Donald Trump and the Press: Why Coverage Matters

Except that Trump is already a fairly well known quantity. How will even more reporting on Trump unearth new information the public will deem relevant?

His antics have been chronicled in the tabloids for decades, what could possibly come out about Trump that hasn't already?

Face it, Trump is a showman; a well practiced carnival barker expert at drumming up interest in dubious side shows.

The rest of the GOP field are like dodo's in his path, seeking to be fed crumbs, and inviting a clubbing.

The awkward efforts of other GOP candidates to out-Trump Trump, like destroying cell phones or chain-sawing the tax code come across as desperate, wooden, stiff, awkward and worst of all, unfunny.

When you start adding up the percentages available to Trump in a general election, from the GOP, marginalized Dems, and the great uncounted non-participating voters who sit out the elections from disgust over the process, there's more than enough available voting power to be planning a Trump inaugural.

Trump's rise, is a reflection of the failure of traditional politicians to govern responsibly. Trump doesn't seem to offer any practical alternative to politics as usual. But "the usual" has proven so toxic, the idea of a 'protest vote' increasingly has its charms. I couldn't do it, but I can imagine it.

Of these 4 polls that came out this week, only one was publicized. Guess which one ?

Trump leads among all GOP candidates.

Walker leads in Iowa

Clinton leads Trump by 16 points head to head

Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 21 points head to head

My point is there is some serious cherry picking going on here in order to legitimize this guy. Not one Bush Trump head to head poll ? Not one Walker Trump head to head ? Not one ? Press, give America a break !!!

Journalists and the media have FAILED at covering any political candidate and elections for years, NYT included. The issues --- like illegal immigration, wage inequality, congestion leading from poor traffic policy (like Bloomberg's and DeBlasio's bike lanes), consequences of trade deals and others --- are "analyzed" by the press to tell, us, the public the "strategy" and "interactions" and "viability.," This fills in for the real news of what this candidate proposes to deal with issues or solve the problems.

When I stop hearing or reading pundits and "analysts" opinions on what candidate they want to promote, rather than the issues of the nation and how each candidate is reacting and planning for them, THEN AND ONLY THEN will I pay attention to the major media in helping me make an informed decision.

Journalists need not "agonize" over how to handle Donald's Trump's candidacy but they might want to agonize over why the issues resonate with a segment of the population. They might do better agonizing over the declining importance the public places in major media as they continually ignore the issues in favor of the "strategy" and "backstories" that mean nothing to the public.

So how does a judged non-"serious" candidate with important ideas to share, that we need to hear, get coverage?

What gives the media the right to even make this judgment?

Just another barrier to social innovation.

The basic assumption here needs to be questioned.

If it's a question of limited media resources, do we really need flocks of reporters to cover the current media favorite?

I don't know any Democrat who wants Hillary Clinton to be the nominee, yet the media acts like she is the inevitable choice. Why is candidate Gov. Martin O'Malley seldom mentioned? He has outstanding qualifications to be president and none of the toxic baggage of the tiresome Clintons. Let us hear what the other four candidates have to say on the issues. We already know what (rehearsed) Hillary has say. Stop trying to create the final two 2016 presidential nominees!

It used to be the job of journalists to report the news, not create the news, not judge the news. We can make our own judgments without being spoon-fed what you journalists want us to think. The press is more powerful than the politicians these days. Too many members of the press are nothing more than gossip-mongers and celebrity ambulance-chasers.

Here's an idea. Why don't news media give close scrutiny to the public statements and positions of Bernie Sanders and see if it makes his popularity with potential voters rise or fall?

Maybe Upshot ought to scrutinize the issue that Trump has highlighted: immigration?

"Journalists make initial determinations about which candidates deserve the most attention on the basis of their perceived likelihood of being a serious player in the race."

There's the fundamental problem.

Report declared candidates' stances on issues, policy, leadership experience and leadership qualifications. Point out statements which are not evidence-based. Critique on the strength of their position arguments.

That should keep journalists and the public busy.

To believe in political polls, even well-conducted ones by reputable polling companies, is like taking the temperature of the air inside your house, and determining from it what the temperature outside is going to be a week from now. Donald Trump is a bomb-throwing blowhard who will never be elected President of the United States.

Americans choose their Presidential candidates carefully, but not this early in the election cycle. Those paying attention now like political theater, and rhetorical excitement, and Trump provides plenty of both. Anybody who thinks this creature of the media is a serious, national level political candidate is kidding themselves.

Trump will be gone from the Presidential race by next March, if not long before then. It is too expensive and too time-consuming a process for a gadfly like him to be in it for the long haul. He likes attention and is getting it in spades right now. This is what he and those paying attention to him want at this point in the political game. Despite whatever he says and believes, he is not a serious contender, and never was.

When all is said and done, most Americans will be sick through and through of campaigning. We are being smothered by it. It is becoming a media triumph which will start in earnest with the debate debacle upcoming.

At age 78, I am sick of it all, but don't mistake that as meaning I won't vote. I certainly will, but to get to a decent candidate will take a lot of screening (and shoveling).

In his comment, Realworld suggests we limit campaigning to 10 weeks. What a great idea. Now that's an idea I'd happily vote for.

Americans and the American media want their politicians safe and predictable. The politician must listen to the crowd and then declare their "beliefs" calculated to please the most voters. THAT is the measure of a successful politician in our country.

I think what Mr. Cohn says here is largely true, pedestrian, but true. If the media wanted to set its (their, your?) sights on a truly useful goal you would help us really understand and talk to people like Linda and Jonathan, rather than simply dismissing them.

Scrutiny? A value-added service of the media? Trump is getting most of the coverage because the media covers republicans differently from democrats. It literally fixates on republicans down to their traffic violations and school loan decades ago.

Consider that it refuses to cover Bernie Sanders but is obsessed with Donald Trump. If it could it would also hold every republican responsible for everything Trump says. It would never hold Hillary responsible for anything Sanders said, or vice versa. That wouldn't make sense.

And, yet, that is how republicans are treated by the media.

Republicans have gotten smarter. They are not allowing themselves to be held accountable for Trump. Nor should they ever be responsible for the words of another person. If only the media thought so.

Mr. Trump's possible run for president as an independent, should he not get the Republican nomination, would be the best possible scenario for Mrs. Clinton, as such a run would suck away the votes of those Republicans who think their party is becoming too centrist.

Up here in Maine, we have a term for that: the Republican nominee would be "Cutlured." We experienced that twice in our latest governors' races, when the independent candidate for governor, Eliot Cutler, syphoned enough Democratic votes away to allow Republican Paul LaPage to win.

In my opinion getting to the media is everything. Especially if you are running a campaign and you are trying to get people to vote for you. You don't have to necessarily tell lies when you are running for a campaign but you have to tell the truth in what you are going to do. Most importantly you have to get your word across to people. Everybody now is on social media so what better place to get your word across then on the internet.

Donald Trump is a smart businessman who can not be bought. He can be brash when he speaks the truth, but he is the bold leader that America needs. Trump understands the system and the corruption and knows how to change it. That really scares the banks and multi-national businesses who are currently fully in control of our country. Trump can make America great again!

The dreadful state of American politics and the ridiculously long election cycle could be helped by:
– Making voting compulsory (as in Australia). Everyone gets involved.
– Limiting the campaigning period down to 10 weeks maximum, reducing the need for the gigantic level of funding required (as in the UK). Limited time focuses attention on issues, not gotcha politics and personalities.
– Ordering the TV networks (who have the privilege of using the frequencies owned by the people) to transmit a certain number of policy statements of presidential candidates without charge.
In this environment, the clown car/reality show candidates like Trump have to quickly put up–or shut up rather than hijacking the process as a program for personal profile building. It happens this way across most of the G7 but it won't happen in the USA of course. That would be SOCIALISM !

Maybe, the journalists feel that everyone knows all about Donald's trashy, trashy life.
What journalists don't understand about GOP voters is that they really don't care what a candidate's life or career tell them about character or capacity to do the job.
The ONLY thing the GOP voters care about is whether the candidate tells them what they want to hear.
The journalists who cover national politics don't live in Red states and that hinders them in ways they can't imagine.

The fact that Trump is so popular speaks to the sad state of the public's relationship with politicians. As we've seen with Bernie Sanders, Americans are desperate for an honest dialogue about our county's problems.

Trump has taken the "honesty is the best policy" approach one step further bolstered by his notoriety and reputation for outlandishness. It's as if he were shouting "Hey, I may be crazy, but I say what I think." That's as bulletproof a strategy as you'll find in the current political climate. The media may as well call him "Teflon Don." As for me, I'm still holding on to the hope that eventually something will stick.

Perhaps there is a difference with Trump, or for generic purposes, candidates with previous high name recognition. An unvetted flash in the pan with zero name recognition like Cain is possibly comparing apples and oranges with long time public figure Trump, who's less likely to have a meltdown moment like Howard Dean or Gov. Oops. Voters are already familiar with his outlandish statements and basic positions.

It would be interesting if previous name recognition or public favorability was a contributing factor in the flash and fade size and length of poll surges.

Prioritizing the use of your resources makes sense, but it puts a stamp of approval on some candidates and marks others as losers and that is not the role of a journalist.

The comparison of Trump to Herman Cain seems to be a mainstream wish by the media that he will just melt away. But, unlike Cain. Trump is savvy in the media. He's well experienced and much more well known than Cain.
Most everyone in the country knows Donald Trump. He has a great many fans. His brand is impeccable. He has a strong message, one that the politicians do not want to accept or deal with. He is routinely castigated in the media because people want to paint him as a racist rather than face the bigger more important issues of border control or fences among other things such as bought and paid for politicians that do not represent their constituents.
The fact that a journalist has to agonize over how to cover Mr. Trump is indicative that they don't want to cover him because they don't like his message. Likewise the statement that the media must decide who is serious in a presidential race is also troubling.
We are at a time in our history where the social and economic policies are basically tearing the country apart and causing division at ever level of society. We need a better way than what is taking place right now. And the media plays a greater part in it than even the president.

Herman Cain was about an individual candidate.

Donald Trump is about something different. He has put on the floor the idea that politicians should speak directly and openly about the real concerns of the voters, and not cover up all the worlds problems with bland platitudes. This may not be acceptable to the political class, but actual voters like it pretty well.