news organizations, do you put FOX in that category? Considering the demographics for Trump, I doubt that most of his suporters spent their day looking at their twitter feed.

          http://thehill.com/homenews/media/314945-fox-news-was-voters-top-source-for-election-news-pew

        • Harrison
          Posted February 26, 2017 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

          “They are a demographic that cannot be ignored, especially since they will be eligible to vote in 2020.”

          And they are a demographic that will be ignored, because experience has repeatedly taught us that they won’t show up to vote.

          • Cindy
            Posted February 26, 2017 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

            According to at least one study, Generation Z is supposedly very conservative:

            Attitudes to technology proved to be cross-generational. When asked to describe their relationship with technology, just under half of Silent Generation respondents (48%) stated that they could not imagine their life without technologies like the Internet, their laptop, or mobile but would not describe themselves as a “techie person.” Millennials (33%), Gen X (35%) and Baby Boomers (44%) were most likely to share this attitude. Digital natives Gen Z were the exception, being the most likely to say they “couldn’t live without it” (27%) or describe themselves as a “tech enthusiast” (29%).

            The findings go on to suggest that traditional generational stereotypes are outdated, with respondents repeatedly defying conventional wisdom about their attitudes and behaviours. The research also highlights commonalities and differences between generations that may have been previously overlooked.

            http://www.marcomm.news/gen-z-is-the-most-conservative-generation-since-those-born-before-1945/

            Regardless of what you believe, it would be foolish to pretend they don’t exist. It could come round to bite generic you in the buttocks.

            • Historian
              Posted February 26, 2017 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

              The article you cited reported its findings based on a poll in the U.K. Thus, a poll in the U.S. would tell us more what American Gen Z kids feel. The oldest Gen Z person is only 16. What the attitude of Gen Z people will be in four years cannot be assured particularly as they mature from adolescents to adults and this poll did not indicate how these people would actually vote in terms of political candidates. Finally, whether they will actually come out and vote in significant numbers is problematical. And those that do come out vote in 2020 will only represent a small portion of Gen Z (those born in 2001 and 2002). All in all, Gen Z’s political significance in U.S. presidential elections will not be felt until 2024 at the earliest.

              • Posted February 27, 2017 at 2:01 am | Permalink

                Lemme see if I have this straight. Gen Z was born since 2000; millenials, since 1980, about; gen X, since 1960 or so; and baby boomers since 1945. Ok? So where am I, born in 1940?

                The correct answer is not “old fart”. Well, I guess it is, actually…

              • Heather Hastie
                Posted February 27, 2017 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

                You’re the Silent Generation.

                Depending on the pollster, the Baby Boomers go roughly to the end of 1964.

            • Diane G.
              Posted February 28, 2017 at 12:36 am | Permalink

              “According to at least one study, Generation Z is supposedly very conservative:”

              Bring back the draft…

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted February 26, 2017 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

        “I wonder why Trump gets so upset by them.”

        Trump is an outer-borough boy whose goal was to be taken seriously in “the city.” And The Times is the standard-bearer for seriousness in that world.

        But Trump’s only claims to fame heretofore have been schlock-tv stardom and blighting the skyline with his architectural grotesqueries, so it’s never happened.

        Hell, Manhattan voted 9-1 for Hillary, the most lopsided victory in a presidential election ever in that borough. You don’t think that sticks in Trump’s craw?

      • gijswijs
        Posted February 26, 2017 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

        Social media *is* a vacuous term. We don’t talk about “paper media” and group all the “legacy” media under that term, as if they could be described as one generic outlet. It’s foolish to think of the channel that social media is as an autonomous thing that can be discarded with some remarks about Generation Z or the way people stare at their phones.
        It’s like being angry at the air for the sound waves that travel through it.
        It also shows a misunderstanding of the medium.
        The fact that we can have this conversation by means of comments under Jerry’s post is just as well social media.

        • Diane G.
          Posted February 28, 2017 at 1:23 am | Permalink

          “Social media *is* a vacuous term. We don’t talk about “paper media” and group all the “legacy” media under that term, as if they could be described as one generic outlet.”

          MSM is a pretty generic term.

    • Filippo
      Posted February 27, 2017 at 4:46 am | Permalink

      Yep, reading anything of length, whether hard-copy or digital, is losing “relevancy” which, if I correctly understand,is whatever “most people” (in “the popular culture”?) define as “relevant.”

      Some several years ago the NY Times ran a front page article about the “relevancy” of email, quoting someone obviously refulgent in life experience(a thirteen-year-old), “Email is so lame.”

      It caused me to dress in sackcloth and ashes and smite my breast, and to go into the mountains to bewail my lack of “cool” – ness.

  6. Posted February 26, 2017 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    🐾

  7. GBJames
    Posted February 26, 2017 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Sub

  8. Randall Schenck
    Posted February 26, 2017 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    I think the Trump faction has gone way over the line, first in the bald face lying and then going after the press. However ugly you think it is now or how upsetting in may be – I think you have war. War between the government and the people in it.

    His favorable rating is the lowest of any new president since they started taking such polls and it will get much lower. Of course, with this guy, it means nothing because this is also a lie and has been made up by whoever is taking the poll. The people of this country seem not to understand what they have done or what they have created. And even the democrats seem not to fully understand it or know what to do about it.

    • Cindy
      Posted February 26, 2017 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

      And even the democrats seem not to fully understand it or know what to do about it.

      I’ve heard that punching people works well!

      • Randy schenck
        Posted February 26, 2017 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

        It would probably make you feel better for a few minutes but not much more. I have no answer for the problem but I think something more like what happened with Nixon, some time ago. It will have to be the Republicans who do something about this as they eventually did with Nixon. Of course they will have to grow backbones and discover morality first.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted February 26, 2017 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

          This thing with Trump and Russia is a national debacle (and potentially the biggest scandal in this nation’s history). Getting to the bottom of it should be a matter of patriotism. We’ll see which conservatives answer the call.

          • Randy schenck
            Posted February 26, 2017 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

            Sure is but first they need to have an independent prosecutor worthy of the task. If they do it within the Attorney General’s office, forget it.

      • Jonathan Wallace
        Posted February 27, 2017 at 3:59 am | Permalink

        I don’t know if you have any data on the matter, Cindy, but I would guess that those who espouse punching right-wingers, are a tiny minority of those who are alarmed and affronted by the actions of the Republican White House. Those who have actually punched a right winger would be a tiny minority within that tiny minority. Th current ‘war’ between the White House and the media can hardly be blamed on a few hot-heads on university campuses.

      • Andy
        Posted February 27, 2017 at 4:30 am | Permalink

        But only one presidential candidate actually called for punching people:

        “I’d like to punch him in the face,” – Donald J Trump, Las Vegas.
        “Next time we see him, we might have to kill him.” – Trump supporter who did punch a protester at a Trump rally.
        “They took him out. That was OK that day.” – Trump’s response.

  9. Posted February 26, 2017 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    I am not a beltway insider but I know someone who has a good sense of what is going on, and worthy of watching for – the FBI, CIA and State Department are in near-revolt mode as Trump’s agenda is to destroy each agency from the top down. Hopefully it will be a failed strategy.

    • Marilee Lovit
      Posted February 27, 2017 at 5:55 am | Permalink

      Deconstruction of the administrative state, is how Bannon labels what has only just begun in the Trump presidency.

  10. Posted February 26, 2017 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    Considering that SCROTUS has used every presidential platform available to talk about TV ratings and advance his own personal ego issues, any virtue signalling from anyone else on the planet is more than welcome.

    • kesheck
      Posted February 26, 2017 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

      Also agreed, 100%!

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted February 26, 2017 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

      “SCROTUS” — nice neologistic portmanteau! 🙂

  11. ploubere
    Posted February 26, 2017 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    The “media” is a broad category, encompassing a wide range of journalism and editorial content, so it’s of little use to blame the “media” for anything. The reason we know the truth about Trump and his allies is because of good journalism by the best of the media, which includes the NY Times. They weren’t responsible for getting him elected, that was a result of false information disseminated by bad journalism from outlets such as Fox News, by lack of judgement by CNN and the like, and from fake information created by trolls and disseminated through social media.

    I see nothing adversarial or slanted about this ad, unless one reads into it that truth is an implied criticism. It doesn’t editorialize or make unsubstantiated claims. The conclusion is neutral, and should be uncontroversial.

    • Posted February 27, 2017 at 12:47 am | Permalink

      I, too, fail to see how this is an attack on Trump specifically. If you watch the claims made as they flashed by, they ran a wide gambit of statements.

      What I saw here was the Times stating that the truth is hard to find and they are working hard to find it. Now if that means that calling BS on a lot that the administration is saying is anti-Trump, then so be it. But they are not out to “get” anyone, they want you to know that they seek the truth. That’s pro-America.

  12. phoffman56
    Posted February 26, 2017 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

    What could possibly be objectionable in a newspaper saying that they seek to determine and publish the truth? It seems NYTimes comes closer to that ideal than just about any other North American medium. Any other time, people would think ‘Fine, but why do they feel the need to say so?” The only reason anybody would regard this ad as controversial is because a bunch of dangerous lying a**holes have been voted in by a populace, much of which is extraordinarily ill-educated.

  13. Posted February 26, 2017 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    When the term lugenpresse became fashionable again, I knew there was little hope for comity.

    Sean Spicer and Bannon are bad enough without having to be terrorized on an hourly basis by the apoplectic instability of Pumpkin Pinochet.

    • FA
      Posted February 27, 2017 at 5:43 am | Permalink

      Then why did they feel the need to apologise for their reporting after the election?

  14. Ken Kukec
    Posted February 26, 2017 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    … even the good gray Times is becoming somewhat less than objective. But of course what’s happening in our government may have made me mistake rancor for objective press coverage of pervasive idiocy.

    What Hunter Thompson said about objective journalism and Richard Nixon holds true in spades for Donald Trump:

    Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism — which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. … [He} was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.

    Trump’s pussy-grabbing exploits already caused The Gray Lady to abandon its masthead pledge regarding “the news that’s fit to print.” Now, The Times has seen fit to slip the bonds of of objective journalism to get into some self-defensive advocacy. Good for it.

    Desperate times, desperate measures.

    • Posted February 27, 2017 at 2:38 am | Permalink

      Thompson is an idiot.

      Nixon was brought down by reporters who revealed an objective truth about him and had the evidence to back it up.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted February 27, 2017 at 8:22 am | Permalink

        The quote isn’t about bringing down a president; it’s about how a piece-of-shit like Nixon (and, even more pertinently, like Trump) can slither into office in the first place.

        In running for the presidency, Trump’s only claim to fame was fame itself; he had zero qualifications for the office he was seeking other than “celebrity.” Yet the news media, following the principles of objective journalism, bent over backwards to be balanced towards him, rather than to expose him as a blatant impostor he so clearly was. (And the Republican party failed the nation because it was petrified that the Party’s only energy was coming from Trump’s hardcore alt-right base.)

        Oh, and Hunter Thompson authored the book that remains the gold standard by which presidential campaign journalism is measured.

  15. Craw
    Posted February 26, 2017 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    What a vacuous ad. What a petulant, peevish tweet.

    • Posted February 26, 2017 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

      Scarcely vacuous when the ruling bloc of the United States has to be reminded daily of such simple truths.

      So many non-self-evident truths rolling around DC these days.

  16. Posted February 26, 2017 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    “Trump is the social media president.”

    Can you imagine Trump giving a carefully thought out speech like Lincoln, or Obama? Me neither. If he wasn’t deficient before, his brain has been addled by the news sources he chooses chronically to watch. He speaks in strings of “tweets” or “sound bites” that come out as nonsensical. No wonder he uses Twitter. Being a person who loves poetry, I know it’s possible to be profound in short assemblages of words, like Haiku. But, can you imagine Trump coming up with a short, profound thought in such a form, or any other form? Me neither.

    He is the president for Fox News lovers and
    Tweeters.

    • Cindy
      Posted February 26, 2017 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

      Yep but it’s effective. The people who responded positively to Trump have done so because of the reach of social media.

      This is going to be an even bigger problem in 2020 when tweens become eligible to vote – these are people who use social media exclusively and have never ventured near CNN or the NY Times.

      The DNC needs to up it’s game and fast. The progressive element needs to appeal to young people. Bernie had something good going but the DNC went with the establishment-bought-off-by-corporations HRC instead. Bad move.

      • kesheck
        Posted February 26, 2017 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

        “Bernie had something good going but the DNC went with the establishment-bought-off-by-corporations HRC instead. Bad move.”

        On this, you and I are in complete agreement.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted February 26, 2017 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

      “Can you imagine Trump giving a carefully thought out speech like Lincoln …?”

      Hey, that reminds me of a tune from childhood:

      With the thoughts I’d be thinkin’
      I could be another Lincoln
      If I only had a brain

      — Scarecrow, The Wizard of Oz

      Trump should use it instead of “Hail to the Chief.”

  17. Randy schenck
    Posted February 26, 2017 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    I have been watching some of the Oscars tonight, usually I do not watch this. The political references so far have been good and not in bad taste. One winner from another country did a no-show and had another read a statement in support of the 7 countries that Trump banned. Kimmel made a funny point of recognizing Streep – very overrated actress and all that.

    • tomh
      Posted February 26, 2017 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

      There have actually been very few political references, I expected more. I thought it one of the better Oscar shows.

  18. Malgorzata
    Posted February 27, 2017 at 4:10 am | Permalink

    I have to admit that NYT talking proudly about the truth it is broadcasting to the public made me laugh. A few examples just from the one area I’m most interested in where NYT gave the public “fake news” or “alternative facts” which the paper was later forced to reluctantly admit were not the TRUTH:
    1. Tuvia Grossman, a Jewish American, ambushed in Jerusalem by a group of Palestinians and beaten to pulp. Saved by an Israeli policeman. NYT published a picture of blood covered Grossman, with the policeman standing over him, and a caption which stated that it was a picture of a Palestinian in confrontation with Israeli policeman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvia_Grossman
    2. “Jenin massacre” – a battle in which 54 Palestinians (mostly fighters) were killed was presented by mainstream media (NYT included) as an unprecedented massacre of civilians (up to 500 of them) by the Israeli army. Later UN investigation established the real facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin
    3. 11 children killed in Al-Shati refugee camp, which initially NYT and other media accused Israel for, turned out to be victims of a rocket fired by Hamas. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article4392976.ece
    4. Pictures of a grieving father with the body of his baby son, Omar Misharawi, shared widely in NYT and mainstream media. Israel was accused for killing this baby. Later investigation established that the baby was killed by a Hamas rocket. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/12/palestinian-rocket-killed-baby-gaza
    5. And the last example, not from NYT but from CNN, but showing the same tendency: when 2014 Jerusalem synagogue was attacked, four Jews inside and an Israeli policeman (a Druze) were killed, CNN had a line on the screen: “Deadly attack in Jerusalem mosque”. Obviously, the journalist was so used to treating Muslims as victims and Israelis as perpetrators that he (probably) automatically changed “synagogue” to “mosque”.
    This is just a tiny sample of “fake news” and “alternative facts” disseminated for years by NYT and other mainstream media. I do not believe that the same ideological bias and “group think/echo chamber” mentality is not behind reporting from other areas I’m not so well acquainted with.

    • phoffman56
      Posted February 27, 2017 at 6:35 am | Permalink

      Not a single direct reference to NYTimes here. And for any of yours which are not themselves ‘genuinely fake’ info, in particular not a single reference to any retraction by NYTimes.

    • Posted February 27, 2017 at 11:19 am | Permalink

      “Reluctantly admit the truth…”. Well, a) it appears even you admit they corrected the record (that’s a rarity for non-MSM outlets, wouldn’t you say?) and b) you have totally failed to present any kind of case that says it is standard practice for the NYTbto deliberately present a slanted view.

      It can certainly happen that reporters and editors make errors. This is not prima facia evidence that it is deliberate. It is cherry picking your view though.

      • Malgorzata
        Posted February 27, 2017 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

        Those were just a few blatant examples where NYT just had to admit the truth. There are many more and the truth was not admitted. Besides studies were done comparing coverage of Israeli and Palestinian actions and it was found biased. For example:
        Honest Reporting, 6 month study of NYT’s covering Palestinian/Israeli conflict – 2007: http://honestreporting.com/new-york-times-6-month-study-2/
        CAMERA, 6 month study of NYT covering Israelis/Palestinians – 2011 http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=2351

        There are many shocking examples, as when NYT ran a picture above an article about the killing of a young soldier asleep on a bus by a Palestinian terrorist; the picture was of the terrorist’s distraught mother (but not the mother of the 19-year old victim). Or the glowing report with pictures from a village, Nabi Saleh, without mentioning many terror actions carried out by its inhabitants – among them, Ahed Tamimi, the organizer of the Sbarro massacre, where 15 Israelis were killed (8 children among them). Ahed Tamimi is hailed as hero in this village.`These are just a few examples off the top of my head.

        • Cindy
          Posted February 27, 2017 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

          And did they only admit the truth because their lies were pointed out?

          • Malgorzata
            Posted February 27, 2017 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

            Yes, and in many cases the original article was on the front page while the correction was hidden somewhere deep into the paper.

    • Filippo
      Posted February 27, 2017 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

      I try to read or at least scan the NY Times daily. Perhaps I should read the WSJ for contrast. I’m afraid it would just pile up in another corner. I make noises about completing one or more books. (As former NY Times editor Howell Raines put it, “One either works at the NY Times or reads it, not both.”)

      NY Times reporters (and/or editors?) make it rougher on me to support the paper when they presume to tell readers how something “seems” to the reporter, or presume to include wording beginning with “perhaps” or “possibly,” speculating on the cause of something, is not objective reporting but opinionating. If you don’t know it for a fact, then acknowledge it. Readers know how to speculate.

      Neither is telling readers, as if it were a profoundly evident fact, that someone or something is “odd” or “bizarre” or “unlikely” or “bizarre.” By whose precious standard? Nothing but opinionating, borderline bloviating. The other day a reporter stated that the White House press secretary was to the effect verbally “slapping” reporters (with whatever he was “slapping” them). Of course, the media themselves could not possibly “slap” anyone, eh?

      Reporters tell readers that it took “days” for something to happen, except when, on the other hand, it took “only days” for something else to happen. Same with saying it will take “years” (can’t tell us approx. how many?) or that it will cost “billions” (can’t tell us how much?) to complete and pay for some project.

  19. HaggisForBrains
    Posted February 27, 2017 at 5:34 am | Permalink

    sub

  20. Posted February 27, 2017 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    Ya know, i really didn’t take that as an attack on Trump. It was more, IMO, a statement of the importance of separating facts from misinformation. If the source of misinformation happens to be the Trump administration, well then that’s how it is.

    In any case, i think it’s fine to make the statement that truth is the primary concern of good journalism. I like the ad.

  21. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted February 27, 2017 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    The entertainment industry is far better at political satire than it is at straight political commentary, IMO.

    • tomh
      Posted February 27, 2017 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

      What was wrong with what little political commentary there was at the Oscars?

  22. Diane G.
    Posted February 28, 2017 at 1:41 am | Permalink

    sub


%d bloggers like this: