Will the liberal media help Trump in 2020? Yes, but not only in the ways you suggest in this article, and therein lies a problem.
I believe The New York Times did contribute to Trump’s 2016 victory; whether this contribution was decisive is impossible to say. In the run-up to the election, the Times printed daily polls, showing Ms. Clinton the sure winner, probably discouraging liberal voters from waiting hours on line to vote. The paper overemphasized the email scandal, because you were so proud of yourselves for having helped break the story. Talk about hubris.
But the liberal media did more. You emphasized and reemphasized identity politics. Ladies and gentlemen of the press: identity cuts both ways. To borrow Ms. Clinton’s infamous phrase, you continually characterized conservatives as “deplorables.” A good way to enrage Trump supporters is to put them down.
Most importantly, the liberal media has lost the respect of much of the news reading public. We don’t trust you any more. I read conservative media, including Fox News, as well as the NYT, simply because I no longer trust the Times and the WaPo as sources of complete, unbiased news coverage.
So yes, the media really does need to get its collective act together.
16
Why does the media even cover trump's tweets? They should be ignored, and so should he. Our nation would be the better for it.
42
Get real Bruni. Trump was covered by the mainstream media as America's bad boy -- the Fonz on the campaign trail and in the White House. Every repetition of Trump's name calling and tweets is a profit bonanza for the media. Watch the twitter feed, recap the tweet and ask for a response. It's lazy, low cost, high profit journalism.
You note, "readers and viewers, no matter how much they complain about the media’s shallowness, reward it." This is not accurate. The media's mind numbing reports do work. They have numbed the minds of readers and viewers who have stopped asking what has happened in the real world today and how will it affect my family and my life. They have started asking what has America's bad boy tweeted today.
Gerald Ford got some tough coverage from the mainstream media. Ford was photographed stumbling, bumping his head and generally showing that he could not chew gum and walk;
Where is the comparable coverage of Donald Trump?
24
Negative attention is still attention and that is the precious fuel that the media does indeed provide DT with, heaven help us, in “lavish measure”.
6
It does seem that the media has taken on an “accomplice”
role. Think about the Clinton/Obama race and the way the
“progressive” side fell in love with Obama. Wasn’t it Chris Matthews who said Obama sent shivers up his spine? In the last race I would say that the press was not terribly fond of Hillary,
bending over backward to dwell on negatives to balance the
insanity of Trump...an insanity that attracted people who
were/are disenfranchised, sexist and racist. We can say the same about the “right” endorsing Trump, denigrating traditional Republicans and being openly proud of their power.
It is important to take your role seriously because you make a huge difference. We are all paying a heavy price.
13
When the main purpose of the media is to make money, why would you expect anything to change? Expect more of the same in 2020.
19
If the media does it's job and doesn't enable and cater to the ego of the world's most insecure person, yes. If you aren't with him, you-are-against-him, and like a child, he takes it very personally.
4
One party is not interested in governing.
That is where the media need to go.
16
The media is the key to ending the shutdown. Somebody needs to pay a big sum of money to Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity to go on TV and tell the President to end the shutdown. They brought the shutdown about, and only they can end it.
4
Thank you, Frank Bruni, for this absolutely necessary assessment of the press' role in the 2016 and, soon, 2020 presidential campaign. I agree with all you say except this point:
"...the lure of less demanding labors (“Trump Calls Former Aide a Three-Toed Sloth Minus the Vigor!”) is always there, especially because readers and viewers, no matter how much they complain about the media’s shallowness, reward it. What they lap up most readily and reliably is Trump the Baby at the top of the newscast, Trump the Buffoon in the highlights reel, Trump the Bully in the headline. And that’s on them."
How can you place the blame on the public for "lapping up" Trump's venomous and insipid pablum when it's the media that streams it to us?
Viewers aren't asked to write the scripts for newscasts. Readers aren't copy editors at newspapers writing headlines. Viewers don't get to pick the talking head pundits who yell and jockey one another to make their partisan points. What's "on us" would be to stop reading or watching news outlets if we're to avoid such drivel. Is that what you're asking us to do?
No, it's *on the press* to step up and do their jobs better this election season...and beyond.
18
we're closer to blowing than winning it...see the depth of pelosi/schumer...playground taunts that wouldn't pass debate in a junior high civics class...see lemon, maddow, et al, and most of the op ed elite...still trapped in the fog of their rage at having blown it the first time.
nice to see that you've come around after some of your own excursions into...so let's get busy...the fight over the wall is just dumb, its not the money clearly, its the symbol...if i was a border agent, i'd rather oversees a few miles of wall (which could, btw be electrified at the top of/when necssary), than ride a jeep back and forth day and night, and if i was a homeless vet i'd rather eat than argue, and if i was a parent i'd rather have a good school than a holding pen, no matter the zip code, and if i were, as i am, a citizen, i'd like to see citizenship and the safety of its holders (see the preamble to the constitution) given due priority....isense no disagreement in any of these, only political posturing.
these and other issues in domestic and foreign policy should be the subject of formal debate in the congress and in the press...the opinionism we have in its place does no one any good.
3
Okay, everybody, just get to the library or bookstore and then read Neil Postman's 1985 book, "Amusing Ourselves to Death." Postman predicted what is happening.
5
Follow the money. From the sound of Mr. Bruni's article, it seems as if the media has once again, willingly sold its soul to the highest (or lowest) bidder for 2020. This self-created monster/savior has beaten the entire communications at its own game then allowed it to profit in a classic yet terribly sad parasitic relationship that has already begun to destroy the fabric of our democracy.
This is simply the latest version of bread and circuses, and we all know how that turns out.
8
As long as the media continues to focus on Trump but continues to ignore the Republican Party as the swamp that spawned him and embraces him, yes the media will fail us in 2020.
Trump can’t help being what he is - a sick, twisted sociopath. The party had a choice from the beginning - reject him. Instead he demolished everyone who ran against him for the nomination.
The media ate that up with the default horse race narrative, instead of recognizing it as a warning sign. They were supposedly the ‘best’ the party had to offer. Trump’s victory over them shows what the GOP really values.
The GOP has revealed the rot at its core by the way it has abandoned its so-called principles in the rush to ride on the dictatorial corruption Trump has unleashed. They know what he is but they cover for him.
Where is media attention on Mitch McConnell, who could end the shutdown by allowing the Senate to vote on funding bills they already passed once? Why the media respect for Lindsey Graham, who is now a Trump super-sycophant?
Until the media acknowledges that the real problem is the Republican Party, the media will continue to fail us. The GOP spent the last 50 years paving the way for Trump. They, the partisan ‘news’ machine that supports them, the dark money that powers them - all if it must be overthrown. That should be job one for the media.
17
So well done. This kind of thought and analysis is what I seek.
Only comment is too many words, tell your well expressed message a few times, then stop.
Michael Rapaport, Lake George, NY
1
Nope. Coverage will be even worse. It’s all about clicks, eyes and social media. Trump is outrageous, and the news media, especially TV, loves outrageous and is wholly dependent upon it to survive. It is Trump’s overwhelming advantage over everyone.
9
Lets stop pretending that Trump is a real President. Whether he is a Russian operative, which seems likely, or not. When I accidentally turn on NPR and hear people talking about the pros and cons of his policies, (as if) there are really any policies-it is mind boggling. Trump has been a boon to the media, as we all know, even as he is a disaster for our country. Stop publishing his tweets. Stop repeating the nonsense spouted by Trump, Sanders, Kellyanne and Giuliani. Stop discussing alternative facts and whether truth is truth. It is so 1984.
17
Got a good laugh seeing Dan Rather quoted here. The former king of ‘fake news’.
After reading this I realized Trump is right.
The media is the opposition party.
5
Great ideas but .....breathless reporting on Rashida Tlaib swearing was everywhere, supposedly serious journalists were asking why Trump hasn’t given Speaker Pelosi a nickname and it seems like more time is devoted to Elizabeth Warren’s likability than her policies. Looks like we are down the same rabbit hole as 2016.
16
With your opening line you have proved at least you will be President Trump's Accomplice. The president's tweets are not news they are lies (mostly), so do not cover them his rallies, lies so do not cover them, his meetings with reporters mostly lies. You have ways to cover him with out the insults but CNN is the Trump addict since they feel compelled to cover his every move with exhaustive "analysis". This President lies every day in almost every way but they cover him "live". If they stopped doing that when he lied maybe he might see the need to speak the truth otherwise the Media will help to reelect him with free media
6
Somewhere Alex deToqueville has slight smile. He understood as does Trump the weaknesses of democracy, the ways of the mob, bread and circuses. The media including the NYT used and continues to use Trump to attract readers but now it is not a cheap sideshow but the tipping point, the perfect storm, gruesome fascination.
6
You only have to look at the top three stories on home page of the app you’re reading-all about Trump. Unfortunately, even the best news sources we have left are incapable of fulfilling your reasonable request.
6
The big takeaway from the article: “When the whole news cycle was microphones shoved in Republican candidates’ faces and the question was always, ‘What’s your reaction to what Trump just said?,’ there’s no way to drive your own message.”
Not posting any photos of the man with articles would help. Not reporting Tweets until the end of a news cast would help to stop fueling the gaslighting being repeated by media ad nauseam.
9
The media does not wrestle with this. The media profits from each set of antics that this President conjures up.
In the same way that weathermen flock to the beach to cover incoming hurricanes, and how they lean in to the oncoming winds with that familiar, fake awe. For eyeball money.
Trump drives the media profits with his executive drama queen act and you guys play along. If reporters and columnists within the media truly don't want complicity the would. have to quit rather than criticize him. The critics just feed the troll.
You're covering every cheap stunt and Trump is signing your pay checks indirectly.
5
IMHO, media played a role in the election of DJT. 1 example: by the time the media stopped handwringing whether to call him a liar, it was too late.
The media did indeed fail us a second time (remember Iraq and WMD). I’m under no illusions......they will fail us again in 2020.
8
No mention of news organizations' complicit facilitation of Wikileaks and their release of hacked Clinton and DNC emails.
Did it ever strike news organizations as obviously nefarious that Wikileaks was only releasing emails unfavorable to Clinton and the DNC?
Did news organizations question why Wikileaks never hacked and released information from the RNC before they went ahead and published/publicized the Clinton/DNC emails? If they did, did they conclude that Wikileaks had hacked the RNC and found nothing of interest to release?
Anyone with a lick of commonsense would see that Wikileaks had an agenda.
It was the height of journalistic ignorance and an abject failure of journalistic ethics that they did not realize or consider that they were being used to collude with Wikileaks.
9
If you don't cover the news, someone else will. You know it. They know it. So you will continue to cover Trump, because you have no choice in the matter. That's your job. Don't blame Trump. Blame the American culture which produced him. And the political system which places responsibility for its representatives solely in the hands of its voters. We made them all.
1
Commenting on this opinion piece solely for the purpose of revisiting it periodically in the next couple years to see whether Mr. Bruni's own paper and other respectable outlets like the Washington Post and the Los Angeles heed this good advice.
And, it will be very interesting to see whether Mr. Bruni heeds his own advice.
2
The media coverage helped Trump win and the same media want to cover Trump so he loses. "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry."
My habit was to turn off the sound and sometimes the TV whenTrump appeared (still do) and I noticed that I was hardly watching or listening at all during the campaign. He really scammed the media.
4
My digital subscription of the NYT ends in a couple of weeks. I am not renewing. For the past three years I have seen how this newspaper, despite some effort by some reporters, has continued to hang on every word and movement of Donald Trump. Since the election I have gradually given up FB, Twitter, CNN, MSNBC, NPR and am limiting myself to PBS and the SF Chronicle. The NYT’s coverage of the 2016 election was despicable with no in-depth coverage of Donald Trump’s world (why was Haberman hired?) and day by day breathless reports on Clinton’s emails. My head hurts and I long for the quiet news reporting of days gone by where everything was not a big deal and bombastic in nature.
My New Year’s resolution is less “news” more book reading and podcasts and the transition has not been difficult.
6
"Instead, we should hold on to the most outrageous, unconscionable moments. We should pause there awhile. "
We already know that Trump is an oafish boar. Why should we spend any time whatsoever covering his currently worst moment? There's always going to be something worse. Instead, we should focus only on his policy pronouncements (or lack thereof). Only then will the coverage be equitable.
2
As Trump's primetime Oval Office address proved, the media will continue to be suckered again and again by Trump. The media had no reason to broadcast this, and the media knew that going in.
6
The media under Trump has revealed itself for all to see to be what many suspected--simply a propaganda arm of the left who will edit videos, and make up stories to foster their agenda. Good luck getting people to trust you again.
1
"Our success or failure will affect our stature at a time of rickety public trust in us."--Frank Bruni
"Rickety" public trust?
How about NO public trust?
1
Thanks for this elaborate editorial. I for one believe that early career journalists (bloggers turned journalist) used Mr Trumps nonsensical tweets to break through since all they do is retweet and write about it, and with editors who do not want to be left off the mouse click metric's of Google/twitter/ Facebook or other data analytics of most visited news webpage or links , not providing restraint and editorial judgement in 2016 and the years after, we are now at the mercy of a possible Russian agent in the oval office. Media Organization must use the editorial powers and focus on substantive issues like National debt, Health Care and National security. Media should not report on the tweets, and should delay live feeding his rally's so as to point out Mr Trumps outrageous and stupid lies and not even air it if they could. Once the lies are out of the bag, reeling them in and stating they are 10 pinocchio's does not put them in check or correct the lies, it only amplifies the lies which in turn allows people to compensate and rationalize it in other to balance it, rather than pointedly calling it deceiving and a Lie.
3
Frankly, the NY Times does more than its fair share of advocacy journalism. One goes where the muck is and then reports upon it. There's just more muck of late. And if the president of the United States behaves like a 5th grader or gives people derisive monikers and tweets outrageous lies, well that IS news, whether Bruni likes it or not. Reporting it is the media's job.
People don't trust media UNLESS it echoes back to them their POV and THAT is the problem. We live in a society of people with a sense of entitlement and their own specialness and everyone thinks the guy next door is getting more than they are. We are a polarized, angry nation who thinks everyone but his or her self is to blame.
Solve that one Frank, and we'll be fine.
2
If Trump is still around in 2020, we are doomed.
6
This piece’s opening line, intentionally ironic (I guess), is the perfect example of how those of you in the media just can’t help yourselves . . . What Trump’s selling, like it or not, you’re buying. It’s comical.
2
Good grief. What a lede. Herein lies journalism’s challenge. Choose wisely. Please.
Starve the fire of air. Stop giving trump's stupid tweets and hateful, spiteful rhetoric any coverage at all. The primary focus should be on the changes that have been and continue to be enacted by legislation, regulation or executive action and the resulting direct and indirect consequences. The media is supposed to present accurate and unbiased coverage. What we have now is a 3-ring circus with trump as the ringmaster. Enough.
3
You end the article with the sermon: "Nicknames have nothing to do with it. So let’s not have much to do with them."
So why did you start the article with "Pocahontas?"
The media simply cannot resist Mr. Trump's catnip. Pathetic.
3
Dodgy Donald.....
Dodges his taxes
Dodges the draft
Dodges the truth
Dodges his responsibility to the American people
Dodges the Constitution
The only think he doesn't dodge is the call from Vladimir Putin.....
3
The real title of this article should be: "Will the Media put Principle ahead of Money in 2020?".
The answer, of course, is no. When has that every happened, even at the New York Times?
3
You get a “second chance” every day. Did you blow it this time?
The cost of the health care my wife and I are on just went up another $6,000/yr. Now it’s $20,580/yr. with $5,000 deductible. Where’s the headline?
5
So many words to express such utter nonsense.
You've been practicing Journalistic Yoga again.
Journalistic Yoga: extreme logical contortion combined with blissful dissociation from reality.
3
The media already is Trump's accomplice. I noted that CNN's John King, this morning, says we have to give the President something toward his idiotic and obscene border wall. The media also needs to stop covering Trump's tweets. He wants and lives for the oxygen and limelight they generate. The media needs to deny him the oxygen.
5
EVERY MEDIA PERSON SHOULD BE FORCED TO READ THIS
3
The media will be an accomplice of the Trump Soap any time.
Of course, they live by selling copies and clicks.
And the story is way to gripping to look away.
Just like they said in a documentary about Howard Stern:
Researcher: The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes. Pig Vomit: How can that be? Researcher: Answer most commonly given? "I want to see what he'll say next." Pig Vomit: Okay, fine. But what about the people who hate Stern? Researcher: Good point. The average Stern hater listens for two and a half hours a day. Pig Vomit: But... if they hate him, why do they listen? Researcher: Most common answer? "I want to see what he'll say next."
And it's true, the media has a new star, regardless of the travesty of a presidency they have to sell.
And people will be unable to look the other way.
This sub genre is called "social porn" and it sells like the real thing, probably even better.
Trump already has his own media called Fox.
4
A second chance? A SECOND CHANCE?!?
How are you counting?
2
Indisputably, we need a return to good journalism, not least at The New York Times, across the board not just in coverage of the presidency and elections.
But this article is not an example of what's needed. It is simply an exhortation and wannabe primer for more effective advocacy. It is yet another example of the proclivity to hyperbolize, partisanly frame and characterize vs report.
The media does indeed have an obligation that it is not meeting. But Mr. Bruni's argument for a more clever oppositional strategy does not represent the solution.
Also please note that I am not making a case in favor of the current President and administration but against the media making itself a fifth columnist branch of government (the fourth branch being the permanent bureaucracy).
2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html?utm_term=.b79b3111f7d9
This headline should read, "Trump keeps details of meetings with Putin to himself only, refusing to share with anyone else for fear of exposure." Present tense please!! There's nothing to indicate this problem has been met and solved!
It is pitifully obvious that Mattis, Pompeo and all the other eunuchs who comprise Trump's box of props for his virtual reality "government," have been gently pressuring their fearful leader trying to pry the notes of his his meetings with Putin away - those notes that still exist. And it is equally painfully evident that they have not succeeded. Not only because Trump is engaged in active treason and is beholden to Putin, though there is that, but also because the Sun King Trump doesn't what the light of day shining on whatever breeches of past agreements and treaties he has already stupidly, ignorantly, and perhaps illegally conceded in betraying our allies. That would be embarrassing, the worst thing of anything in little Donny's box of imaginary punishments.
The Times should be following up on this story. We are talking about a scenario where the POTUS has entered secret agreements known only to himself. And treason. That's newsworthy, more than hand-wringing over giving Trump ink.
4
For 2020? Right now! Corporations pay journalists. Producers tell media anchors what to say, move on, etc. Outspoken non-FOX media critics lose assignments or get cancelled. There is an over-arching greed and need for media in America be capitalists i.e., make a profit and as much as possible, now. If it paid off before, do more of it. Media announced it. Trump was "good for profits!"
There was hit-back media coverage that Trump was 1) a liar, 2) amoral and 3) all for himself i.e., Trump WAS/IS a very skilled con-artist. As a POTUS contender Trump had the gift of the gab and the spectacle jab so media played him over and over. Media's repetition of Trump reinforced his "acting" and visibility. Others followed. Trump was playing and media was getting paid. Or do what? State that Trump is a con-artist, a liar, amoral? Only alternative media were doing that continuously. No thanks to the NY Times (NYT). The NYT played Trump and America got played as a result.
NYT readers complained in these very comment areas to stop denigrating Clinton i.e., going the hype route and to stop featuring Trump's antics. Everyone did not expect that Clinton would win. There were ABC (anyone but Clinton) Americans. Plenty. Agreed, she got plenty of negative media in the NYT.
NYT's journalists and opinion writers are realizing it now or the NYT is trying to redeem itself from having influenced Americans to consider Trump. Mr. Blow was there from Day 1 as were most NYers. We knew Trump's folly.
2
Starve the beast and refuse to allow the president to make a reality show out of being president. The media has this control, just say no.
2
Agreed! Meanwhile the Times publishes another "Twitter article" about Trump responding to the newly discovered FBI investigation. It's hard to describe in words how sick and tired I am of the pandering coverage we get from the news media.
6
How about starting with many fewer photographs. The "presidential" image has become become vulgar.
1
How utterly ridiculous! A media that elevates Beto O’Rourke and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (with her rockstar moniker of AOC) is worrying about enabling Donald Trump and his schoolyard name calling? Here’s an experiment for the media.....it may be hard, but I’m confident it can be done....report the facts...only the facts...of what each candidate says on the campaign trail and let the American public figure it out fir themselves.
9
At last! Stop enabling the Republican’s con job! Constantly watching amd covering his outrageous and illegal behavior is distracting people from the true rip off.
Trump is the shill, the distraction. We are appalled, insulted and overwhelmed by the relentless tirade of lies, bigotry, self dealing.
So, on cue we react express our endless, unbounded umbrage.
WE and the media act as the marks in this con!
Meanwhile, while we are distracted watching the clown,theRepublic Senate and their greed head constituents stack the courts, gut environmental regulations, allow the supression of voter out turn, redirect and make the Federal government a transfer mechanism for greater wealth to the 1%.
3
“House of Trump, House of Putin” by Craig Unger is the book journalists should have read two years ago. Most of them, it
is so obvious, did not. Their ignorance of basic facts and connections has resulted in the widespread skewed version of reality we are presented with daily. When an attack on our country by Russia is called “meddling” and someone who was
clearly every inch a fascist gets into and stays in our White House, American journalists now pretend innocence and surprise.
They are also now claiming that the public won’ t care or realize we got Benedict Arnold in 2016. When they say “the public” they
don’t mean the actual majority, the electoral majority.
Will the journalists ever catch up?
2
All I want is for one reporter, just one, to ask a follow up question when Trump or a Trump supporter makes a ridiculous statement: Why do you say that? On what information is your assertion based? Where is the evidence of that? Sadly, I doubt that will happen. Trump will say the Pope is a corrupt Martian, and everyone will cover it with absolutely no follow up or probing. And Trump supporters will believe another Trump lie.
5
The alt-left media and Hollywood have lost their minds since Trump announced he was running for President. They did everything they could do to destroy him as they are all Liberals and Trump is not. To report for two years and 24/7 about Trump Russia collusion with no evidence of any kind is just one of the reasons that the media is truly the enemy of the people. There to mislead and distort rather than report the news. How about doing a NYTs story about the 418 children in 2018 who died on the desert being dragged across the border at night to try and sneak into the US. Aren't the parents guilty of child abuse? Nothing to see here.
3
He demeans the failing fake press press...Let him live
without its coverage of his antics... We would all be better off.
1
While there is no doubt that all things Trump, are a constant/lucrative draw for the mainstream media, in particular CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and other media including the NY Times, Washington Post, and the Guardian, be very aware that these outlets, while exposing with some honesty, the reality of the Trump nightmare, they are also deeply engaged in massive manipulation of what we the people perceive as truth.
Mainstream media, partners with forces within our corporate owned government, to feed the population a diet of sensationalism, designed to manage perception and take the focus off our corporate owned governments' real agenda of disenfranchisement of the people.
The pervasiveness of this 24/7/365 disinformation campaign, is so successful, few seek clarification of reporting, by going to independent sources, such as The Intercept.
Following are links to Intercept reports by Glenn Greenwald of Snowden fame, reports which call out NBC, MSNBC, and the Times, for failing to confirm supposedly blockbuster reports on Trump/Manafort/Russian collusion, and in fact one can only conclude that these touted as true reports, are entirely false.
See several reports at the Intercept -
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://theintercept.com/&ved=2ahUKEwi4rOv26-rfAhWQrFkKHXEdDIsQFjAAegQIBhAD&usg=AOvVaw1v_EDPBW-tfBEazCZ9OYLr
2
The Donald is your creation, from an inane reality show with a no- talent huckster "firing" contestants to the outrageous buffoon currently residing at Pennsylvania Avenue. America has glommed onto the mindless "reality" offerings, wherein we revel in peoples' most intimate issues, like sport. Comments on an article yesterday about the pains,being felt in farm country (Trump supporters) , including "you reap what you sew...." is appropos here as well. We created this monster, by providing him with a captive audience, which continues to this day. You can suffocate him by ignoring him. I am trying. He is not allowed in our home where WE control the media. You can do that too.
4
If nicknames ”have nothing to do with it", as you state in your last sentence, why did you begin the piece by repeating the vile nickname he has used for Senator Warren. An argument could be made that you became his accomplice again, which leads me to think that some in the media will indeed fail their second chance.
7
Frank, the Times is already blowing it again.... right now!!!!
All of the media is completely ensnared in this “wall” baloney. Right now we should be focusing on where in the world is Mitch McConnell, and why won’t he and his minions take up House legislation to reopen the rest of the government, while they debate immigration reform? Instead, they and the media are AGAIN allowing Trump to dominate the conversation, and hold peoples lives hostage. Where is Mitch? Why is this amoral, power grabber allowed to abdicate any responsibility for this? I want to see stories about that!
10
Frank Bruni: Exactly. Let's stop watching TV and read more. TV is lowest hanging fruit with no research past Wednesday's assault.
2
The media have been Trump's accomplices for years. Are you just now noticing?
3
Bruni should be investigating the coup d'etas by the FBI and DOJ against a duly elected president.
1
Keeping Trump front and center for years gave him the election and they’ll do it again.
The NYT, CNN etc all cannot stop their trump fetish.
4
Heading towards the next election cycle, I do hope New York Times, and the mainstream news media generally, will finally make a genuine attempt to focus more on issues and less on soap operatics.
4
I refuse to click on stories that tease with a headline like ... "so and so DESTROYS Trump on Twitter!"
1
Opinion pieces aside I don’t want carefully contrived political stories from The Times, CNN,MSNBC
Facebook or any reporting agency including Dan Rather who brought himself down by doing just that. Advise to the media.....Just report.
As long as media need a story to make money, Trump will provide that story
3
I think it is past time for the NYT and the rest of the so-called 'fake' media to jump on its major competitor and Trump supporter - Fox News. Someone in the bowels of NYT should be monitoring that 'news' channel 24/7 and run reports of the half-truths and fabrications to the newsroom. As long as the Murdoch empire behaves with impunity and little or no accountability for what it provides a gullible public as 'news,' the NYT and others will continually be viewed as 'fake news' by Trump and ultimately, by the American voter.
5
Frank has lost his mind with this column. The Harvard study he selectively quoted also found that 93% of Trump's coverage has been negative while he has been President. CNN has been on a jihad against Trump, with the Times and the Post right behind it. The hatred for Trump is visible among the left leaning denizens of the "objective" media. Frank also selectively quotes his old boss Abramson, who decries the Times' coverage of Trump as biased, and also commercially motivated as echo chamber liberals click on articles designed to amplify their hatred of POTUS. Democracy Doesn't Die in Darkness, but the media's credibility has completely collapsed under Trump. This may be Frank's worst column ever as it is completely divorced from reality.
4
The NYTimes headline from today about the "Non-Stop War for Survival" with its implication that Democrats are not doing legitimate oversight and just playing a political game highlights how the media keeps making this a horse-race. Enough already!
2
It isn't stupidity considering it worked. When addressing certain people that don't have clue about what makes a great government work all one has to do is catter to their selective needs. This is what that Russian group did when poking at all those people they got by nefarious means on social media. It's like those rediculous TV shows where how one dances supercedes their lack of other needed abilities to perform their tasks. It's not party specific though it seems to weigh heavily on the right side of the isle.
1
Frank,
I read your opinion and agreed with every word. I sincerely hoped that the industry would take your prayers to heart. Then I switched to CNN's website and saw that this was the headline of the lead story:
"Trump calls Joe Biden 'weak,' says Obama took him off the 'trash heap'"
Kind of ruined the moment...don't you think?
Mark (East Lansing, Michigan)
1
The mainstream media would never publish something they knew was an untruth. So why do they continue to bombard us with this President's lies?
They know the President lies. We all know the President lies. Therefore, it is not news when President Trump tweets a lie.
Report all the news that is fit to print. A lie told by this President is not a newsworthy event. Spare us! Please!
3
Nice new haircut, Mr Bruni.
Mrs. Clinton didn't need more media help than she got. She proved to be perfectly capable of losing by herself even though the NYT pushed as much as possible.
2
The very first word in your column shows you are still his accomplice.
While the rest of your essay is thoughtful, I almost didn't read it. I was disgusted that you used the insulting epithet Trump bestowed on Warren as an opening. It shows remarkable blindness to its significance.
A a regular reader of your column, I never thought I'd be saying this, but but the kindest interpretation I can come up with is that perhaps subconsciously you used that vile nickname as click bait. It's possible that despite the brave stands you take on issues affecting gay men subconsciously you share the misogyny so many white male commentators show when writing about Warren, Tlaib, AOC, Pelosi, HRC, etc.
Perhaps a little more self reflection is in order.
4
Excellent article!.......Media, HOW ABOUT STARTING NOW?
Why wait for the next election cycle???....Stop catering to Trump. Stop speculating, Stop writing about all his tantrums and outrageous behavior, etc. just stick to the actual facts of governing, stick to his policies, what ever that is, stay away from the histrionics.
The media are gossip mongers as that seems to be what sells ..............Plus Unfortunately it seems like most Americans are too. It's too hard and too time consuming to actually read an article like this one and look beyond the tweets....It's just too easy to read the short sound bites about his absurd antics.
Move on Media, do your job.................................
The Five W’s:
Who, what, when, where, and why. in the lead paragraph.
Let’s get back to basics in reporting, shall we?
FACTS not assumptions & opinions. Leave the opinions & how “this reporter feels” to the op-ed section.
3
Well liberals, only six more years of Donald as the president.
2
It's not Trump that seeks daily attention its the vultures in the media and their ever hungry buzzards eager for the next feed.
The media have already blown it by anointing Pelosi as the next drama queen as if she has all the power in the world to stop Trump. Pelosi will be a gift to the GOP in the next election and her house majority which is quite slim will likely evaporate to a GOP house and Senate majority again.
1
The NYTimes has a news quiz every weekend. So much has happened in the country and the world during the week that was supposedly covered. And every week as I go through the quiz, I marvel at how little these stories have been covered anywhere else. It's all Trump all the time.
Those most fawning for airtime with candidate Trump are now his loudest detractors. So yes. Stop covering him. But that won't happen. Because he's a gold mine.
2
You need to speak to your colleagues, who feel its more important to entertain us than inform us. Reporters should report and stop commenting. Leave the comments for the editorial page. Inform us with the news, in education, infrastructure, climate change etc.
4
You could start by not calling us the Rust Belt. The Midwest is much more than that, and this is one of the most irritating expressions of East Coast bias.
4
Wise and eloquent words but three years too late.
4
Finally someone has written an article about how to decrease a persons particularly destructive behavior, by ignoring it. Thank you mr Bruno, you have used your platform effectively!
Trump will be under indictment, charged with treason, and very possibly on the lam in Moscow by the dawn of 2020.
It may be Pence running or some other lying Republican, but I don't think Trump will survive what Mr. Mueller and his team have coming for him.
2
I shudder reading this article. My stomach clenched before the 2016 election because I saw how the media was playing into Trumps hands. And although I'm glad Obama was our president, I watched the media do the same thing during the primaries between Hillary and Obama. Gotcha questions about Hillary on the air and large headlines about ridiculous statements made by Trump and equalizing that which is not equal had a strong effect on the outcomes. Responsible and intelligent journalists and newscasters may learn from what they did in the past. If not we're doomed to repeat its results.
3
amanda carpenter and other republicans who supported gutting the fairness doctrine deserve no respect or sympathy for their call 'balanced coverage'.
they made their bed. let them lie in it. in every sense of the word.
1
I went in to this editorial with high hopes for some productive introspection on the part of "the media." But how disappointing to discover that Mr. Bruni's analysis seems to conclude, in broad strokes, that we simply need more negative coverage of Donald Trump. This is so tangentially close to the obvious and central conclusion that Bruni should have drawn, yet so agonizingly far away. Listen up journalists! Stop. Covering. Trump. So. Much.
Stop covering every famous politician so much. Stop covering their rhetorical sales pitches, and stop covering their "morality". I have read endless coverage on the hostility of Trump and his lackeys when it comes to the environment or foreign policy. Accompanying all this bluster about superficial notions of right vs. wrong, there has been shockingly little coverage of the moneyed interests that are really driving these horrible policies. Only children obsess about moral black and white while largely ignoring the rational, mechanical underpinnings of a situation.
This preference for soundbites over substance has invaded all media political analysis, not just the Trump coverage. Who cares whether Elizabeth Warren threw shade at billionaires in her latest stump speech? We need to know whether she has developed any attainable policies to get corporate money out of politics. I know all too much about Warren's fumbling of her genetic ancestry and precisely nothing about her actual platform for Native American policy. The list goes on. Help!
1
A quick aside:
Like so many Trump-branded things, the "Pocahontas" slur was lifted from others. It originated during Senator Warren's first campaign. Some Scott Brown supporters started following Warren around, making what they considered "war-whoops" and generally insulting her. It cost Brown his nice-guy image, and showed how little his campaign had to offer.
2
This is a great column with so many good suggestions. I think journalists need to dig deeper for better stories that aren't
centered on Trump's tweets. If Trump tweets something truly significant, then question a Democrat (or a Republican if he is primaried) about the issue that Trump has raised in the tweet. Always give equal time to opposing views. And giving his tweets less press time is a great idea too.
I also wonder if Trump's nicknaming will continue to work so well. It was a novelty when he first started it, but for me, I just gloss over them. They truly mean nothing. And I think Trump can be nicknamed too. I've heard many, such a Drumpty Dumpty. Sorry I can't help this. "Drumpty Dumpty sat on a wall"
Coverage of Trump is a vicious downward spiral. It's like watching a house burn down. We don't like it but we can't take our eyes off it.
I'd gladly read and write about Trump less, if only the media would stop giving him the attention he craves, trying to second guess his every mood and move, when even he doesn't know what he will do next.
Feeling the need to remain informed, one never knows what article can be skipped and what is a "must read."
1
Even Trump didn't believe he would be elected president.
4
Trump succeeded during the primaries in part to massive free time on cable news. He provides a real challenge for the press now. Even Fox failed to air one or two of his tent revival mid term acts.
He continues to prosper because the CNN infamous panel discussions grant machine gun talking heads equal time. I stopped watching it. Point two, Trump lies so much exaggerates so much and misleads constantly the press should not cover tweets, lies, exaggerations at all.
Amplifying lies is toxic. It requires endless countering that is not as effective as Trump getting his message out. Stephen Miller rehearses so much he speaks rapidly and cannot be interrupted. Airing him reinforces the Trump message. Ditto Kellyanne.
Tell him and the Democratic candidates deliver you policies and promises without the lies or we will not cover you. Trump lied is not news. Trump offended someone is not news.
1
The Commander in Chief of our nation stood in front of soldiers and claimed he had fought to give them a 10% raise. The media moved on even though his story was such a cynical, delusional, obvious, and outrageous lie. How could Trump show such blatant disrespect for men and women in uniform? Don’t they deserve better than to be treated as a political rally prop. Where were the probing follow up questions to Trump or his lying accomplice Sarah Sanders? Their feet should have been held to the fire for days. Our soldiers deserved a thorough explanation. Our country deserved yet another stark reminder of how dishonorable and morally careless this man truly is.
2
Unfortunately, money speaks louder than ethics.
We have an economic system that rewards self destructive and bad behavior.
Catering to a madman means ratings.
Money is speech, and that’s a very bad thing.
2
Maybe the way to counter Mr T on the next election, make him pay for his coverage...something that he bragged last time was free for him, as well as not repeating the names he will inevitably call his opponents. Call out his lies, don't make excuses for them and don't let him get away with them. That is what horrified me in 2016.
From the very start of the presidential campaign, the NYTimes was one of the most egregious offenders against the journalistic principles that Mr. Bruni lists. The Times was agog with Trump, giving him endless publicity, click bait. Hilary received back handed compliments at best.
But what really offended my sense of justice was the total silence, for months, about Bernie Sanders, one candidate that was attracting huge crowds and addressing substantive issues that were plaguing ordinary Americans. Love him or hate him, Bernie was an issues man, dealing with real problems. (Trump addressed many of the same issues, but did so dishonestly, promising what he had no intention of delivering.)
When at long last, the Times finally began to publish pieces on Sanders, they ignored his policy concerns about real issues and instead trumpeted his (democratic!) socialist background, his supposedly extreme (read "un-American") views, and idiosyncratic personality. Clearly the oracular Times was spinning Bernie as a man not to be taken seriously. The Times and the Democratic master class had anointed Hilary who won the vote, but not the election. What a disaster. I'd love to hear a genuine mea culpa from the Times. I knew what you were doing from the start.
1
If there's money to be made, yes.
Next question.
2
They can start by at least occasionally pointing out that a shut down is blackmail, never acceptable in a democracy.
2
PBS News Hour. PBS Frontline. You could write another column how PBS does it correctly and is the benchmark for how television news should be (and was) done. Do a public service: get more people to watch PBS.
Hardly got past the second paragraph.. His "demand" for airtime? Really? What president has not requested air time from time-to-time? Rarely do they get denied.
You biggest mistake in 2016; nominating H. Clinton. She assumed and thought she was entitled to win. Same thing GHWB did and why he lost his second term.
1
Suggest an approach to manage their reporting of the actions of someone who mixes absurdity with information from a position of responsibility. You need to isolate the policy statements from the absurdities and identify each as to its purpose. This creates a significant problem for the reporters and a great deal of work but it is the only way to address this. This will require reporters to prepare for upcoming statements rather than wait for statements and then trying to rationalize them. The reporter must be able to grasp what is a condition of policy and attempts to influence opinion by emotional outbursts. We, as readers, must understand that the current environment is the product of three decades of attempts to influence mass media and it is sophisticated. Read "Cyber-War" by Kathleen Hall Jamieson. We need to fight for truth with the best we have.
We don't know whether deliberate propaganda designed to influence elections influences any votes?
Amazing!
The ad agencies who sell time for dollars certainly know how many buying choices their advertising will change.
And we don't know if the last election was influenced?
To me that sounds like willful ignorance.
The president isn't spending his time at wall-to-wall coverage repeating the same old lies endlessly for no reason.
How about some research, people?
I never, ever, ever watch American TV news - instead I read multiple news sources, and make a point to try for diversity of viewpoint. I do listen on a limited basis to international news, but also read some of that.
Even on NYT and other sites, I try not to click too much on stories that seem to churn the fluff.
Is my lack of participation noted? Is Fox going out of business? Alas, no...
But I feel less like the tail is wagging the dog, and if more of us just boycotted this stuff, maybe (dare I hope?) there would be power in numbers.
2
"Patterson found that for much of that year, the number of stories about Trump in the country’s most influential newspapers and on its principal newscasts significantly exceeded what his support in polls at the time justified."
Just as they did the exact OPPOSITE for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders -- the candidate with the most pro-Citizenry platform in the whole dang race.
Reminder: Notwithstanding the far right radical extremists on the Supreme Court, spending mountains of cash on elections DOES NOT EQUAL citizens' Free Speech.
We can thank majority leader McConnell for this current shutdown -- but we have the Supreme Court to thank for the many Billions, spent on electing a circus clown.
2
The media are doing exactly what they did in 2016: underestimate Trump. Never underestimate a demagogue.
2
The MSM and conservative columnists spend decades demonizing the Clintons, it went beyond deserved fair critic on the person and policies. They never analyzed Trump's political intentions, never called the liar by his name and tolerated his name calling and ill manners and never really vetted him, instead they were glued to Hillary and her e-mails. They wasted hours analyzing political tactics. Voters need to know what to expect from a candidate and his character, they don't need the polling rates from yesterday.
And journalists don't do their job when they call a grown man presidential now because he could read a few words on the teleprompter as did happen. They need to apply higher standards, call the Trump cabal what it is, call Sarah Sanders a liar, it is what she is and walk out and tell the readers why. She is really insulting, so tell it as it is.
3
In psychobabble terms - Trump is the identified patient in the dysfunctional American family. The more we attend to his acting out, the longer we stay stuck in our tired and self-destructive rut. In NY street terms - Trump is a “blame storm” trooper; a wanna be mob boss and 3 card Barnum grifter; whose marker with the 5 families was sold to the Russian mob 3 decades ago. Either way, this chapter in American life will soon pass. In historical terms - Trumpism will be seen as the brushfire that cleared the way for several decades of pro growth, progressive government.
1
When Trump taunts his opponents with crude nicknames, the story should be about how he uses bully tactics to distract from the fact that he is devoid of substantive policy ideas or achievements. No opponent should ever be asked to respond to the name-calling. The question should be, "how will you be different?"
2
Soldiers are supposed to move to the sound of the guns and journalists are going to move to the interesting story. The Democrats are going to have to present an interesting story.
All the blah blah blah about the media going on a Trump diet is so much hot air and about as likely to work as the average weight loss diet.
Democrats will need to nominate a young, new, interesting, charismatic candidate with politics just a little left of center.
And, likeability counts. Kipling's corporal "learned to make men like him so they learned to like their work." Voters want to like the person they vote for.
Put up a tut tutting, sober minded, identity politics catering progressive and Trump wins again.
And one can only hope that you, Frank, and other political commentators (Joe and Mika, Dowd et al. are you reading/listening?) will not deign once again to give comfort to Trump's candidacy by needlessly knocking the Democratic frontrunner(s) and eventual nominee the way you did to Hillary Clinton. No Democratic nominee is going to please any of us in every respect. And wouldn't we as a country be in a much, much better place had she been the victor with the Electoral College (EC)? Only a few strategically placed thousands of votes resulted in Trump's EC victory, and don't think that you and your ilk did not have a role in bringing about that victory. People read and/or listen to commentators, particularly the fence-sitters. We know you have a column to write and deadlines to meet, but think twice before you give comfort in what you write and say to the lesser of the candidates, whoever that person may be. Even if you dislike both of the eventual party nominees, there is always one who is the lesser of the "evils"!! Please, next time, try not to highlight in your commentary what you believe to be the faults of the preferred one lest we find our country in dire straits once again. I feel it is safe to assume that you and the other aforementioned commentators would ultimately have been happier for our country had Hillary been the victor.
5
Of course the media will help Trump again because he knows how easy it is to manipulate journalists because they compete for views and profit. They stand outside the White House and let Trump spin his lies without asking him one tough question. For example, when he talked about "many" federal employees who said they're happy with the shutdown because they support his wall, not one reporter asked him "how many? Is it hundreds or thousands? Is this from a poll of workers you took? Can you give us samples of these messages of support?"
Don't ask him another question until he offers evidence to support outrageous claims. He has the White House communications team and Twitter to spout his deceit. Your job is to tell your audience the truth.
4
After two years of this , I have come to the view that the biggest mistake we can make is to treat him seriously. That, as you point out, makes him seem powerful to his followers. The more outraged some people are, including the NYT, the more supportive his followers are. Mabye it's time to just laugh at him whenever he talks, poses, postures, etc. And then get on with whatever the adults have planned for today. My guess is he will really hate that -- nothing worse than not being taken seriously. And beside, outrage is not only hard to sustain, it's not actually working. His approval rating continues to be solidly around 41% and also his disapproval rating is pretty solid at about 51-53%. So, let's get a large inflatable orange haired baby balloon and make the most of it!
1
Yes, please! Less drama, more substance. More reporting on the substantive issues from which the drama and the horse race distracts us.
3
In Christmas season 2017, Manafort had an ankle bracelet with a 15-mile range, and was in Palm Beach Gardens for the season. trump was in Mar a Lago, approximately 15 miles away from Manafort. Oleg Deripaska’s jet landed at Miami airport. (Why? What brought him to our country at Christmas???) Was this covered? Nope. How did I find out about it? A woman using twitter posted an image, taken from landings data, on an anti-trump sub on reddit, complete with metadata. I still have the link. The questions this raises are alarming. If a casual twitter user can post Deripaska’s being in extremely close proximity to trump and Manafort (whose loyalties are obvious) under questionable circumstances, why can’t the press do the same thing?
Hillary Clinton’s website during the campaigns was beautiful. It presented all her policies, things she wanted to do, and how she intended to fund programs she wanted to see executed. Was any of that discussed in the media? Nope. How did I find out about it? I clicked on her website.
I don’t know what it will take to get our media (and it isn’t just American media, btw) to stop the superficial and get digging. Perhaps if it’s assumed people aren’t as dumb as the media think we are, if, like the late Ben Bradlee, media assume that the ripples from the dropped rock do eventually reach the shore, we might not have a dangerous Russophile in our WH. Journalism’s job is edification of the public, not catering to the reactivity of the sensation-seekers.
3
CNN failed to replay the Access Hollywood tape the day before the election and the day of (because they were focused on the FBI and Hilary’s emails). If they had, the whole thing would have ended differently.
3
Media was Trump's accomplice?
Well yes, in 2015, when the talking heads all thought his candidacy was a joke, but a candidacy that would juice their ratings. Trump, who manages on four hours sleep, would call shows like Morning Joe at 7:00 AM, and he would be granted 30 minutes of air time by the hosts who pretended to love him when they actually despised him.
Won't happen this time, believe me.
3
Start by reporting all the news that is fit to print.
Most of what Trump says is not fit for print.
If the media must report on Trump's absurd statements please do so in context and with facts to illustrate his mendacity. Just has he has repeated the BIG LIE, a classic tyrannical strategy, the media must illuminate those lies. Of course, he will continue to denigrate the "fake news" reports, so confront him at every turn. Yes, people voted for him because he would blow up everything, but the media now must set the record straight. His detonation of nearly every government policy and benefit should be front page news daily. Forget his insane tweets and focus on his lies, wheezing delivery and blatant criminality. One would think that discrediting such a deplorable human being would be easy--and it should be easy.
Hold Trump accountable for his statements and the consequences. Broad characterizations of Americans are more harmful than helpful
3
Too long, Frank.
But I think you make a mistake in assuming that Trump will run in 2020. He could, if the Democrats put forward a left-wing wacko, but I don't think they will. He knows 2016 was a fluke, unlikely to repeat in 2020. The presidency has not been good for him, but Obama pushed him into running.
Your media analysis is off too. During the primaries, the press was eager to prop up Trump against the other Republicans, because they backed Hillary (or Bernie), and figured Trump would be easy to defeat. Oops!
1
When Trump appears on the TV I simply switch him off.
If we all did this maybe the media would take notice.
2
Or will we note Trump’s latest nonsense only briefly and pivot to matters more consequential?
So, Mr. Bruni, stop writing articles that feature Trump. This article is included in the "Do not emulate" category. And, especially, ignore his Twitter messages. Make him communicate properly.
Mr. Bruni,
As each of the four commercial broadcast networks, PBS, CNN, MSNBC and of course, FOX News preempted their regular programming and gave Trump his eight minutes in prime time to repeat almost verbatim every lie, half-truth and scare tactic he told at his midterm rallies... the answer to your question seems to be, yes.
Yes, the media will again be Trump's witting accomplice in 2020.
2
Is Bruni asking the media to pick sides the way that the Times' Jim Rutenberg did in 2016?
Like late Times editor A M Rosenthal recognized, news reporting should be factual and free from bias and opinion. The latter should be relegated to the opinion pages.
Looking at the media today, e.g. the Times, the Post, CNN, MSNBC, the media can hardly be accused of being Trump's "accomplice."
If this is about overexposure of one candidate at the expense of undercoverage of others, would Sanders have done as well as he did in 2016 without the media's fixation with him.
Looking forward to 2020, the test will be not Trump's coverage, but how the media will treat the numerous Democrats expected to vie for the party's nomination. Who will the media fixate on, Warren; Sanders; Biden; O'Rourke; Harris; Gabbard, to name a few? Will the media position itself as the king/queen-maker of the Democratic Party's nomination?
1
Perhaps it took two years of Trump’s coverage for the public to realize how disturbed this president is. I would often comment after listening to him, “Who talks like this man?” I had never heard anyone speak as he has. His name-calling is so juvenile! His comments/tweets are ridiculous. Thank you, Mr. Bruni, for your article. I hope all media pays attention to your words and that we can have serious discussions from our candidates without the craziness of these last few years. We don’t need 24/7 coverage of his tweets. Shouldn’t everyone be convinced now that this president is bad for this country?
2
"I’m not certain that more firepower would have made a difference. For one thing, there were many exposés of Trump’s shady history. For another, he appealed to voters who largely disregard the mainstream media and who thrilled to his exhortations that they disregard it further. And many of those voters were embracing disruption or rejecting Clinton; the tally of Trump’s sins had little bearing on that. "
"What they lap up most readily and reliably is Trump the Baby at the top of the newscast, Trump the Buffoon in the highlights reel, Trump the Bully in the headline. And that’s on them."
You force fed the country on the antics of this man, you had the pulpit and you used for ratings and revenue.
Amen! I used to thoroughly read the NYT. Now I barely skim it. Has there ever been a more photographed, tiresome, nasty, boring person? We are hungry for great journalism and writing, and real news of the world, science, politics, and opportunity. Sadly, the Times no longer seems to be up to the admittedly tough task. Hope the editors will listen, Frank! Thanks for calling it!
2
Will the media be Hillary Mark II’s accomplice again?
Supporting the Democrat candidate anointed by the establishment and rich donors who represents the least threat to the status quo and those who profit from it?
Judging by the avalanche of negative articles about progressives recently, I guess the NYT already answered.
1
Every New York Times reporter and editor should have “...but her emails!” tattooed across their foreheads for the rest of their lives.
2
Frank,
Just by writing about him again you are doing the same thing
as before.
Just stop.
And please NYT Stop putting his mug on every front page.....that could help a lot as well.
When has any other president's face been so plastered everywhere? Least of which, it is not pretty sight.
2
Frank Bruni must be tone deaf. The New York Times has provided unending commentary on Trump ever since his election. Wasn't it P.T. Barnum who commented that, good or bad, all that counts is publicity.
At the rate the NYT is going, based on 2018 commentary, Trump will be a shoo-in for re-election in 2020.
2
Just saw the Sunday headlines on CNN "Trump calls Biden Weak Obama picked him from the trash heap" On AOL "Trump calls FBI Losers" Doesn't look like this idea is sinking in yet.
1
And who is it that own's the "corporate" media?
Too many gullible american's, too self absorbed to
look for the truth.
2
I am afraid that I view this article, and most if the comments on it, as part of an endless of lefty disavowals, scapegoatings, and alibis.
I dunno what planet people were on, but on the one I happen to inhabit, the Times and the rest of the Wicked, Wicked MSM reported the heck out of Trump’s iffy financial empire, tortured legal history, revolting attitudes towards women, grotesque racism, idiotic theories and ridiculous “plans.”
Yet just to stick with what goes on at the Times, I’ve over and over again seen lefties shout at reporters and opinion-writers for not “revealing,” this or that, when this or that was in the first or second para of the article that’s being shouted at. Again and again, “why won’t the Times REVEAL THE TRUTH,” and that particular “truth,” in right there on page one. My fave has been the endless yelling about not doing an exposé on Trump’s finances and tax chicaneries.
Sure, ye olde MSM has problems. Are they a corporation? Gosh, yeah. Did they take Trump seriously enough? Gosh, no, and neither did we. Do they focus too much on the tweets? Okay, but the guy’s PRESIDENT, and those dopey tweets have real EFFECTS.
So my thought is, cut it out. Because I betcha half the people complaining these complaints didn’t vote, or voted for Stein (same thing), or are even now waking up and muttering, “Hey, where’re my pants? Is there coffee...hang on, WHO’S President? Well, who made that happen? Can’t be me!”
Well, guess what. It is you. All of us.
2 big flaws here. And they are ENORMOUS.
1) Much as Mr. Bruni would like to absolve the NY Times and himself!, the reality is NOT ... "We shouldn't have given him a forum and we should have told our readers, 'He's a madman!' "
... The Times had a "hummingbird's wing" effect/blame for his beating Hillary, and I mean that as exculpatory. HOWEVER, Bruni, other columnists... and presumably "the publisher" gave us Hillary as a candidate - flawed though she was - rather than letting the Democratic caucuses & primaries have a chance to produce a better candidate. Yes, the game was rigged, but when the Times and its columnists - whether orchestrated or not - put their thumbs on the scale, they helped fashion a choice so terrible - yes, Hillary (as a person) was Lady Macbeth-like - that our President is who he is.
2) Bruni's "the media" WERE instrumental, but 50 INDIVIDUALS at 50 media operations are REALLY to blame!
In this day and age - we can cut through 99% of the rhetoric - witness Trump - and it boils down to (a) Will Government do more or less? and (b) Who will pay for it?
Self-interest doesn't explain EVERYTHING, but most media moguls ARE "in the 1%." They may despise Trump, but - pre-election - they knew he would lighten their tax load. Watch the Times - even titans like Krugman - disparage any Dem in 2020 who would "turn the tables." If we wind up with Biden as cand. & 4 more years of Trump, you'll see how even these horrid 4 years taught the Times next to nothing!
1
Here's the problem frank. Just by writing this article and using his name to promote yourself, YOU are complicit!!
2
The nation needs serious journalists and serious journalism. Until reporters stop chasing shiney objects and whatever is this moment's squirrel ... the disaster of abject bootlicking of a continiously lying manchild unworthy of an iota of respect will continue. Stand up. Speak up. Show up.
2
Open the NYTimes app on January 12.
“Trump” “Donald” and the “President” appear nearly 20 times.
Please begin by looking at what is being published here.
1
The mega billionaires who put him in power knew he was an idiot. They were tossing us Bread & Circuses (short on the bread) and those irresponsible fools - journalists, played right into their hands. Trump's getting done what the mega B's wanted, gutting environmental laws, wiping out health care gains for the poor, etc., all the while distracting us, with the full support of the press, with his dumb antics.
4
Well, Mr. Bruni.....I think you need look no further than your own newspaper for the answer to your headline question.
Another headline today states "Mr. Trump unleashed on the F.B.I. after the Times report, making a series of false claims on Twitter."
Maybe in your next column you can define what "All the News That's Fit to Print" means.
3
The one shortcoming in this piece is the fact that the American voters, by three million, did repudiate Trump at the polls. Only 75,000 voters in total in three states enabled him to win.
"It's the Electoral College stupid."
Maybe award Trump a permanent place in your paper, page 7 or 8 instead of a cover every day. Marginalize him instead of playing his game. Change the rules, put a lie-o-meter on the page. Stop covering him like he's note-worthy and start treating him like the drunk uncle at Thanksgiving.
1
Given the columns topic that's a pretty bizarre and offensive first sentence.
1
Your first two paragraphs: A seed not watered quickly dies. So stop watering, will you please? His (and their) hokum is NOT news . . . and YOU are a NEWSpaper . . .
What you are doing by repeating the nonsense is egging on the fight. Is that your intention?
2
You showed the problem in your first sentance. You repeated the slur. That's more important than anything else you say in the piece.
3
And yet, the first word in the article is a slanderous nickname against another candidate.
4
The media should not allow Trump to rule the airwaves like a
bully and a despot....like a super bloviating Rush Limbaugh …
because the taunt of Trump must be met with the serious
newscaster's retort of a Tom Brokaw....
A Master Class in Media Art of the Grownup's Rebuttal is in Order....To not sink to Trump's ...Showtime...Look At Me; Look
At Me...extreme needy narcissism.
Thank you for being the grown up Frank Bruni...have a serious conference with those on MSNBC and CNN....and
follow the lead of say a Walter Cronkite ….and bring the news
back to the newsroom....
The first word of Mr. Bruni's column tells us where he and the Times will focus in the upcoming 22 months.
3
No, Frank, the REAL story of Trump is that Russia got him elected and that YOUR newspaper helped them do so!
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html
3
wait, didn't Bruni rather recently write an Opinion piece about how Melania was probably the best First Lady ever?
3
Mr. Bruni: Please remove your blinders and dig deeper.
Here's where you and your colleagues in the media should be focusing non-stop: Robert and Rebekkah Mercer, the Koch brothers, Murdoch & Sons, Sheldon Adelson, etc.
Investigate and expose the evil puppet-masters behind the idiot in the WH and help put them behind bars for treason.
What are you all afraid of?
1
Why isn't the NYT investigating Repubs like Graham and McConnell for taking money from Russians? McConnell's allegiance is to Putin, not America.
2
Please send copy of the op-ed to Maureen B Dowd
1
Speak to your cubicle mates Mo Dowd and Ross Douthat. They helped create the monster in the White House through their hateful anti-Clinton columns and in particular Dowd’s softball wink wink Trump pieces in 2016.
2
Check your own front page
2
What the heck, you folks in the media are STILL doing it!!! Hanging on his every tweet or fart.
STOP NOW. He has zero credibility. We ALL know he lies and then lie about his lies.
I never said Mexico would pay for the wall.
Try playing tapes of him say that over him saying that he never said that.
WAIT!
Don’t do anything.
Ignore him.
There will be plenty of democrats running for 2020 to cover in the news.
3
You already blowing it. You have wounded Elizabeth Warren, one of Trump's most formidable potential competitors, by pronouncing her DNA test a misstep and an error of judgement. In fact, Frank Bruni wrote that she "screwed up." For refusing to allow Trump to call her a slanderous, belittling nickname right through November 2020? If you had simply proclaimed her response a big win for her and a brilliant move, it would have neutralized his name-calling tactics. Instead, the media rewarded him for his schoolyard tactics and guaranteed that he will continue to "brand" his opponents with juvenile slurs, just as he successfully branded "crooked Hillary."
5
When Ms.Tlaib dropped a MOFO, I knew the press would over react, and that the Repubs would use it as some meter of her and the Dems wrongheadedness. Meanwhile, Trump dropped it many times, and generally speaks in vile terms about anyone or group he dislikes. Dozens of reports from inside the WH say he goes-off with invective's all the time. Kanye dropped it in the Oval and not a person in the room blinked! The press has normalized Trump's potty-mouth.
While Repubs only shrug their weakened, muscle-less shoulders, and say its "just Trump being Trump."
I suspect that going forward every slightly unsanitized remark a Dem candidate makes is gonna be harped on by the press, giving Trump and Repubs loads of free anti-Dem campaign airtime. Giving Trump fodder for his tweet-storms.
The press is obsessed with their alleged "Fairness Doctrine", but has yet to recognize how they severely slanted it for Trump in 2016, and continue to heading towards 2020. They have to stop holding Dems to a pre-Trump verbiage standard, and letting Trump "just be Trump".
4
Right on target Mr. Bruni, but I remain pessimistic. The fiasco the media made over Elizabeth Warren's DNA test wasn't much different than the obsession with Hillary Clinton's e-mails. The media romance with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez resembles groupies following a rock star (not to mention the celebrity-struck courting of Beto O'Rourke). In the midst of this is the psychiatric reality that our President is not a blustering egotist but a clinically pathological narcissist and any mental health professional (or any person who has ever had to live with one) will tell you that an overriding characteristic of a narcissist like Trump is the ability to suck all the air out of any space, and I'm afraid the media aid and abet his sucking.
5
All of what Frank says is true, but the one thing that Trump has and the others don't, is almost a personal media outlet in Fox News with opinions masquerading as news with people like Hannity and Pirro, among others, which attracts the largest cable news audience and one that has their TVs tuned into Fox 24/7, constantly hearing Trump being praised and all others being damned.
4
Frank, really? You couldn't come up with anything better than this?
The system is broke. You know it, I know it, we all know it. And I'll let you in on a secret - Trump didn't break it.
5
We have a huge coverage gap in this nation, with so much of the population only watching Fox.
I think a media reporter for NYT would be doing us a service if there was a column each week documenting the vast difference in coverage on Fox versus other publications.
I would like to know of the lead stories in W Post, NYT, PBS, BBC America etc. that do not even get coverage on Fox.
4
I can guarantee the media will keep making the same mistakes over and over again.
1
You already lost the war when all the networks showed his Oval Office stunt on Tuesday. Don’t act like it’s going to change and you’re all going to become enlightened. You’re being disingenuous. It will probably be worse this second time around...
4
With Trump, saying crazy things capture all media attention. Who will react?
Advocating the assassination of a public official, which Hillary Clinton was at the time, is a federal crime. Trump should have been charged for it. If the Secret Service can call Ted Nugent on the carpet for making similar statements, why should Trump (or indeed ANY presidential candidate) get a pass? Answer: They shouldn't. Trump's fan club is still screeching "Lock her up!" What if a Trump supporter actually attacks her? Trump and the attacker should be in adjacent jail cells.
6
The genie is out of the bottle. By all means, cover Trump to your heart's content. What this traitor is doing to this country and what his supporters voted for needs to be front and center: a lesson for the future. However, do us all a favor and not give in to the fake news promoted by this so-called president, his sheep, and Fox News. The mainstream media was complicit in the damage done to Hillary Clinton in 2016. And for what? Nothing, as usual. The media doesn't need to give time and attention to the other side when it's all propaganda and lies, and they have a direct responsibility for the mass chaos we have to deal with now.
4
The purpose of the media is to make money. Truth, not so much.
3
Cut out the cheap pundits and “analysts”; invest in more in-depth interview skills.
At the risk of being labeled “biased”, I wish the press would learn to ask in-depth follow-up question. So often, the reporting I see repeats talking points or reports what so-and-so said. I can read that in a press release. Why is it so hard to challenge your interview subjects?
This is not about gotcha-moments, or about “let me play back what you said ten years ago”. Ask subjects straight up: what factors made you change your mind? What concrete facts influenced your decision? How specifically is what you are proposing going to work? What evidence is there that what you are proposing would succeed? Keep asking if they evade the question, and report that they did. Don’t go into an interview with your 10 questions and move on if you don’t get a satisfactory answer. Someone else will ask those other 9 questions. Study up on the topic that you interviewing someone about.
Remember: YOU have a level of access to politicians and business leaders that I don’t, so I rely on YOU to get those answers.
And finally, learn to ask: “what are the consequences if you are wrong?”
3
Well.........The early results are in, and they're not very encouraging.
On Face the Nation this morning, Margaret Brennan had Julian Castro on, and the second question she asked him went something like this: "The RNC says you're a lightweight who couldn't even run HHS. What do you have to say to that?"
Seriously.
2
"Will we sprint to Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker or Mike Bloomberg for a reaction to what Trump just called one of them and then rush back to him for his response to that response? "
Yes! Yes! And you have- and you have:
Just today, Trump's tweet accusing Democrats of giving up on DACA recipients- even though the 9th Circuit ruled to uphold the Texas injunction against Jeff Session's decision to cease further DACA enrollments- and Trump's previous "Lucy move the football" DACA slight-of-hand?
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Democrats are saying that DACA is not worth it and don’t want to include in talks. Many Hispanics will be coming over to the Republican side, watch!
46.6K
6:58 AM - Jan 13, 2019
Tweet-and Response; explanation of Tweet and Response.
Never mind that V.P. Pence stated on Thursday:
"We feel confident the Supreme Court will find DACA to have been unconstitutional,” Pence said. “At that time, he believes there will be an opportunity for us not only address the issue affecting the Dreamers, but also a range of immigration issues."
So, why- again do reporters and media continue in 2019 to do the same thing?
1
I think there is a party that is being overlooked here.
It has been obvious for decades this man is a lying, philandering, narcissist. He will say and do anything to draw attention to himself. He is the definitive proof that there is no bad publicity - at least for those for who are impervious to shame. Morality has nothing to do with the man unless the subject is amorality. He couldn't care less about governing.
And yet, a sufficient number of people voted to give this hideous excuse for a human being the greatest responsibility in the world. And it doesn't matter if he couldn't care less about them beyond periodically tossing them some red meat.
Trump only cares about attention.
McConnell only cares about being in power.
The media is paid (and therefore only cares) to react to, "OH LOOK , A SQUIRREL!"
What about the rest of us? We shouldn't get a free pass here. I think that if someone has sufficient knowledge and understanding they are being played for fools, then they will eventually say, "Enough." Otherwise, what is the point of free speech, free press? Democracy? That is the story.
2
I like Rachel Maddow's stated approach: Treat the endless stream of blather, lies and nonsense spewing from the
White House as a "silent movie" and focus on the impact and consequences of the decisions emanating from it. Since she shared this bit of insight, I immediately press mute whenever the current occupant of the White House, or one of his sycophants, start to open their mouths.
1
Is this the best apology to Hillary Clinton and her supporters you can come up with? As usual, there's the usual backhanded swipe at *her considerable muck* and the false statement that Trump won the election (she won it by 3 million votes, a substantial victory). Then you criticize your readers for *choosing* glitz over substance without explaining how the dish of glitz was put in front of them in the first place -- through someone"s editorial decision. So the NYT is not really entirely responsible for it's own coverage. *The buck belongs to everyone.*
3
Frank Bruni, Will the front page have at least 2 headlines with the word Trump? Or will there be a matrix, (Start tomorrow, media.), showing progress made in the resolution of, for example, the problem created when children were separated from parents with no database and tracking, (They can’t find one another!) is this problem solved? ¥ or X A matrix could show folks who don’t read what’s right and wrong about what the current administration is doing.
How many Trump headshots, (which are free advertising), will there be in an issue? Will the media focus on fact-less tweets or on news?
I wrote several letters to NYT prior to 2016 election with concerns about these iconic images. Instead of details about how Hillary Clinton intended to address regulation of big bank corruption and pharmaceutical and insurance gouging, we saw free advertising for negativity – apparently this attracts readers.
Even now, I’d like to understand ideas upcoming presidential candidates plan to implement. Let’s have some creativity and innovation around productivity, joblessness, homelessness. Stop allowing the tail to wag the dog, tweets to translate in leads and headline. Stop now. Get back to ethical journalism.
2
I check the tvnews daily.
When he comes on I hit the mute button.
I’m getting more books read,
More exercise and even meditation.
He is a sign of our inner poverty.
Enough
Let’s get real!
1
I agree ... there are many great investigative reporters and writers who continue to unearth this thing, bit by bit by bit (they are what will save us from this) ... its depths of absurdity, malevolence, destructiveness, treasonessness that gets deeper every week, seemingly without a bottom (this will be reached eventually) ... I request that the secondary in-depth media be more aggressive, don't just cover other people's stories, ie I don't wish to hear anymore "why does he do this?" ... lets keep climbing to higher levels of understanding of what is happening and what we are doing about it ... and learn about the many facets of his personality dysfunction (its not just narcicissm) and his inputs ... and we need to do something to help (possible?) the large minority of people who are using their belief system, rather than their rational system (known ways the thinking brain works) ... educate yourself please (its simple with the internet) !!! ...
1
Whether or not there is media coverage of the tweets, those who follow him on twitter will still read and comment. If nothing else, analysis of the subjects and trends pro and con could be done, and reported in opinion free manner.
Of course, the Media will be Trump's accomplice in 2020--it's his accomplice right now. Example: If journalists were serious about the Shutdown, they would be asking the obvious question: what percentage of 800,000 humiliated, incomeless and indebted Federal Workers would take a secret "signing bonus" from Russia or others, to act as "classified information liaisons" for Russian or enemy intelligence now and in the future? If .05% of the 800,000 Federal workers took a deal from Russia or others, that would be approximately 4,000 compromised federal "spies". A potential national security crisis could be happening right now.
1
It would be good to have a candidate who can take the center position. Democrats have everything left of center, so they need to reach out to the middle class in the middle of the country and part the Red Sea. If they (we) can't nominate someone who can win Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, among others, then we are not going to win anything.
And please, keep the messaging simple. In my humble opinion, even Mr. Bruni's Opinion right here is too long,
2
What about reinstating the fairness doctrine? It's abandonment during the Reagan administration led to the media world that Trump has manipulated into power.
2
Every poll conducted should include the question, "what is your primary source of information?"
The answer to this question should be plotted against the results of the primary topic.
2
Sorry Frank Bruni. The answer is a resounding, YES. Bottom line is - the media needs to be paid. And they will give the maximum exposure to stories that sell. The more negative, the more self-righteous coverage of the negativity. 2020 will be a repeat of 2016. And Trump understands the media more than the media itself. He is going to be more outrageous in 2020 ( if that is possible ) and the media will feel the need to educate the masses. I pick up a newspaper (including the NYT) or watch news and every article is about Trump. Ignoring everything Trump would be his political demise. But the sanctimonious media will not do that. How else can they prove their upright superiority and also meet their bottom line?
8
Veteran journalist William Arkin, who worked for NBC news for more than three decades, recently resigned out of frustration with the “Trump Circus,” but also because of the state of US foreign policy and the complicity of news coverage in general, which normalizes and fails to question the “state of perpetual war” overseas and the “creeping fascism of homeland security” that the media, as well as the American public, have come to complacently accept. In his letter of resignation, Arkin wrote that “In our day to day whirlwind and hostage status as prisoners of Donald Trump… we miss so much.” And he argues that under Trump, "The national security establishment has gained dangerous strength" and is “now ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism.” We need more journalists who dare to deviate from news reporting as entertainment format, and as viewers of television news and consumers of social media, we need to challenge the status quo of how the news media delivers information and we need to take more responsibility for analyzing and questioning what is being presented to us.
6
This is one of the most complete of many prescriptions for journalists to manage this real crisis (and deflate the fake ones), but journalism needs to rally around best practices now. Define them, follow them, and call out those who do not. Leading journalists, publishers and J-schools should organize a Manhattan Project to unify and act now! If you do not do it right now, you may never have another chance.
3
I'm not so sure that Trump will even be the nominee. On paper, he can't win the general election--outside of Republicans, his approval ratings are dismal--and the GOP surely is nervous about that, no matter what they say. The GOP has never, really, embraced him. They'd drop him in a New York second if polls stay where they're at and a viable alternative presented itself. Plus, he's not going to be underestimated this time around.
The sad part is, the GOP, via an alternative candidate, has a better chance of defeating Trump than Democrats, at least from what we've seen so far. The country isn't going to elect Warren or Booker or Harris or anyone else who's been in Congress. They are obvious on-the-make hacks with no message or track record making them worth voting for. O'Rourke? He lost. You can say a lot about him, but, at the end of the day, he still lost against perhaps the most unpopular senator in the nation. As time has passed, the luster, has worn from Obama, who, more and more, is being rightly recognized as ineffective, and so it'll be tough to win on his coattails. Like him or not, Trump has been effective, for good for ill.
If the Democrats could come up with a governor who's got a track record and a whiff of charisma, they'd have a good chance. Hickenlooper? Probably not. But surely there are others. So frustrating to see this play out like this. Trump is an awful president, but I'm not seeing any Democrats who are worth voting for, either.
2
Two words: Michael Bloomberg.
President Trump is indeed a media manufactured Frankenstein. The Baron and Igor (Steve Bannon and Jeff Zucker) ecstatically shrieked "It's Alive!" as The Monster broke free of its shackles and terrorized the countryside. The only difference this time is that when the townsfolk formed pitchfork brigades instead of shouting "Kill the Monster" they fell in love with it.
3
I still haven't forgiven the media for bungling its coverage of the 2016 election, including polling results. We should see dramatic improvement this next time around. Why? Because the media, once reluctant to use the word "lie" in reference to Trump, now freely does so. We've established the baseline: Trump is a corrupt, cowardly, cad. The media should not allow itself to be played by Trump, thereby allowing Trump to control the news cycle. He makes an intentionally provocative statement on Twitter and you're all off and running. This has to stop.
5
Trump is the only thing happening and it has been like that for more than two years. The more absurd the situation gets, the more money the circus will rotate.
I don't read the print version of NYT, but going by the online version I think it is fair to say that Trump dominates the front page almost every day. How many days have gone without the word "Trump" somewhere on the front page?
6
Yes, Frank ol' shoe, you were part of the problem. I read The Times every day and during the 2016 election there were usually at least three dailyy op-ed pieces and two or three front page news articles about The Donald, all negative...of course. After the primaries, it was as if he was the only candidate in the race. I was upset with The Times, my main news source. As I don't watch TV "knews." I don't know if that medium was as obsessed with him as were you. Frankly, I think he is boring. Let's concentrate on something besides negative politics once in a while. Okay?
3
Let's see. The following, we know, are the givens about Trump:
- He's an Ignoramus.
- He's lazy who does not do his homework. Reads neither his daily Briefings nor Policy Papers by experts in their fields.
- He's an incompetent person who can neither ponder over nor think things through wisely - nay, even half intelligently.
- He's limitlessly greedy in money matters. Would toss or run over under the bus anyone, or any cause, even the national cause, for a personal gain.
- He's an extremely egotistical person. Lay a red carpet in his honor, or put his name on billboards along his route, or recite a paean in his name, and voila, you can get him to sign anything you want. Be they vociferous briefs defending the murderous acts of a Saudi prince, or of Kim Jon Un of North Korea.
Given the above persona and personality quirks and characteristics, does anyone really think that such a man can discuss a serious policy matter intelligently, let alone in any detail or depth? So, invariably, Trump would slink any serious discussion into the mud. He'd address opponents arrogant and derisive names and then lay back leaving the rest to the faddish American media to run with inanities, stupidities, and jocularities of his mouthing as if they are far-reaching scholarly works on the fate of the human race.
The jingoistic media would do the hatchet job as they did to Hillary.
4
Time has caught up with the Globalist agenda, what makes you think that they, or the media that supports them, even have enough time left to make it to the next election.
1
I assume Bruni is being purely rhetorical when he asks whether the media will be Trump's accomplice again. The answer is "YES." Trump is the golden pig for media outlets of all persuasions, and they are not about to stop riding this profitable pig because of petty concerns over facts and demagoguery.
8
The check is in the mail and I will recognize that taste....
Repeat this everyday.
FOX News, and the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and others, should not have the power to poison the thinking of the American citizenry.
5
Benjamin Franklin once wrote "Fish and visitors start to stink after 3 days." An old truism that reeks (sorry...) with truth these days simply because the trumpisms, those tweets keep on coming, often at a furious pace, and the newspapers and media keep on covering these stupid, trite 280 characters. It feels as if newspapers and the media are swimming in this cesspool with Trump. These tweets are not presidential statements (sorry Amanda Carpenter) but they are just words thrown together by a man who should instead be working hard on the people's business, not some schoolyard swipes by our jingoist-in-chief that cheapens and demeans the standards and the norms of the Presidency. I would be eternally grateful not to read another tweet or another foolish statement this president makes, but for the media to cover other news-worthy events, and also to cover how Trump is running this country (not his tweets) We will all be better for it.
2
I have long wished that the NYT would create a section similar to the News in Brief, only call it Trump in Brief. You could do highlights of his daily hijinks, with links to full stories for those who feel a need to know all the dreadful details. Or for the paper edition, put the articles at the back of the news section.
Then you could use the front page for all the news we miss because Trump.
4
I read the whole article and the one thing that caught my eye was the writer said in the beginning that the news media is "forced" . I was taught you have choices. Start choosing to write the "right" stuff and stop falling to his pry like a scared animal in a corner. Do not give him the satisfaction of having the lime light of his negativity, he thrives on it and uses it to his advantage against you and anyone who is not on his "side". He is only for the people behind him like a dictator. Read the book "Nasty People" How to stop being hurt by them without stooping to THEIR level. by Jay Carter, Psy.D you cannot even get through the first chapter and not see this is Trump.
stop giving him the attention and write journalism like you learn in school or wherever. Use your senses. No "force" coverage, writing. We the American people run this country, they in Congress, GOP, POTUS, VP, work for us, not the other way around
2
Trump has,turned the entire media complex into a National Enquire. During campaign even MSN and CNN would broadcast live and almost in entirety his stupid speech with his screaming white fans and one black guy placed behind him. Every news article and opinion column was about Trump. Good or bad it was about Trump and not his policies. True, Trump had no past record to criticise and he did lie about his agenda. Like, better healthcare, not, tax reduction for everyone, but not for rich like him, lie, regulation reductions but not to hurt hurt health and safety, lie, deficit reduction, biggest lie. But now we know. Talk about actions. Trying to make policy interesting is hard, but that why there are journalists schools, instead of circus barker schools.
2
@dave Sorry , he did have a history to criticise . Front page or page 6 of the NY Post . Statements such as ; best sex I ever had , I never use my own money , I use other people's money , the multiple bankruptcies his refusal to release his tax returns ; I agree with you on the lies and how the media has been complicit .
Please--leave the commentary on the absurd twitter pronouncements to the late night show hosts. They make it what it is--entertainment. Do Not get roped in by his taunts and jeers; they are nothing but siren songs, meant to lure you onto the rocks. Don't you people have children? Paying attention to toddler tantrums is truly non-productive, unless you want the tantrums to continue. Surely, you can't be that desperate for news stories.
4
Frank Bruni’s article could be titled “What We Talk About When We Talk About Not Talking About Trump,” with apologies to the late Raymond Carver.
4
The media will continue to cover Trump's wallowing in the sty ; every network carried his address knowing full well it would be more of the same . It used to be presidential addresses were a matter of national importance not matters of presidential bias. I personally have stopped watching anything Trump has to say ; his lies and insults to those that disagree are tantamount to listening to Idi Amin harangue his helpless populace .
4
Often times I notice Mr. Bruni (whom I respect very much as a journalist) among the avalanche of CNN show guests. I always find a hint of embarrassment in Mr. Bruni's demeanor at the CNN studio desk. And rightfully so. After all: wasn't it CNN who shamelessly pushed D. Trump straight into the Oval Office?
If you know you are not voting for Trump. Why in the world would you watch him debate anyone??
2
But it’s on us to try to interest them in more and to leaven that concentration of attention with full, vivid introductions to Trump’s alternatives .
TRUMP IS RIGHT TO CALL THE OPPOSITION PARTY , MAYBE TELL YOUR DEMS FRIENDS AN AMERICAN FRIENDLY POLITICAL PLATFORM INSTEAD OF A GLOBALISTS ONE MIGHT HELP ONE OF THEM ," IT'S THE ECONMY STUPID " BILL CLINTON .
1
Thank you Frank....finally calling a spade a spade. Unfortunately, as long as the media's unit of measure is money, we will all suffer the consequences. Buckle up.
Does it really matter what newspapers like the N.Y. Times do in this regard? Is there a Pro-trump comment in the bunch?My conservative friends write it off as liberal media, as they do my state newspaper. So it's FOX news, conservative radio hosts, or Facebook. How are you going to reach those sources with this message?
The media is as crooked as Trump. One thing I do know, reporters, politicians, Trump et al all want power, influence, money and fame. Trump helps them with fame and money....it why Mr Bruni has no chance at getting them to do what he wants....not reporting on Trump and the news except through a left leaning filter.
Americans treasure dishonesty and indecency and blowing things up. That is why we voted for President Trump. The American national character will not change between now and the Election of 2020. We will vote for President Trump again.
It takes at least eight (8) years to thoroughly blow up the corrupt, criminal, cancerous and toxic system that America had become prior to President Trump's ascendancy.
1
Sure RT and Fox seem to love Trump for some reason--I wonder why ;)
I am praying, nay saying a novena, that Trump will be gone or so disabled by his impending indictments he will not be running.
The only "circus" I want to see will not have Trump as the ringmaster. It will be the Handmaid's Tale persona of Mike Pence so creepy yet boring he will be invisible. We will only hear his mewling as faint whispers of the horrible alternative.
To summarize and explain I quote from the Xenophobe's guide to the Americans:
American's are like children: noisy, curious, unable to keep a secret, not given to subtlety, and prone to misbehave in public. Once one accepts the Americans' basically adolescent nature, the rest of their culture falls into place, and what at first seems thoughtless and silly appears charming and energetic.
Another interesting article today by Barry and Landler is the island mentality of Britain and the US with parallel anti immigrant populism rising to twin impasses.
Just connect the dots
How about not covering his twitter rants? Just ignore it.
1
Does one lose a Twitter account when imprisoned?
"he instantly mentioned Trump’s horrific implication, in public remarks that August, that gun enthusiasts could rid themselves of a Clinton presidency"
I never forgot it; I bring it up often, if or when justifying why I think Trump is a disgusting example of a human being.
One complaint I have with the NYT articles. They report what outrageous things he's said on Twitter and include all the Twit's tweets as if we have to see "proof" that the Times is reporting the truth. Skip the actual tweets, or put them in a linked "trash can" for those obsessed and who have to read the actual trash (talk). For God's sake, give the Tweets a rest.
1
The biased media did everything in its power to promote Trump. From the moment he entered the race, the press gave him a free pass - he made for entertaining and profitable "news". Today, if I happen to catch CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. I see no shift in their behavior... They have simply moved The Apprentice from prime time to the cables and renamed it the The Appresident. Makes for good ratings.
Be honest with yourselves. Responsible journalism has been replaced with biased talking heads.
I miss Tim Russert and Walter Cronkite.
3
Here's the bottom line when it comes to the 2020 election. Democrats need to nominate someone who can win. Period. So if it is "vividness" or "likability" in a candidate that will win over voters, let's find that person and get behind him or her. Let's just get him out of office whatever it takes--it's no time for idealism.
There are nine NY Times pieces by OpEd Columnists listed for the last two days, including this one. Eight of the nine are about Donald Trump. That being the case, despite the number of national and international events that bear commenting on, I can only conclude that "the media will be Trump's Accomplice Again" leading up to the next election.
249
I was with you, Mr. Bruni, until the Gibbs quote. I don't look to reporters to inform me about what kind of leaders are needed or how certain segments of the governed imagine leaders should be governing. It would be enough if reporters confronted the governing and the governed with facts and consequences. The global temperature rises 1.5 C and this is what happens; the immigration and the security situation at our southern border is trending this way over the past 20 years; the Republican tax cut will add this to the deficit and that to the wealth gap in the American population. Present us with facts and we'll measure the people who want our votes based on their inclination to act reasonably.
3
How can journalism compete with Trump’s Twitter propaganda? What Trump says and does has to get reported. Is calling lies lies advocacy journalism? There are no easy answers, except the answer that yes, media will continue to be Trump’s accomplice, and media profits will keep rolling in. It would help if the Democrats would clarify their message and let people know what they advocate. Trump’s success has to do with reducing his message to “A Wall.” The Dems, at the very least, need to say “an impenetratable border where no one gets in by land, air, or sea without our consent, but everyone who should get in does” and perhaps point out the ineffective 14th century nature of a wall. That most of the people here illegally came by plane is worth pointing out, given how 14th century the wall idea is. That “illegals” have paid $100 billion into social security over the last decade, but can never take any money out is also worth mentioning - it partially explains why government has been dragging it’s feet and not passing immigration reform. Interesting that a wall, by being ineffective, would neither alter that revenue stream or affect the supply of cheap, exploitable labor. Could it be that Trump actually knows this? I hope to see it explored by the new, repentant, media of 2019.
Mr. Bruni is right---the media elected Trump, wittingly or unwittingly. Some steps to prevent that from happening again:
1) Follow the standards of the Society for Excellence in Journalism. Key among them: don't just interview newsmakers; do the footwork of going direct to John Q. Public on key issues. Afflict the powerful.
2) Do not report on Trump's Tweets. If he wants the news to carry his statements, then he should allow himself to be interviewed. Journalists should be able to question and push-back on falsehoods of the president. When you run his tweets, he gets coverage without journalistic required questioning. STOP RUNNING TWEETS.
3) Anything that is a lie is not news. Do not report it.
4) If you just feel compelled to report that the president told a lie, once you say it is a lie, then do not report his words again.
5) Do not let him change the narrative. Example: "Mexico will pay for my border wall." Now, he has changed the narrative to this is a Dem vs. Repub issue. No, it is not. It is a president lied about a source of funding for a policy and now wants taxpayers to fit the bill. That is not a partisan issue. But the media changes the narrative to whatever Trump says. From henceforth, no reporting should be done on the wall without mentioning the origins of contention: Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall.
6) Cover all issues related to the country, not just Trump's personal agenda.
1
A lot can happen between now and 2020. Trump may run - or he may not. In the meantime, it would not hurt if the media were balanced and fair-minded in covering the Republican and Democratic campaigns.
3
Nicely said, Mr. Bruni. It requires courage to publish one's own perceived weaknesses.
However, you ignored, or only briefly referenced, one important reason for the decay in news organizations: the eagle. Les Moonves made disparaging remarks about Trump yet cooed over the obscene profits his network reaped from covering Trump. The deterioration of Trump coverage is due in large part to poor leadership by editors and management.
You are doing your part, sir. It is now their turn.
3
The news media needs to consider, each time, whether what it's covering is newsworthy. Duh!
In 2016, it infuriated me that the network news spent half a broadcast covering a sideshow Trump threw instead of attending the Republican debates. They went on and on and on over NOTHING OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE. Then they spent about 30 seconds on "oh, by the way, the other candidates had a debate," with nothing said about any significant points any candidate might have made. It should have been the other way around: "In tonight's debate, Kasich said thus and such, Rubio argued this, Cruz proposed that..." "Oh, and by the way, Trump boycotted the debate, so we don't know what he thinks about anything." Done.
But they'll probably grab for the same shiny baubles this time.
5
I hope the editors are taking this to heart. It's the leaders at the political desks who'll shape the campaign coverage. They'll assign the reporters, assess the stories, determine what merits follow-up and what can be put aside. If coverage ends up again being a sprint for clicks, eyeballs and scoops, we're doomed. Readers deserve better depth, judgment and originality than we got in 2016.
3
The media has to accept a great deal of responsibility for the "win" of Trump. According to Harvard's Shorenstein Center, the reporting on Hillary Clinton was 3 to 1 negative during the "invisible Primary" in 2015.
"Whereas media coverage helped build up Trump, it helped tear down Clinton. Trump’s positive coverage was the equivalent of millions of dollars in ad-buys in his favor, whereas Clinton’s negative coverage can be equated to millions of dollars in attack ads, with her on the receiving end" according to the Shorenstein Center.
Even the New York times seemed to follow this trend. Considering that the Republicans have spent a quarter of a century manufacturing nasty untruths about Mrs. Clinton, I would have thought that good investigative reporting would have turned up the terrible distortions of the truth in the buildup to the 2016 election.
7
This. A thousand times this. I've been saying this since before the election.
1
Excellent article. The press bears a heavy responsibility for helping elect Trump in 2016. Instead of treating him like a clown show (Oh look! See what he's said NOW!) and taking him seriously the press was giving him far too much free publicity. The New York based press and media (I'm looking at you, CBS), in particular should have known better. The press/media are in no way the enemy of the people, but in the ramp up to the 2016 election they certainly did the people no favors.
3
The media will be all over Trump. He creates hits and incredible public interest. It's like a train wreck, you have to look. Also, there is all the money that is thrown into political ads. These things are too irresistible to the people who run the media since it crates big profits and that is the primary goal of the companies that run the media empires.
5
Might (please) 15 print and media outlets jointly present news of the last week or two with substantive topics mutually agreed upon in mind; also, monthly publish a review of major issues and stances put forth by leading candidates? Again, please.
This news consortium should include a range of topics and opinion representing 85% of the American interests spectrum.
The 7% remaining, left an right, should be given nominal coverage, in recognition of free speach and faulty logic or insight keener than most. Thank you.
4
The midterm elections gave us a good lesson on what to do about Donald Trump. Concentrate on local politics. Democrats should zero in on Republican office holders who support the current president, and that means office holders from local to state to federal. If the Democrats can win these races overwhelmingly, then Donald Trump will be defeated, too. The media can help by reporting real news and real political arguments, and ignoring spectacle. There is no reason that the New York Times or any credible news organization must report on our current president's tweets. If he wants to make an important announcement he can schedule a news conference at which reporters can ask questions.
5
Frank's editorial is spot on in terms of how the media became unwitting accomplices of Trump in the last election. His solution of taking some of the wind out of Trump's sail, giving more wind to real issues and other candidates with creative solutions, is the right approach. Trump only wins if the media gives him all the attention he craves so he can capitalize on his admittedly skillful showmanship. Put his coverage at the end of the line as it deserves.
2
The media was not a dupe of Trump’s. They were complicit and mostly responsible. Trump lit up their sales and viewership. Dissing Hillary did the same. Promoting a false equivalence between Trump and his opponents created the perfect storm that allowed a few voters from a few states to determine the future of American democracy. They will do the same in 2020. Just like Trump, they can’t help it. Their profit over journalism model is apparently in their DNA.
2
Frank,
My friends don’t like it, but I will vote for Trump. I was once a registered Democrat. But no more. No. More.
6
Liars and cheaters, dont make great presidents
3
Believe it or not, Donald Trump has a value. He is the symptom that declares the disease. For every critique of his "policies", you can point to the political establishment and declare the real problem: years of support for the global takeover by corporations. Whether it's climate change, income inequality, health care, justice for people of color, the endless wars for cheap resources, whatever; the establishment throws the people a few crumbs every now and then, keeps us pacified with our electronic toys and proceeds to help the mega-rich towards domination.
The activism we're seeing that's finally getting a few in the Democratic Party to support somewhat more "radical" programs like universal healthcare is because of Donald Trump.
Regarding the media, what's the alternative to nonstop coverage of his tweets, etc.? Lauding a newbie like AOC as the new messiah? Talking about Kamala Harris's book tour? Whether or not Joe Biden is too old? If the NY Times were to report on substantive policy debates going on in the House or Senate they'd go bankrupt in 6 months. Just look at which article initiate the most comments.
6
You already answered your own question. Of course you will continue to do all those things that helped Trump, you have been doing them since 2015.
And besides, even with all the email woes, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by over 3 million votes. That's nothing to sneeze at. And I wouldn't be surprised if in 2020 the Democrat running will get even more popular votes. But what good does that do if he, she, or it doesn't win in the red states that have more cow pads than people in it?
Politicians aren't the only ones that need to develop a spine. Reporters need to shape up too. Quit being so disgustingly referential toward Trump voters, bending yourselves into pretzels trying to "understand them." Instead, ask them exactly WHAT Trump has done for them. When all the laughter and merriment over the despair displayed by the liberals they despise so much has subsided, how are they better off than they were two years ago? Everybody always wants to know that, but reporters never go there. They have absolutely ZERO comeback questions. I guess they don't teach that in journalism school.
Another thing, in a similar vein: Be Prepared for the interview. Don't even bother to show up if all you do is ask a question and then let the person natter on and on, letting them get away unopposed by reason. I for one am not interested in a soliloquy by any candidate from either party. Reporters need to bone up on the subjects that are going to be discussed. I want grilling to take place.
9
Well said.
1
“It’s on us to quit staging “likability” sweepstakes”
Especially when the corporate media get even that wrong time after time.
5
Trump plays the media like a fiddle, and you all clamor for him to call the tune. Until that toxic aspect of your relationship changes, nothing else will. We are in unprecedented times with a President who appears to be aiding and abetting the enemy, whose very election is clouded by suspicious activity, who has done little more than exacerbate hatred and xenophobia while grifting and golfing on our tax money, yet the media insist upon treating this Presidential faux pas with the respect garnered by legitimate past Presidents. Why? Until MSM gets behind the wheel and stops kowtowing to our Liar in Chief, his behavior will not change. And because he is a pathological liar, it probably won’t change, even then. But at least MSM will have cut off some of his avenues for sowing fear and racism while he completely destabilizes our institutions under what appears to be Putin’s guidance.
4
The most interesting question is this:
After Trump is ousted, what will be the future of Fox News?
To be the propaganda arm of the country, they must have a propagandist running the show. There's no one in the GOP horizon who could fill Trump's infested swamp waders.
What will Fox do without Trump? It can't start covering the truth all of a sudden. It would be too much of a shock to the systems of its viewers. Fox set itself far, far (right) apart as the only outlet for the "truth" (read: lies and misinformation).
There's literally no replacing the Evil Doer in Chief. There's not a person on the planet who could do all of the damage he's done. Hopefully Trump's ouster will put an end to Fox and its countless, woefully ignorant "Friends."
8
WE THE PEOPLE have the power to decide the fate of fox so-called news, hate radio and every other democracy-destroying news outlet and corporation, Sarah O.
Turn them off. Do not buy from them. Problem solved.
6
Excellent illustration to accompany this piece!
1
The dirty little secret is that Trump was on MSNBC with "Mika and Joe" twice a week in the run up to the election. A hot mike caught Joe "secretly" agreeing to go "soft" on Trump with his questions as Trump's continued appearances which translated to ratings and big $$ for the "journalists" Joe and Mika. MSNBC more than any network, created Donald Trump and helped to legitimize his candidacy in mainstream America. It was only after Trump achieved the nomination did MSNBC's and CNN's coverage morph into the daily hatefest it has now become, everyday, for over 2 years.
5
This is true. Back in 2016, when Trump would say things on the stump and in debates like, the invasion of Iraq was a lie, wouldn't it be nice to have peace with Russia and China, we should protect social security, we should assure health care for all, we should rebuild infrastructure, Ted Cruz is mendacious, Marco Rubio silly; every time the deluded press would turn their attention away from Hillary Clinton's campaign of nothing.
For openers, I’d stop covering his tweets on TV and in the print media. Deprive him of the oxygen.
7
With the exception of Acosta and Kaitlin Collins , the pushback is non-existent. It’s not enough to have a tough Q if you don’t follow up to get the truth. Many Trump lies are recycled. While he drones on, get out the Factbook you should all have by now. He does tend to cower when presented w own tweets, etc.
4
Do we have enough real news outlets left throughout our states to adopt this operational tactic in selling political news? I wish I could believe that our desire for candidates with real political solutions to our woes would sell better than a stupid and dangerous leader’s blunders and tweets. I am all for striving for the higher ground but too many still revel in the outrageous. And news having moved into the capitalistic arena of entertainment doesn’t make the task any easier. But if the real news media can accomplish what you suggest, I will give the reporters like you all the credit. You will have brought America back from the brink.
1
The media’s main function should be to call him out on everyone of his lies as soon as they as uttered. Don’t let the lie go unaddressed. Do your job, please.
8
Frank Bruni --
You already did what you claim to deplore. The first line of your opinion piece -- your article -- opened with the word, "Pocahontas." That sort of thing can be likened to "Pavlov's dog."
What is the matter with you?
Further down in your opinion piece you mention the likeability factor which hits female candidates the hardest. It's like being back in middle school. It is a ridiculous way to judge candidates -- female candidates -- for the highest office -- most important elected position -- in the world.
If Hillary Clinton had been elected I daresay we, as a country, would not be in the untenable situation we now find ourselves. Hillary Clinton is intelligent, well-read, respected by world leaders, and feared by Putin. As Oprah Winfrey commented during the 2016 presidential campaign:
"But there really is no choice, people. All the people sitting around talking about they can’t decide. I hear this all the time. You get into conversations where people say, ‘I just don’t know if I like her.’
"But you don’t have to [like Hillary Clinton]," Winfrey said, stressing that’s not the question voters should be asking.
"She’s not coming over to your house! You don’t have to like her," Oprah said. "Do you like this country? You better get out there and vote. Do you like the country? Do you like freedom and liberty? Do you like this country? OK. Do you like democracy or do you want a demagogue?"
Thanks to the media, we have a demagogue, a Putin puppet.
10
Michael Moore correctly predicted that Trump would win in 2016.
https://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/
He listed 5 reasons and most of them were accurate.
He based his prediction on actually talking to the voters in the rust belt states.
He attempted many times to sound the alarm to the Democratic Party leaders but to no avail. They thought they had MI, WI, PN in the bag; these 3 states cost Clinton the election.
Notice in the article that media coverage is not one of the 5 reasons.
I know Trump voters. Many of them voted for Obama, both elections. I can tell the Democratic Party leadership exactly why they switched, based on my talks with them.
I doubt they will even give me a listen. I will try.
The Democratic Party leadership needs to read Moore's article if they really want to win the next election. It is just as valid today as it was in the last election.
4
@J Alfred Prufrock
We now know a good deal about the Obama voters who switched to Trump. This paper has described the results of the credible studies. A single factor consistently defined this group. In fact, this factor was far more important than any other factor. They were remarkably susceptible to fake news. Moore was prescient, but we no longer need to rely on Moore for analysis now that we have actual studies.
2
We don’t have any such studies. And if we keep telling ourselves that this is the reason he won before, he’ll win again.
The more I hear and read about Trump, the more I am inclined to vote for him again. He must be doing something right or he would not dominate the NYT. Every day and just about every story has his name in it.
1
My suggestion is to have the media ignore Trump's words from now on. If anyone wants to know, they only have Faux news to listen to.
2
So now the big story will be the media's process of atoning? That's news? Hardly. Your incessant scourging of Trump out of suspicion that you abetted his victory has been an unseemly form of self flagellation for over two years. The mainstream press doesn't matter anymore but neither does Trump. "He came, he ruled poorly and then he moved on."
1
Who says Trump will be around to even run in 2020?
5
NYTimes, please do not give Trump's mug front page place. Just a note to say where we can find his latest lies. Put them in the least note worthy places! That should please him enormously!
Mr. Bruni, you are right about not giving attention to Trump's contenders' demeaning epithets. TV stations gave him free publicity last time. Avoid his 'Make America Great Again" Speeches to his base. That should cost his big war chest!! Not be a freebe. Especially when they are biombastic lies.
3
Despite being an indispensable source of information...."The media are businesses, so by accepted standards their job is profit. By other standards, they have a duty to the public to provide “all the news that’s fit to print,” under a concept of “fitness” that is as free as possible from submission to power interests or other distorting factors..." Chomsky
Thank you, Frank Bruni, I have been waiting for an article like this for three years. A very telling quote in the piece from Jill Abramson about the coverage of Cinton's email "scandal": “When you compare that to the wrongdoing that has been exposed so far by Robert Mueller,” Abramson told me, “it seems like a small thing.” Even now, in the context of being interviewed for this (spot-on) article, she chooses the word "seems". Hillary's emails seem like a small thing. Can I just correct that? They ARE a small thing.
3
Great article, although I am not optimistic. Yesterday, the Times ran an article about the reactions of the conservative media to the shutdown. Really?
3
If a train wreck is newsworthy, the Trump presidency is newsworthy as well, and for the same reasons. We cannot seem to turn our attention from it. Only in the case of the presidency, the train wreck is unending, and even seems to have a future as well as a past.
Mr. Bruni - Thank you for joining the chorus of people across the country who want this kind of reactivity to end. We need to not only refuse to be distracted but must persist in stepping out of the spin of information that makes us feel discouraged and without the agency to act. In a democracy we are the government. At this point in time, it is clear that if we agree to pretend it is simply our leaders who make decisions then we, not they, are the ones who are responsible.
3
That Trump uses the media and uses the media with some skill is obvious to all.
Indeed, Obama used the media to his advantage...remember all of those "important" trips to places like Ohio and Wisconsin, even Iowa, during this first term that were nothing more than campaign stops?..The media dutifully trotted along like the sheep that they have come to be. Both Bushes and Bill Clinton used the media as has every candidate that has run for the presidency in the modern era. All of the candidates in 2020 will "use" the media in exactly the same ways.
But if the media is being "used" is that more the fault of the user? Or is it the willingness of the press to be used so boldly and unscrupulously?
A fair person would put the responsibility at 50-50,
An honest person would put it at 90-10.
The press wouldn't be "used" unless they were willing, even excited, particpants in the scheme.
3
I'm remembering back to the early days of the Trump campaign, when the cable news networks, sadly not just Fox had a little countdown clock counting down to the next Trump rally-never to a Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, John Kasich or any other primary opponent's rally. Seemed a fundamental violation of fairness.
Campaign rallies are NOT news. If you're going to show one candidate's rallies, then any reasonable standard of ethics say you must show all other candidates, at least those beyond a reasonable threshold of serious contender.
2
Sadly, the FCC’s “Fairness Doctrine” was eliminated in 1987 and the associated regulations removed from the Federal Register in 2011. In this environment, it is too much to expect that people will behave ethically just because it’s the right thing to do. I guess there’s not enough profit to be made.
3
Every journalist or editor covering the White House should keep a list of policies by their computer that the executive branch is involved with on some level. They might include, but aren't limited to:
- The environment and climate change policy
- Trade policies
- Gun safety reform
- Infrastructure
- The opioid crisis
- Middle East policy
- Public education
...and so forth.
When you feel the urge to report on the latest sensational comment or Tweet, look back to this list and ask which of these substantive issues isn't being covered as a result. It would serve to better inform the public and not let Trump drive the conversation quite so much.
3
Answer me this, Good People of OUR United States of America, "Why should WE THE PEOPLE have to fight with our supposed president?"
Another article in today's NY Times says, "Those who thought the now 23-day government shutdown standoff between Mr. Trump and Congress has been ugly have not seen anything yet. The border wall fight is just the preliminary skirmish in this new era of divided government. The real battle has yet to begin."
The Con Don is hiring hordes of mafia lawyers to try to protect him - from US. HE WORKS FOR US. We do not work for him.
This whole situation is ludicrous beyond comprehension. The Con Don was not "elected". He was planted in OUR white house to try to help the International Mafia destroy OUR government and lives. They want to start WW3. They want to try to take us back to the days of the roman/catholic empire.
NO. Good People with power in our political/legal/military/secret service systems must step up - together - and put The Con Don, Minister Pence and Traitor Mitch McConell under citizen's arrest and hold them until they are prosecuted and imprisoned for life for trying to destroy OUR democracy. NO pardons.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi will become OUR President and will undo most of The Con Don's evil deeds. She will dismiss his Robber Baron cabinet members and appointments to OUR regulatory agencies and judicial system. She will rescind all his supposed presidential directives.
NOW is the time. Please, Good People, Step UP!
6
Here's another suggestion: When reporting on one of Trump's press conferences or photo-ops, show the video but CUT THE AUDIO. Show him speaking, but LEAVE OUT THE WORDS.
For example, "I haven't done it, I may do it. I may do it" would become " ".
Or, "They get off the road and they drive out into the desert, and they come on, they make a left turn. Usually it’s a left, not a right. . . " would become " ".
In this way, video news channels could act as responsible reporters of the president's activities while losing almost no substantive content. There's a overwhelming chance that what Trump is saying is incorrect, made up, unbelievable, contradicting what he said the day before, likely to be contradicted by what he will say the next day, likely to be walked back by someone in his administration, blatant political propaganda, off topic, or incoherent. (Someone should be able to do an empirical study of that.)
This will also have the advantage of irritating Trump while helping to lower levels of irritation in the country overall.
2
If the tv news outlets show every trump campaign rally as they did in 2016 to the detriment of other republican candidates and the Hillary Clinton all Americans should turn off the tv immediately! The non stop coverage of trump was inexcusable as he rarely said anything of consequence.
3
Trump' s media appeal--his claim to fame (vs infamy) is his pricking the balloon of prissy American political speech--he's the paradigm of vulgarity--in both speech and action. That makes him a novelty and newsworthy. Let's hope it is wearing thin.
Paradoxically he ran a campaign railing against politically correct speech. So now he rails against Tlaib's "MF" as "disgraceful." What's going on?
1.He realizes he is vulnerable to the same vulgarity he rains on his critics.
2. He resents the media attention it gets--he thinks they are stealing what is rightfully his alone--media attention being a zero-sum game.
3. Vulgarity especially appeals to his base base. "Vulgar" primarily means common people--especially regarding education and related matters.
4. Trump also railed against "political correctness" as anti racist, sexist, ageist, xenophobic and homophobic speech. He pushed the buttons of the incorrect. But that is wearing thin too.
So now he rants about his wall and linguistic etiquette--especially the etiquette of calling him a "MF"--that's a metaphor--of course--meaning especially vile male person.
5. But "especially vile male people" lacks political correctness in the sense of marketing effectiveness. "MF" gets more media attention.
1
A long overdue article. And, as part of being less reactive and superficial and more substantive, the press must also better fulfill its responsibility as public advocate.
This means less right-vs-left, liberal-vs-conservative, Democrat-vs-Republican, supporters-say-this-critics-say-that.
And it means that instead the press must more directly push for what people desperately need -- healthcare, education, retirement, respect, safety, fairness, a livable economy, breaking the power of the rich, full democracy, and so on.
4
The answer to your rhetorical question (ha) is unequivocally YES. The media drives our entire election cycle which is 2 years too long. Why? Because MSM needs the massive ad revenue. If they could make it longer they would and would re-elect Trump three times if they could. Golden egg.
4
Great piece Mr. Bruni
One additional observation from the press coverage in 2016:
The entire media focused on Trump and Clinton during the entire year, even before their respective nominations.
Kruz, Rubio and Sanders were relegated to being sparring partners for Trump/Clinton as a warm-up act.
There were other voices that the media brushed off from the very beginning, such as Democrat Martin O'Malley of Maryland and Republican John Kasich of Ohio.
The tens of millions of us that call ourselves political independents had no real candidate in 2016,
If no politically moderate person gets a nomination in 2020 or 2024, then we are finished. Joe Biden may be the moderate we need but he's running out of time rapidly.
We will be left with a long political civil war that will leave us with a combination of left-wing and right-wing lunatics.
2
Case in point right now: why all the press about Trump being the one to stop the budget from being funded? There are alternatives to solve this without the president's signature. The Senate could vote to support funding (as they did before Xmas) and if Trump vetoes, then override his veto. Why aren't Senate Republicans made culpable in the press?
John Roberts could make a case for needing the judiciary (our third branch of government) funded. Why isn't anyone reporting about that?
9
Until the COMPANIES that claim to supply journalism actually do deliver journalism most of what we will have is more of the same... news as reality show shtick.... with the occasional reference delivered here by Mr Bruni giving an aire of dignity to what is otherwise trash entertainment. There is not a strong sense that this will be appreciably better when the suits who make the calls prostitute their underlings for the entertainment revenues or for the personal connections to power where legitimate challenges from fresh ideas or fresh faces are demeaned or otherwise marginalized.
2
We are all complicit.
As consumers of the media, WE drive the coverage.
So, for me, bye bye, Rachel! See ya, Don. Have a nice life, Chris and Chris and Chris! Enough all of you pundits saying the same blasted thing you have been saying for two years!
It is time for me to turn off media unless and until they give me more to help me understand the results of the policy that is being played out while I am hating and horrified at the Trump family corruption abetted by the GOP and the media and me, consumer of it all.
1
Please please please do not give this evil man a platform to perpetuate his ignorance and meanness. Please please please don’t make the democratic primary a reality show. I know I’m spitting in the wind here, but do your jobs and forget sensationalism. Our futures depend on it.
1
Of course they will be his accomplice. Trump is great for business. That was noted a couple of years ago. Doesn't matter how ugly or incompetent he may be, business/profits rule the day in America. Media is a business fist and foremost.
1
The Media was arrogant and unfair and yes, hopefully this time around it will get it right. As for polls, it should go by Nate Silver's 538
2
We cannot skip coverage of someone so malignant as Trump.
But I would welcome lead news paragraphs that began with something like:
“Today Donald Trump spent his time in office sending out X number of tweets. X number of them were factually inaccurate. This brings the number of his public falsehoods to X,XXX and to a daily average of XXX.”
2
Be informed, not influenced.
1
You have no CHOICE, media mavens. Your economics determine it. As long as clicks drive dollars, and a paywall is an option only for "elite" media such as the NYT and the WSJ, we're going to be focused on Trump's (often hilarious!) tweets for another 2 years at least.
2
Stop reporting every inane twitter comment. Just report actions taken, decisions made, higher level stories in a balanced manner. Twitter jabs are like tweaking everyone's nose. You have to respond but it makes no impact in the long run. Who cares what MrT says at 4 AM, It just shows him to be incompetent and scared. We know that. Refocus on the movement of policy and less on the theatrics.
2
This is a great article that shines the light on the media itself in its culpability of allowing the liar-in-chief to drive the media cycle on often (but not always) trivial tweets that are undeserving of air/press time.
I have said from early on once I learned the conman’s shtick that the media gives way too much airtime to the tweets - it’s like the news cycle has become tabloid. America is addicted to reality TV and seems apparent to me that the conman is expert at keeping the blame game of reality TV alive. The media is culpable in facilitating this game.
Not much is said about the alt-right so-called “news” outlets like Faux News, Breitbart, and InfoWars and their tabloid and sensational angles (aka often lies) at influencing a large number of the population with rhetoric and propaganda.
I truly believe a full in depth analysis of these hacks needs to be done as they too contribute to the “Divided States of America”. We need to find a solution to them.
The conman in the White House does not deserve to get the amount of press nor should anything Huckster-Sanders says be aired. Also the sound bites of the pResident should not be aired - the TV host could read the words instead.
With all that, I am supremely grateful that true investigative reporting agencies like NYT, WAPO, The Guardian, et.al. are out there digging up real stories. I would love to see more general US stories out there as well as more on what lawmaking is actually happening in Washington.
I sent this to the news outlets which depend on my subscriptions. Let's see if they take note.
Why note his nonsense at all? If Trump makes a statement on policy (i.e., "we're withdrawing from Syria"), that's obviously newsworthy. But if it's just him talking trash about someone else, or spewing lies and misrepresentations to support his ludicrous wall or any other policy he decides will win him favor with his base, I don't see that there's obligation on the part of news organizations to cover that at all.
Granted, it would often be a tough call because Trump rarely manages to communicate a decision without insulting someone else, but it would be a start.
I never understood why the NYT and MSNBC and other non-Fox outlets were so deferential the Trump in 2016. They just all hammered Hillary over her emails as if that mattered more than everything else that we who voted for her already knew would happen. So yes, how about realizing that you get played a lot by Trump and try not buying into it for a change.
2
This will never happen. Just sit back and watch. Journalists are fixated on proving Trump is a liar--there's a hot news item. In doing so, they are fixated on...well, Trump. And Trump voters completely shrug all this off. Fake news. As a class journalists are too lazy, or too poorly financed, to get out of Washington and do the kind of reporting we need. Far easier to lounge around the briefing room and yell indignant questions at Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
3
The media's performance was a national disgrace, second only to Trump's pathological lying. News organizations knew exactly what they were doing per Linda's reference to quotes by CBS's CEO, Mooves. They wholeheartedly chose to report Trump's antics over the facts. Trump was a puppeteer and didn't need to spend much money on paid advertising.
2
The biggest mistake for the last three years could be blame on TV Networks, by broadcasting his crazy rallies they contributed to the myth of his grandiosity and a strongman mentality.
All this farce s/b stopped in its tracks.
He must be dissect and expose for the clown he is.
3
FINALLY! Someone finally admits that their media outlet completely blew it last election. Not only blew it %100 of the time but then you guys had the sheer audacity to deny it back then, that was really stupid given that we were all yelling at all of you guys to stop giving Trump free air time no matter what.
Thank you Mr. Bruni for finally admitting the truth NO other reporter or outlet will admit the facts and they themselves called my accusations "feelings" as opposed to facts.
However none of you guys show any kind of progress and you still are giving Trump as much press as he wants while ignoring lots of other big big news. You might want to take a close look at the VP and what he's been doing secretly.
2
In the midst of a Republican run state where the opposition is gerrymandered into irrelevance, no one here, as with the national media debate, looks at the important issues and the rot that is destroying us as a country. It is time for the media to grow up out of adolescence and cover this corrupt administration with maturity. This means not giving air time to tabloid issues for the sake of sales, and forsaking the 'equal air time' mantra. Value judgements have to be made. The most important issues are not being presented to the mostly illiterate populace because the bully in the white house gives you titillating ratings. Grow up!!
For example, where is the media coverage on the enablers, the spinless Republicans led by the over the hill McConnell? Why are they not being held accountable for the travesty that is taking place in this country? Come on. Please report what is important and not tabloid.
1
"...appetite for antics versus substance,...". This craving for spectacle, this addiction to constant simulation and entertainment that has developed in American culture might be the single largest challenge we face. It displaces mental resources we need for serious rational thinking about important issues on a societal level and leads to a government run like a reality television show.
The press has been writing the same old critiques of its political coverage for decades now, and I wish they would just stop. How his rival candidates responded to Mr. Trump's jibes was their problem, not that of the press, and if they let themselves get smothered by his avalanche of coverage, that was their failure.
Post-campaign, what the President does is news, whether or not Mr. Bruni likes it, and it has to be covered. Instead of naval-gazing at their own role in the spectacle of Trump and trying to figure out the best way to manipulate their coverage about him, why don't they just report the news as it happens? The press would be a lot better off, and so would its consumers.
1
Never mind the silly nicknames sounds right. If you're called a two-ton Tessie, a charming snake, or labeled in a more original way, you will live to tell the tale, and it takes character not to start spewing and swearing like a gutless sewer.
Something serious is happening in America. A cab driver once picked up this passenger from JFK, a few days after young children had been assassinated in school by a gunman, a great tragedy, and the driver asked 'if you had a gun to protect yourself, would you use it?'. Of course not', I replied. He gave me a lesson. 'You do not know how you would react unless you were there'.
We may be here now, where morality is rearing its inconvenient head. There is plenty of fake news circulating as a means of distracting observers of the big picture. Where and what were you doing during The Trump Era might be asked, or we are being given a choice to understand what is right or wrong, according to our Constitution.
In this day of modern technology and progress, we may not have a second chance to say 'We really did not know what was happening'. There are naysayers of The New York Times, which is a choice like any other, but if our Nation scatters and disperses, Orwell may be here to stay.
The media, specially CNN helped Trump in 2016 election of course unintentionally . I do no consider FOX as news media but a Goebbles follower extreme right wing propaganda organization which is lately Putin’s good friend. We remember Moonves who put CBS financial gain ahead of the country. Trump always considers that media coverage of good or bad benefits him.
How can anyone seriously say the media helps Trump. 90 % of the media bashes Trump constantly. Are the media supposed to ignore Trump? He is the President after all. This article is crazy.
3
I would assume, by now, they get the fact he is an agent of Russia.
1
What the media needs to do is to expose the shallowness, the bigotry, the mendacity of everything this man says. It's really very simple, even if some of the electorate share Trump's ignorance and bigotry. Trump must be presented as a completely morally bankrupt individual, as an ignoramus, a dangerous fool who is completely and dangerously unqualified for the high office he seeks. Actually, I think that the Times did just that in 2016, but Fox and other outlets of course treated him as the Savior of the Republic. Let's blame that part of the electorate who allowed him to edge out Hillary in the Electoral College.
Trump lies. He makes false accusations daily. The press is doing better now that it fact checks, but I do agree, it needs to diminish the broadcast of his bombast.
Antics?
That’s on full display right now, political posturing over an amount so amall it doesn’t show up in a $4 trillion spend.
Throw in the temper tantrums during the Kavanagh hearings and the only name recognition is Donald Trump. Beto who? The click bait media has no chance
Repeat this everyday.
"Today the president said nothing truthful or of any consequence."
3
The media as Trump's accomplice? Now THAT is genuinely funny! I can hear Democrats all over the country laughing their heads off.
1
Someone should ask this progressive propagandist just WHO in the media has worked with President Trump? Even Fox News Channel had an anchor criticizing the Prez right after the 8-minute speech this week.
The history of this age will begin and end with how the media has gone on a total war footing against this leader and the country that elected him.
If an article in any paper can be considered an in-kind contribution worth so many exposures for X amount of money, the NY Times and its wanna-bes up and down the coasts have surely contributed support worth a billion dollars to those wanting him & the U.S. to fail.
Can the coastal press even talk about their partners sanely? No voice among conservatives had anything truly negative to say about the original dance video AOC posted, but advocates at media outlets competed at calling out their enemies for saying bad things about it.
Meanwhile, Americas role in world affairs is in a renaissance and recognizing that fact is strictly forbidden from these yellowing pages.
Remember, Trump's request for the wall/fence amounts to ten hours of U.S. federal spending if you spread out all such activity over a year.
3
This is exactly why I cancelled my subscription to the Times. I found that the WSJ, while less my cup of tea, is better at moderating the time and space it gives him.
2
Out in the hinterlands of readers Trump's nickname is "Cadet Bone Spur." Another draft dodgers running now to embrace patriotism, but not when it came time to really serve.
I have no interest in the Trump quotes that show him an incompetent leader, liar and bully. I knew that from the day he descended the golden escalator. I want to know what his administration is DOING or NOT DOING. I want to know how that affects my country and its people and the world and its peoples. Stop the free publicity.
3
The media will propel Trump to a second term. Like it or not, the liberal dominated media is its own worst enemy.
They are so full of self righteous indignation in their reporting that it overshadows the truth.
HRC's lost because her past was not forgotten by the public: Whitewater, Benghazi, Haiti, Monica, Iran, Deplorables, Deleted emails etc.....
Once Trump paraded HRC in front of the media, it demonstrated to all her lack of fitness to hold office.
Her lies never stopped and her demeaning comments toward middle America spoke volumes.
The DNC's leaked emails angered the Bernie supports who in turn withheld their votes.
The rah rah it's a win projections by the media drove away potential votes.
The more the media demeans Trump the more ridiculous they look.
Mueller has yet to put forward his report on Trump and the election.
All in 2020 will not be a walk in win for the Democrats.
3
Frank, most of the mainstream media acts as an arm of the Democrat Party and has for years. You should have no fear that they will continue their advocacy in the guise of reporting in 2020.
1
@ Chris
Too true!!!! It gets more evident every day.
The editorializing in news stories is repugnant!
2 lines of news followed by 10 paragraphs of opinion.
The media doesn't need to wait for 2020. Start now.
If, as you conclude, nicknames have "nothing to do with it", why do you begin your piece by repeating Trump's rude nickname for Senator Warren? Please don't just write about the change you want to see in the media....BE the change.
3
I blame the media for Trump- they built him up to sell advertising instead of serving the public interest. Bernie Sanders had huge rallies all over this country that were never covered live and yet every cable news outlet covered every Trump rally like it was the second coming of Christ.
Michael Moore showed how shamefully wedded they were in his film Fahrenheit 11/9, where they tied up massive amounts of air time showing an empty podium waiting for Trump on the same channels that give a subject expert 2 minutes in a segment on regular programming.
When Chris Matthews and the rest stop covering the horse race and start talking policy we will be properly served. Sarah Palin was toast after a simple set of questions were offered by Katie Couric and Charles Gibson. Ted Kennedy was derailed when Roger Mudd asked him why he wanted to be President and awaited his answer.
The New York Times also does not get off the hook as they are already peddling horse race stories for 2020 instead of looking at policy. They are also not pointedly noting that the mess in D.C. is a direct result of the previous Republican Congress to get a budget out on time or that they chose to not fund Trump’s stupid wall.
2
Forget about investigating Trump. Investigate Fox News. Compel Fox to devote coverage to defending their crusade against reality. That's the kind of fact-based challenge that put a leash on Alex Jones.
As it stands now, when the president does something laudible it's covered everywhere, as it should be. When the president does something despicable, it's reported by the Times, the Washington Post and CNN, while Fox News chooses to ignore inconvenient facts and substitutes a story like "Blond raped in basement." No wonder its so difficult to get through to Turmp voters.
1
It appears that our political pundits will continue to rattle off Trump's follies day after day for as long as he remains in office. This has made their jobs a easy -- free money, really.
But rather than constantly bemoaning the effects day after day, I keep hoping that at least somebody in the American media would identify the cause.
The Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision of January 10, 2010, made it possible for billionaires to provide political candidates and officeholders with unlimited unanimous bribes, and currently I find no discussion of this in the media.
1
It is not the media alone that is responsible for the Trump phenomenon in American politics. Should the Democratic party repeat its 2016 platform of platitudes, pieties, political correctness and listening tours rather than adopting Bernie's 'directness' formula we may see a sorely disappointed public once again reveal its revulsion with Democratic politics as usual.
Should these 20 odd Democrat presidential candidates spend the next 18 months telling us what is wrong with American rather than articulate what they will do for America, such as Medicare for all, then I would rather not hear from them at all. Don't waste my time. In 2016, bothe Republicans and Democrats tuned out everyone except Bernie and the other guy. They both articulated specific programs. And the lesson is......?
5
Lots of good points in this article.
But face facts. Media cannot ignore the President of the United States.
Especially, one who views positive and negative coverage as the same thing.
2
I agree that the media is Trump's biggest accomplice. And it plays into his hands as he believes even negative coverage is advantageous. But the Democrats aren't doing too much to help their cause either. Granted I don't want them to become showboaters and swindlers on the level of Trump but they sure seem content to keep quiet and not send messages that are even worthy of covering. I don't know if they are just trying to be "politically correct" or respectful to the office of the president and the leader of the senate (McConnell) but they need to figure out an answer to the shameful actions that are damaging the nation. If and when the Democrats figure it out the media must give them equal time.
2
We need to take these candidates and their advisors at their word - and then explain the consequences to the public at large. When Steve Bannon talked of “deconstructing” the government he meant it, literally. But people weren’t told what chaos, repression and lack of democratic institutions of governing would look like. We’re getting a notion of it now! And when Karl Rove said the goal is to “establish a permanent Republican majority,” he meant it. We’re getting a notion of it now! That’s what Mitch McConnell is doing by not bringing bi-partisan proposals to the floor for a vote. These “leaders” are zealots - their self-interest is their motivation- and until people understand that they are out to destroy the potentially greatest country in the world we will be well past the point of turning around. That’s the job of the media. It’s not partisan to protect our wonderful but fragile and flawed Democracy by educating and informing its citizens. The reward is not always defined by dollars and cents!
3
Excellent analysis, Mr Bruni. We need more of this.
But of course, a Democratic party that is too timid and corrupt to put forward ideas that could rectify the fundamental economic injustice of our system will only be focusing on being anti Trump.
Likewise we should all know by now, that identity politics alone are not going to cut it.
3
Trump is not a credible source of information. So stop reporting what he says and get to the experts on the key issues:
1. Horrible income inequality that keeps 100+ million Americans needlessly living paycheck to paycheck. At pre-Reagan inequality, the bottom 99% of families would be getting $7,000 more/year in income. If national wealth were split evenly, each family would have $850,000, but the median family has $100,000. What are the best tax and redistribution policies to fix this problem? Ultimately, people voting for people too far right politically is the cause; remind them.
2. About 30 million don't have health insurance and we pay 40% more for it than Europe with comparable results. What are we doing to fix it? In 2017, we had our first increase in the uninsured since 2010.
3. A 25% cut in Social Security in the early 2030's that gets tougher to pay for the longer we wait. Removing the cap on the payroll tax covers 70% of the shortfall for 75 years, while only affecting the top 6% or so of workers and then only the income over the $132,900 threshold for 2019.
4. The exploding budget deficit, up 60% in 2018 an 45% for 2018-2027, mainly due to Trump's tax cuts for the rich and additional spending.
Examine the percent of articles devoted to key issues vs. not on the prime real estate (upper portion) of your website. Keep most of the Trump show (the sizzle) to a minimum (as Trump is not a credible source of information) and focus on the steak.
3
The real question is, if somebody the press actually likes is elected in 2020, will they continue to be as critical with that person's every word and action as they have with Trump (and rightly so)? Or will they let their guard down - even just a little - and start letting things slide?
1
It’s not about electing who the media “likes.”
It’s about thoughtful and relevant coverage on issues that matter.
Don't just love it!
It is either fake news or media indulgence of the President of the United States of America.
Trump is brilliant Washington outside who is succeeding beyond any ones expectations!
Build the wall!
The media should focus more on Nancy Pelosi and her work with plastics.
2
The '16 election was an anomaly. The two most popular candidates swore to upend the status quo, one preaching resent fueled isolationism and the other social justice. Both railed against a "rigged system."
The Democrats inevitable candidate was not attacked solely on her penchant for secrecy and lying (the email server in the closet). She was not the hapless victim of the Russians and the misogynists as apologists would have it. She was not enjoying (as the Times reported every day leading the election) an insurmountable lead with no real probability of losing. She was a deeply flawed, unpopular and distrusted relying on her team's mistaken strategies to win the presidency.
No other Democratic candidate in the race could have lost a national election to a bloviating conman. So next time around, do your jobs as reporters. Do the hard work and the heavy lifting. If you've forgotten how or never tried it, ask Dan Rather how it's done.
1
Every time a columnist, reporter, anchor, or panel guest on talking heads show or written word is asked to participate in the type of reaction sessions you so rightfully decry (and this includes you!) they should prepare themselves with facts and information on how the current administration is destroying something of our society's fabric and very being - and there is a lot of material there, unfortunately.
Be that the quality of our water, the care of our citzenry, the compassionless treatment of "others," the treatment of our lands, etc. such folks should be prepared to say to the host and to us the reader/listener something like this. "What is more important that our listeners/readers know about is the fact that our current leaders are . . . . . " and then fill in the blank about a VERY SPECIFIC instance of destructive behavior and NOT let the discussion get back to the juvenile, infantile, and puerile personal attacks and innuendos that are being hurled about recklessly.
DO NOT be distracted from issues by the vindictive language and attacked used.
Stay the course, show us the people, what the meanness is really about - not words, but real harm to human beings and our country.
I am a lifelong Democrat but deplored the party's choice of Hillary as its Presidential candidate. The unwaveringly negative coverage of her, from legitimate analyses of her weaknesses to hysterical repetition of trivia and lies, showed me that even the 'liberal' media was misogynistic and mindful more of clicks than the welfare of the nation. The NY Times, Washpost, and other major newspapers, as well as the three mainstream TV networks, were much more like Faux News in their coverage than was reassuring to anyone who cares about democracy. Will they do that sort of thing again? Of course.
5
thank you Frank Bruni. For a mea culpa that acknowledges the continuing responsibility of the media to not repeat, for the sake of profit or otherwise, the abdication of its responsibilities, both politically and perhaps even morally, to speak Truth and more importantly to point out lies and misuses of power wherever and whenever they occur and whoever commits them! As an adjunct to such efforts, I would suggest that we avoid continuing one of the greatest and cruelest ironies of our time, in which Trump has made himself the greatest beneficiary of political correctness. For it can only be for reasons of political correctness that Trump is treated with the same deference that we have accorded all previous Presidents, none of whom have shown the same disdain for the dignity of the Office, the Country, and the Constitution that this most venal of contemporary politicians displays daily. His lies are part of our daily life and his misinformation permeates the news daily. Accordingly he should be pointed out as a liar when he lies. And he should be called-out for his shady and criminal activities. And not just in the editorial and opinion sections but in the news itself -- especially when his mistatements and misjudgments constitute much of the news (along with his unwanted and intrusive misinformed opinions) Euphemisms must be avoided. Courage is needed. Truth must be defended.
Mr. Bruni doesn't get it. Trump is still doing quite well in the polls and certainly has some chance in the next elections.
One reason the news pays so little attention to content in politics is that there is so little content. Who cares which toilets transgenders use? For many people the two main parties are almost copies of each other while many real issues are discarded as "politically incorrect".
And far from being without content Trump focused exactly on the content that many people cared about like immigration and the lack of opportunities in the rust belt. He was often insincere and his solutions were often wrong. But at least he understood what the people wanted.
Populists get a chance when mainstream politicians no longer talk in a credible way about issues that people care about. Unfortunately all this talk about Trump's newest tweets, Russiagate and his alleged incompetence are just tricks of the mainstream politicians to avoid formulating an answer to Trumps "solutions" to what many people consider the real problems of the moment.
2
From my perspective as an NYT reader and observer of the political arena, I think the US news media have gone out of their way to demonize President Trump, mostly because he does not act the way they think a president should.
They gave Obama a pass on many issues because he was smooth and a good speaker. He lied as much, or more, than Trump. He just did it with a smile.
If the media has done Trump a service it is because, due to their overwhelming venom, the public sees that he will not play their game. Good for him. You in the media have made your bed, now lie in it.
4
The question is how much attention we give to someone who repeatedly lies to us. We have to make important decisions about the future of our country, and we shouldn't be diverted by someone whose sole aim and purpose in life is to be recognized. The only danger is that if we ignore him too much he will create a crisis or blow up something to get our attention. He's already doing that by shutting down the government.
Most importantly, we need to recognize that we ourselves, not only our current and would-be leaders but the people and the press, are the "grown ups" in the room and that getting out of this mess and creating a future for everyone in this country is going to take a lot of time and effort. We need to learn how to talk with one another again, and you can't do that when you have a two-year-old brat constantly pulling on your hand and breaking the china.
What’s conveniently forgotten is that prior to his nomination, the liberal media effectively promoted Trump’s candidacy – months of gratuitous exposure, the bulk of it free (& remarkably free of the disdain and loathing that’s characterized his media treatment ever since). The GOP leadership were horrified as Trump advanced (like a biblical plague) through its primary ranks, every gambit to derail (or even delay) him failing.
The media reveled in having abetted this establishment Republican nightmare, which gave birth to the Frankenstein-like conceit of control – that they could destroy the monster they’d created. Besides, with Trump as a general election opponent, Hillary couldn’t help but comfortably win, with “mandate”-sized margins being contemplated. (Recall, when Nate Silver put Trump’s final pre-election odds at 1:3, liberals – who otherwise swore by Silver’s prognostications – brayed this was embarrassingly cautious!)
It became crystal clear over the course of the 2016 election that the novelty of Trump enthralled the otherwise intelligent and responsible media. PLEASE let us learn from that mistake rather than repeating it!
Let’s see... did all of the major networks just give Trump prime-time air to vent his opinions about a “national emergency” that was really a political stunt? Sure did. Any other questions?
2
It would be a massive relief if the media would turn its attention to informing the public on policy issues, the action or inaction on the part of the congress (read Mitch McConnell & Co.). Highlighting his unwillingness to bring votes to the floor, the ignorance of folks like Inhofe, the racism of folks like Steve King, etc will force them to either change their behavior or get voted out.
If they actually do vote on bills and send them to trump, he will be forced to act one way or another something that will be more newsworthy than his juvenile behavior.
Note to media - do your jobs.
1
The article and many of the comments below are a clear example of the problem. Media make themselves the story. And media have decided that Trump will always lie, that nothing he says is truthful, which in itself is a lie.
3
"The Times’s acquisition and exhaustive analysis of confidential financial records of Trump’s from the 1990s — and its conclusion, in an epic story published in October, that he used questionable schemes to build his wealth — is a sterling example." And the result of this "epic story"..... crickets. Face it Frank, Americans have short attention spans and simply want to be entertained. Trump is the inevitable product when you combine of a Facebook and Twitter addled, celebrity obsessed, dumbed-down populace with profit driven media outlets that thrive on sensationalism. I'm not optimistic that the next two years will be any better.
2
The media have to learn what their mamas taught them, and what animal trainers well now , and what an animal psychologist/trainer wrote a well regarded book about; ignore bad behavior and reward good behavior. Thus, most of Trumps behavior would simply be ignored and unreported by the media. Probably the media will not be able to do this. They gush over Trumps bad behavior.
A whole lot of story without a conclusion begging to be told.
A. Trump is a Television Actor whose show was on N.B.C.
B. The Television industry devoted a Billion dollars worth of free airtime to Trump during the campaign.
C. Trump was elected.
I don't watch TV anymore. I am here reading and writing.
Media are in the business of selling advertising time and space. Journalists are at once a distraction from what the advertiser is paying for and only a small reason for why people read, watch, or listen to the news at all. Advertisers can't risk alienating their target audience with "real" news, hence, the "fake news" market (opinion and analysis) is booming. People can't put 2 + 2 together, so journalists calculate the the opinions based on what the advertisers are comfortable with. Anybody familiar with the sitcom, "Bewitched" knows that! Journalists want to tell people what they don't want to know and advertisers want to tell people what they do want to know. The audience of 63 million who voted for Trump were eating buying the brands and consuming the facts they wanted to believe. They started out angry at the government and now, they're angry at those who are angry with the government. A quote from a Nichols and May skit seems in order: "Information cannot argue with a closed mind." The Media is as bureaucratic as government. The Trump 63 million shut it out for the same reasons they tolerate shutting down the government. They just want Journalists to shut up and let them get on with looking at the idealized pictures they want to see themselves in.
1
“The firepower of the investigative spotlight turned on Trump was a little bit less, because no one thought he would be the president, and that was a grave mistake.”
Same like no one thought the man with the funny-looking mustache would actually become chancellor.
I remember CNN would cut from news to something nonsensical Trump would be talking about. They actually elevated Trump. I'm surprised he actually lists CNN as part of the media he calls "the enemy of the people."
Trump became the modern day Huey Long of Louisiana. He is the populist that many adore. And the media love it. Anything to increase ratings they tolerate. This is the same man who used to call in with gossip to the New York Post Page 6. Even now one can tell he loves gossip. Like when he had a fall out with Joe Scarborough and Mika. And how he hinted back then on outing their relationship. What other other American politicians behaves and talks that way? Even now statistics for his border wall don't back him. Back in 2000 five times the amount of people were coming across the border as they do now. Illegal drugs, according to his own federal government, comes through mostly from legal ports of entry hidden in vehicles, and fentanyl has been coming in the mail from China. All he has to do is tell Mexico don't allow those caravans to pass through Mexico or else. What's so hard about that? In some countries you can't leave unless you go through immigration. Tell that to Latin American countries.
Two recommendations for the press. Stop showing up for the White House press briefing. Stop featuring Trump’s face above the merriad articles about him that flood the papers. A simple start, and then move on to the more substantive proposals in Bruni’s superb analysis.
I agree with his view 100%. I really hope all candidates for president in 2020 read this article, and care less about nicknames and childish comments from Trump and focus more on delivering a message.
More importantly, I hope CNN and MSNBC reduce coverage of silly stuff such as Trump’s tweets and remarks that are in no way informative and total waste of adults time. We all know who Trump is, why are covering it so much and denying us from real news.
One last note, I really hope the media (CNN and MSNBC) covers every candidate equally and avoid brainwashing viewers with telling them which candidate has more chance of winning vs the other (e.g. Clinton vs. Sanders). That is disrespectful, and a threat to democracy.
“We’ll have evidence aplenty to demonstrate that he’s ineffective and incompetent, an approach more likely to have traction than telling voters that he’s outrageous.”
Doesn’t sound like the plan is to play things down the middle. Even in a column exhorting the media to “step it up,” Bruno tells us the media’s mission will be to communicate what a bad president Trump is.
The media remains clueless to what its role should be, and how it’s present performance solidifies his support.
2
A stalker is always a chilling and frightening nearby presence. Trump stalks limelight and camera lens with no thought, no sense of purpose other than he can, and it is rewarding to him.
Once the news media regains composure and stops trying to replicate the glamour and glitter outlets more interested in celebrity dating and athlete salaries, perhaps there will be a resurgence of intelligent, thoughtful journalism whose goal is to report and analyze, inform and spark discussion over things that matter.
1
I think the media is already deep into the 'horserace' thing & ignoring a certain reality. Trump will not be beaten by any Dem as things stand now. His real threat-besides Mueller- is within.
Clearly, Romney is begging to run & Kasich-however quietly- never stopped running. These two are the adults in the room & THAT is what we will be seeking at this point.
This time around we will really want NO DRAMA!!
1
Appreciate the article, but actions speak louder than words.
Just stop catering to Trump. It's not that hard. Just stop.
Starve him from his need for daily media attention. Whoever said that it should just be limited to 5 minutes a day, at the end of cable news, unless something extraordinary was said or implemented, has it exactly right.
Used to be that when a President had something truly important to tell the American people about, the press had the speech ahead of time, and knew whether it was going to be significant. Also, used to be that Presidents did not wage their own personal PR campaigns full-time and be a huge source, and, in some cases, the primary source, of media revenue from advertisers.
He wants to have a pretend press Q&A every time he leaves the White House so we can hear the press shout out questions and then hear him pontificating in that loud, sort-of screaming voice?
Or, most recently, he wants to have those short self-produced videos on the White House lawn?
Or, he invites the press into the beginning of a cabinet meeting so that they can see him commandeering his subordinates and spout redundant gibberish?
Or, according to him, he was convinced to give an Oval Office address that even up until air time the press did not know what he was going to say, or did not report what they knew? National emergency declaration? Yes? No?
The media can do better, quite easily. Please try.
330
@Alexandra Brockton
John Karl, ABC Chief WH correspondent, shocked This Week George Stephanopoulos when responding to a NYT story on Trump being a Russian agent. Karl said: "When Mueller issues his final report it will be anti-climatic." He continued "my sources indicate that there has not been any evidence of collusion nor obstruction."
Then when commenting on the WAPO story on Trump-Putin transcripts missing, Karl indicated "Trump has had many similar meetings with other world leaders." He downplayed any suggestion of wrong doing.
4
The media ends up with a series of Hobson's choices...Not cover him and miss the news of the day; not cover him and have nothing to put in their 24/7 blitherings, or not cover him and have the egotists, like Jim Acosta, have no following on which to base their next salary negotiation.
The media can't win...
But then again, that's the way that they have chosen to set up the game...No sympathies from me, that's for sure!
3
@Alexandra Brockton- Exactly- Thank you!!
5
Thank you for this outstanding article and finally making visible what is often complained about by those writing comments in the NYT. About time this analysis of Trump's exploitation of the press and the willingness of the press to go along with it is publicly exposed. There is much in the press about McConnell, his willingness to support Trump's schemes, and his abnegation of responsibility to the people and to democracy but little about holding him accountable. Similar comments can be made about the willingness of the press to 'play along' even as it tries to negate his policies, the press reinforces his image, his power to grab attention from the serious to the inane, and his skills as a charlatan.
2
The news media’s job is to report and analyze both sides well. I would love to hear what both candidates have done or created BOTH positive and negative, so that as a consumer I can make my own judgements. If I want entertainment, I’ll head over to Netflix.
1
Trump's incendiary rhetoric and name calling was the bright shiny object, and most could not look away.
Now, however, his rhetoric is tired, predictable, and far too plentiful. It is still incendiary, but he doesn't command the attention he once did.
Ignore the insults you know he will hurl and report on things that matter. Contrast what the democratic candidates are offering on health care, for example, with the Republican plan. To be quite honest, we (the public) is quite worn down from all the reporting on Trump. Report on things that matter to us.
Bruni is advancing the wrong solution. He is proposing advocacy journalism, which is terribly wrong. The media should not have an agenda in covering Trump now any more than it should have in 2015/16. Even then, there was too much op-Ed integrated in straight news stories.
I loathe Trump and want him out. But as a POTUS, he is a starting gun. His words, his actions and his non actions are newsworthy because he is the most visible person on the planet. He should be covered aggressively, and without bias.
Call me naive but I am an old-school journalist who finds advocacy journalism abhorrent unless it is practiced by those who state upfront that they have an agenda.
55
@Mark I respectfully cannot agree with the logical effect of finding "advocacy" journalism in one shaped by resistance to its own seduction. This is a fine complaint which Bruni could answer for himself; but for me, a journalism which yields to the shocking suggestion, that information is more privileged, the higher the station of its invention, is not reporting at all. It is social climbing.
5
@Mark If "old-school journalism" means abdicating responsibility for one's actions in order to refuse to apply judgment on oneself or anyone else, it is value-less.
10
@Mark: When Trump lies, is it biased to call him a liar? When Trump brags of grabbing women, is it biased to call him indecent? Trump exists in a maelstrom of bias and seems proud to live in defiance of many of the values on which this country is based. I think there has been plenty of objective reporting on Trump all along. But maybe the reason Trump got elected the last time is that too FEW people stood up and said that what he was doing was wrong.
31
I'm not sure that the media has learned much, for it continues to push false equivalencies. The shutdown is a case in point. Coverage highlights Trump photo-ops. Where are the front page stories highlighting the opposition of border politicians to the wall? Where are the front page stories highlighting the House's passage of legislation to open government--and pointing out its similarities to legislation passed unanimously by the Senate just a few weeks ago. Where are the front page stories highlighting Mitch Mcconnell's unwillingness to let the Senate vote. Instead we get story after story about Trump THINKING of calling a national emergency and the hand wringing about Trump THINKING of a national emergency and lots of what ifs. Trump continues to direct what appears on the front pages of national papers. If only we had the fairness doctrine--or if newspapers set out to inform rather than to entertain.
4
"But we fell prey to a habit that can’t be repeated when we compare the new crop of Democratic challengers to Trump and to one another. We interpreted fairness as a similarly apportioned mix of complimentary and derogatory stories about each contender, no matter how different one contender’s qualifications, accomplishments and liabilities were from another’s."
This has already started with the shutdown coverage. David Brooks in his recent NYT Op-Ed and on his weekly 'The News Hour' spot put forth the idea that Pelosi is just bad as Trump in handling the shutdown. HIs colleague Mark Shields, also a part of the News Hour spot, looked on in disbelief as Brooks said this. To Shields credit he articulated his disbelief to Brooks.
So what are we to do? We can't control journalists and the companies they work for. They've made a lot of money off of Thump. And the American people seem addicted to the reality-TV style of reporting and don't seem to have the ability to drill down any deeper into an issue or story. I appreciate your starting this conversation. Let's hope it grows.
2
Many Americans have never heard a rational moral argument - an argument that justifies a policy or position on moral grounds measured in terms of how it serves the common good. The media is largely responsible for this because it is heavily invested in a binary "win/loose" mentality as if running the world is a blood sport. The media sets the tone for America's cultural environment. Nowadays it sets the bar so low that it trivializes even our most urgent concerns. You can begin to address this dangerous state of affairs by framing better questions in interviews and news conferences - questions that elicit concrete information not just clever come-backs. For example: "What data are you using to support your position? Be specific." Or, "How did you arrive at this decision; who were your advisors"? Or "What is your justification for this act, decision, etc on moral grounds?" If they don't know what you are talking about then it is important to expose that. It is within the media's power to hold leaders accountable for the integrity of their thought processes not just their actions and decisions. The trivialization of American public discourse, beginning in the early 1980's, is far more dangerous than politics du jour.
3
“Trump basically ran on blowing the whole thing up, so was that what the country wanted?" Apparently yes is the answer. Both Trump and Bernie ran on the same message, just from different sides.
3
The NYT and other civic minded people would benefit by studying the political life of Barbara Jordan, the first southern African American to be elected to US House of Representatives, who gave what is considered the most effective political speech of the 20th century during her opening statement at the House Judiciary Committee's hearings on the impeachment of R Nixon. July 25 1974.
Barbara Jordan's political leadership and accomplishments were recently covered on NPR, which is where I learned more about her approach to political leadership and the art of compromise.
Her work is especially relevant in the current political climate, as the issues she was best recognized for were morals and ethics during the time of Nixon; political compromise with people of differing views; and the issue of immigration and immigration reform.
Jordan served as the Chair of the US Commission on Immigration Reform. If you read and learn more about her positions on this issue, you will see a very nuanced set of policy ideas.
I wish the NYT would use these types of experienced role models for the political behavior we urgently need right now and highlight them more frequently rather than keep printing politician's Twitter posts in the valuable NYT news space.
I am a fan of the NYT, but have been disappointed in their journalism skills for the reasons described in Bruni's article here.
3
Frank-
The media gave Trump his ill-gotten victory, by supplying (by most conservative accounts) about two billion dollars worth of free advertising. I will never forget watching CNN at the time Hillary Clinton was giving a coherent speech, and the video feed was not her speech, but an inanimate microphone and lectern on an empty stage, awaiting Trump's arrival. He then proceeded to prattle on, making no sense and answering no questions. Naturally, his "speech" was carried live in its entirety, while Clinton's was ignored, altogether.
Until the drive for profit in the media, including the Times, is replaced by a desire to honestly inform the public, and to do the hard work that true journalism requires, I'm afraid we are condemned to be a nation of know-nothings, content to live in the cocoon of racism, hatred, and income inequality, not to mention violence against women and minorities.
So, it's a bit early - and a bit foolish, based on past behaviors- for you to extend a pat on the back to "real" journalists, who will do the right thing this time. It's the same journalists, and the same corporate structure that helped immensely to bring us Trump. What's changed?
3
In soliciting eyeballs the media have allowed Trump to dominate the public's attention. As I look back at the Times' coverage, the impression I have is that photographs of Trump and his outrages are too often there at the top. As pointed out by Mr. Bruni, that type of coverage is a dangerous thing. Policy is sacrificed for theater. Trump is a specialist in theater.
The danger is that if the media ignores Trump's antics his worst injuries to democracy will be overlooked. Some coverage is necessary, but the media mustn't let themselves get drawn into Trump's trap. We must see more policy and less razzle-dazzle.
Forewarned is forearmed.
3
“The firepower of the investigative spotlight turned on Trump was a little bit less, because no one thought he would be the president, and that was a grave mistake.” - Jill Abramson
no. the basic flaw of media coverage in the '0-16 election was to provide Trump with wall-to-wall coverage of his every word and start-to-finish campaign rally, under the unspoken assumption ( fox excluded ) that the viewing / listening / reading audience would be as turned off by his candidacy as the people providing the coverage, and the more they covered him, the more this would ensure a loss. there were signs all along that this was a false assumption, as evidenced by the fact that the McCain comment and ethnic disparagement had no appreciable impact on his candidacy, yet the ratings value of this wall-to-wall coverage - coupled with the perception that ever-increased coverage would translate to an even greater margin-of-loss - continually over-trumped ( sorry ) the need for balance and perspective. it was barely three weeks before the election that a Hillary rally was given similar start-to-finish coverage, and by that time, it was way too late to have any effect on the result.
bottom line - the issue is not the ratio of negative vs. positive coverage. it's the absolute value of face time that most impacted the result. that's the lesson that needs to be learned.
1
I'm afraid it is like Facebook versus truth. It is all about capturing eyes. If foam is what best captures eyes then the business of journalism will go for the foam rather than the substance. Or at least it gives folks a powerful incentive to go for the foam. The problem to quite a degree will depend on readers to show some discipline. And that's where sharing 70% of our DNA with slugs becomes a problem.
1
I hope conversations like this are occurring in newsrooms throughout the country. I fear that no matter how determined journalists are to focus on issues the usual pressure to capture a greater proportion of the audience than their competitors will lead them back to giving too much time and space to the sideshow.
4
To be honest I'm sick of the question. Every election cycle (which is now virtually constant), we hear promises from media types that there will be less horse racing and more substance. Yet year after year it never happens.
I acknowledge the pressures on print media like the NYT's, but it would be a fresh air to see an actual change in coverage and not just promises. As for television coverage, I give up. I simply don't watch.
6
A country based on capitalism is making money at all costs is the daily theme . Failing to cover important stories that impact real people is low because it doesn’t give the clicks needed to make a profit.
After the terrible coverage on 2016 and 2018 that never fully addressed the racism in some of the races I doubt if much will change. The constant coverage of Trump only leads to the enrichment of the media corporation who all say the same talking points
We can only hope that coverage changes and the media takes the role of defending democracy seriously every day and creates an effective business model to make a profit but keep our democracy safe from traitors who walk among us. There is always hope but serious smart implementation is essential
4
The MSM need to figure out what their job is before they can come to some game plan for Trump in 2020. Is to inform, entertain, enlighten, make money, gain respect, gain power, place our world in historical context? The current business model makes it very difficult as it relies largely on advertising to fund its goals - which means getting the maximum number of people to view their wares. This means appealing to varied tastes and desires which is often at odds with stories that may be deemed important or significant.
Add to that Fox News and Right Wing Media which has taken the model and turned it on its head. They appealed first to a segment of the population who disagreed with the reality being presented by MSM. They labeled it liberal and presented an alternative which was more in line with their audience's sensibilities. Once the audience was secured and devoted, they manipulated them to go further and further into a land where there is little trust of government and little trust of any news source but their own.
MSM now must contend with Fox as the corrupting force in their world before they can change their strategy with Trump because they have defended and supported him, and now guide him in his actions. Fox will yell and scream every more loudly to retain the attention of their audience because they want to retain their power and authority. It is time for the media to show Fox for the propagandist they are and how destructive that is to us all.
4
There are at least 3 areas where Trump has the upper hand in 2020:
1. Media - the mainstream media's preference for the sound bite of the day over real issues and Fox News serving as propaganda vehicle Trump;
2. GOP - Trumps party will do nothing to police him as long as they get their tax breaks and judicial appointments;
3. The electoral college - despite 1 & 2 above the majority of the voters will reject trump but he will still have the edge in the electoral college.
2
I agree with Bruni's basic point, but the press must start with reality-based reporting and analysis, focused on the real issues we face and not on Trump's or Republican's false narratives. The major issue and political reality our country faces is that we have a president who is opposed to democracy generally, and to the U.S. Constitution specifically. That needs to be the central story the media is reporting on. As oil and water cannot mix, Trump as ruler of American cannot co-exist with functioning democratic checks. Thus, when those checks are strengthened, he shuts down the government on false pretenses. Today the pretense is a wall that will do little to address real issues of immigration. Tomorrow it will be something else. Whatever our policy debates, we should be looking to strengthen constitutional democracy, not seeing a middle ground between those trying to uphold it and those trying to end it.
3
This question is assuming that the republic survives the next two years. I am not so sure. A President who shuts down his own government, is capable of destroying it next.
2
This could be summarized as "Give the voters what they need. Not what they want".
The press is so good at getting things right, I am sure with Mr. Bruni's urging editorial boards will get on the right side of the 2020 elections. I mean, look at how well they handled the Iraq war and how they dug into the mortgage fraud in 2007 and 2008 long before the crisis. We sure are lucky to have a diligent press covering things without bias and perseverance.
5
I admire the skills of the great reporters in this country. But perhaps overlooked in this column and by reporters in general is the discerning knowledge of regular people who said exactly what Frank Bruni is saying in this column, while it was happening in real time.
1
Here is a start: how about the media ignore his tweets and quit telling us about them.
If I want to read President Sniffles’ tweets, I can just go to his Twitter feed.
Instead, the media should INFORM “we the people” of serious issues, like the domestic and foreign policies of the Pence/Miller administration.
7
Mr. Bruni:
Agree with what you wrote. Would like to add:
--Much shorter and easier to write still another article about the blasted emails than to expose Trump's activities.
Journalists love developing stores for which basic facts are established. How long does it take to write a story adding detail to the Clinton email story? A couple of hours, tops. Plus, the reader is already familiar with the basic outline and less needs to be written to establish the basic story line.
How long does it take to research and write a story about Trump's involvement with Russia? Days, maybe weeks. One has to research, there is a foreign language to contend with, as well as shadowy figures and apparently incredible idiocies (i.e., some events in the "dossier"). Readers are not familiar with the basic facts, which must be explained at great length, to the consternation of editors.
--Another big factor: who allowed Trump to call in to news shows? His disembodied voice projected much more authority than he would have had in person.
Seems to me that hosts of "Morning Joe" began this bad practice. In my view, Joe and Mika and their producers need to look at themselves in the mirror when asking why Trump got elected. They gave him loads of free publicity and helped him differentiate himself from the other Republicans at a critical moment. What good does it do now when they wax eloquent about his inadequacies when they kowtowed to him at critical times?
4
The media will do what it always does - whatever gets the most viewers/readers/clicks. And that usually means highlighting the divisions that are most viscerally attention getting. When I worked for a newspaper many years ago the (unstated but understood) motto was "if it bleeds, it leads." Nothing has really changed that impulse.
1
The current president is a symptom of our divided government, not the cause. Media's constant coverage of his antics, as Mr. Bruni points out, simply accelerates the malaise. Divisions within and among our three federal branches have always existed but the toxic nature of our current political discourse truly ramped up in the House during the Gingrich era in the nineties, and continues today in the Senate under the direction of Mitch McConnell. When a "leader" in the Senate states the sole goal of his party is to limit a president-elect to one term, or prevent a Supreme Court nominee's confirmation hearing from taking place (leaving a year-long hole in the court), or stop bipartisan bills intended to re-open government from reaching the Senate floor for vote, that "leader" has abdicated his constitutional responsibility as a Senator. Our system of checks and balances no longer functions as intended when the Senate cannot vote on bills that the Senate Majority Leader believes the President will not sign. Mitch McConnell is to blame for the current government shutdown and much of the divisiveness on Capitol Hill. Less attention should be devoted to the charlatan in the White House. Let's read more about the real power brokers, like McConnell, in Washington; learn more about their constituencies and why they continue to be elected; understand policy points; ignore twitter feeds; and remember that the squeaky wheel should get some grease, not all of it.
4
I can't believe that there is still no well organized movement to eliminate the electoral college ... so much whining about the unfairness of the electoral college for the past 20 years ... Gore also lost the presidency with more votes than Bush ... let's roll up our sleeves and mobilize actual change ...
5
Best chance we had to eliminate the electoral college was during the early Obama years. But no one thought it was a problem then, apparently.
Excellent opinion. One thing that caught my attention is the mention of a possibly self combusting Trump; it just happened, but not many realize it.
Studying his profile form a psychological angle, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders suggests that for people that fit Trump's profile*:
... criticism may haunt these individuals and may leave them feeling humiliated, degraded, hollow, and empty. They may react with disdain, rage, or defiant counterattack. Such experiences often lead to social withdrawal or an appearance of humility that may mask and protect the grandiosity.
Trump actually masked the defeat on the wall during the Christmas holidays by withdrawing socially in the White House, rather than flying to Mar-a-lago, and saying that he was in the WH working on the wall, while the Dems were vacationing.
Note*:
Quotation form DSM IV, end of page 715; www.bit.ly/dsmhpdnpd
1
In an ideal world, Mr. Bruni’s Column would resonate with CEOs and Boards of most major media outlets. But, sadly, it won’t.
As others have pointed out, Trump drives ratings. And, ratings drive profits...and profits drive shareholder value...and, most importantly, shareholder value drives executive compensation.
I love reading columns such as this one, but, they require a bit of time and some thought and reflection. Sorry to sound elitist or something, but, many Americans have little interest in serious thought/reflection. Couple that with the unbridled drive for short term profits, and...here we are.
To me, this isn’t a media problem, it’s much more of a societal problem
4
I would add: on the news discussion segments that dominate cable news and a lot of network air time Do Not discuss tweets as such from any candidate. Read the tweet as a quote once, then talk about the context behind and around it, avoiding making inflammatory language the focus of interest.
From Washington to Lincoln to FDR we have had a tradition of presidents who chose words carefully with forethought, crafting words into greatness. Today are we reduced to a war of twits?
3
The name of the game is ratings. Trump knows this all too well and plays the media like a fiddle. High ratings translates to more profits. Corporate media will go to wherever the cash register sings the loudest, no matter how unruly or demeaning it gets. Loosely translated, it will be Ground Hog day, everyday until the Election in 2020.....and Big Pharma is counting on all of us to fill our anti-anxiety pills from now til then.
1
Talk about mistakes...how about the media giving Trump his own obnoxious reality show long before he ran for president? He knew how to manipulate the media then and still does. The media cannot help themselves, after all, they are 'for profit' entities like any other business. Perhaps focusing on viable candidates with realistic agendas might be a good start.
2
The New York Times could start by scanning its pages for all-Trump headlines. During the 2016 campaign, I was astonished to see, day after day, entire spreads led by Trump, often at the exclusion of substantive stories about his opponent’s policy proposals. This behavior was so baffling, that despite the respect I have for the paper, it seemed to me that it, along with other news media, were complicit in Trump’s rise to power.
11
I completely agree!
Suggesting that you have a second chance means that you've already blown it. You can not help yourself, just as Trump can not help himself. Trying to explain insane behavior on someone's part is insane in itself.
Explanations are no longer needed or desired. We need corrective action.
4
Frank,
You are such a delight to read, thank you! This should be required reading at every media outlet before they chase the laser pen light, as one reader wrote.
It’s not only in politics but in every day life that people chase the sensational rather than the substantive. People obsess over others who provide meaningless drama over insignificant things rather than acknowledge people who are kind, considerate, giving, well meaning, and have what has become my favorite word, civility, toward others.
It’s as if their lives are so mundane, meaningless, without true purpose, that they need that dopamine rush of anger, hostility, criticism, judgement, the need to be right, and perhaps the need to feel good about oneself.
It is said that conversation no longer exists but has devolved into individual monologues where people are no longer willing to listen to each other and life is a zero sum game.
As depressing as this sounds, I am still optimistic that the tide will turn one day as people will hopefully grow tired of living in anxiety, but this will take extraordinary leadership and people like yourself to remind us of what is truly important.
2
Each day the media should begin its news casts with what the president didn't do for the country -- he didn't bring coal jobs back, didn't increase steel production; didn't fix the VA healthcare system; didn't talk about protecting social security and medicare; didn't work with allies to protect us from terrorism, etc., ad nauseum. That way the media can keep reporting on the presidency in a way that helps the people know what is happening (or in this case, not).
11
The print/online media from reputable publications and organizations such as PBS have measurably improved during this crisis of political leadership. I can only hope that they continue the good fight and I will do my part by funding more sources than I can ever read.
I have been reeling trying to regain my bearings after having been rudely awakened to a new reality as exposed during the the last three years. I take responsibility for not paying attention and commit to seriously fulfill my civic responsibilities going forward.
Our crisis is of our own making and entails violations of age old principles encompassing personal responsibility, community involvement, maintaining and improving institutions that ensure continuity of purpose, and charity for the marginalized.
As a counterbalance to the destructive "blow up the establishment" temper tantrum, the media could be useful in providing a historical context to each of today's ills and the recommended solutions provided by reasonable and learned leaders and avoid partisan talking points. The discussion and debate can proceed with a strong foundation and incorporate lessons from the past and new considerations from today's specific circumstances.
3
“the soul of the country doesn’t belong exclusively to former factory workers in the Rust Belt”
As long as the electoral college exists, it does.
11
@Richard
That electoral college operated splendidly when it elected Obama. Twice! But now it's broken?
But you are doing it too, Frank! We've heard so much about Elizabeth Warren's nickname but the ONLY place I've heard about what she wants to focus on was in an interview on TRMS.
15
Actually, what blew it was our antiquated election system that is woefully inadequate for providing a good, accurate, acceptable outcome.
www.fairvote.org
5
How about a focus on policy rather than a cult of personality? I’m still mad at the media for ignoring Sanders. We needed his policy perspective in the national debate. The media failure to provide wide coverage turned off the younger generation—leaving them with the impression they had to choose between two cartoon characters. Some of us remember when some of Sanders’s policy ideas were a reality not a pipe dream. I graduated college with zero debt thanks to state supported schools. It’s time to treat the electorate like grown ups rather than short attention span video gamers. Every four years we should be refining a vision of America rather than voting for school counsel president.
10
The NYT coverage of Bernie - or the lack thereof in 2016 - is so biased that I might have to cancel my subscription. Considering it still.
Salacious news sells and prayers and pleas to our "better nature" has and is a non-starter. FACT: News providers are in the advertising business. When fact and information "trump" advertising revenues our nation will be better served by you and your owners (stockholders).
4
I don't think treating the election as spectacle is your big problem. Your big problem is summed up in headlines like "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia" (NY Times, 10/31/2016). It raises two important issues:
1. The ability of far-right organizations to manipulate media coverage by feeding narratives to reporters. Steve Bannon lays out this approach very clearly in interviews with Joshua Green: you do a lot of research, if anything sticks, you hand off your well-researched dossier as a lead to a newspaper, and the "liberal" media will print whatever you want them to. They're bragging about manipulating what the Times prints. I realize this is a tough issue--you don't always want to avoid opposition files or leads from political opponents. But the Times and other papers need to find a way not to let clever figures bent on media manipulation drive their narrative. If they can't, they need to pack up and go home, because they're not serving the public. They're another public platform for battles of propaganda, like Facebook has become.
2. The Times especially has been utterly unaccountable for its failures. We get the inside scoop on the "No Clear Links" article from a different news source, the New Yorker. And it still doesn't really explain why they thought the headline was appropriate, just why they didn't run Lichtblau's original piece. The paper has instead fired its public editor and recruits its reporters to defend it on social media.
3
Never, ever forget the fact that 2.8 million more people did NOT want this president than did. This was an Electoral College win. So the media did have some effect, of course, but not on those 2.8 million people. Did the media influence the electoral college? Hard to say.
3
The news media is *still* easily distracted. It's happening now.
For example, we just recently learned that Paul Mantafort passed detailed campaign polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, who had ties to Russian intelligence services. The Russian Internet Research Agency conducted an extensive social media influence campaign during the election. Polling data like that would be invaluable in waging such a campaign to throw the election.
And we also just learned that the FBI counterintelligence service investigated whether Trump had been compromised by Russia, given the favors he was doing for Russia. These favors continue to this day.
Quid pro quo.
You'd think the news media would be all over this. What other news stories could possibly be more important?
But Trump has the media distracted with his tweets, the shutdown, and debates about the wall. This stuff has pushed the really important news from the front page.
I don't understand how editors decide what's important, but many are doing a lousy job of it still.
16
This is a very profound column. Has in fact the media, especially including the major national newspapers, the NY Times and Washington Post, learned anything from their coverage of the 2016 election? To take just two examples, their phony equivalence - like pushing emails as equivalent to Trump's many transgressions, instead of consistently educating that the email issue was a nothing; the idea that they endangered national security was absurd. Second, as the author notes, the constant inaccurate poling, leading many to believe they needn't vote, Clinton had it locked up. Fortunately many learned better and turned out for the mid term elections.
3
Bruni's piece is excellent. And flawed.
Excellent:
The media didn't suddenly collapse into a caricature of competent reporting overnight in 2016. For decades at least, the professional sins recounted by Bruni have been standard features of efforts in both published and broadcast media.
Sensation, intrigue or, more often, manufactured intrigue, and tear-jerker distortions of personal histories are just a few snake-oil marketing approaches that come to mind.
Bruni's professional and quite pithy critique should be studied in journalism schools. The reporters and editors to be should discuss, in course after course, how to redirect the craft toward more objective and technically sound methods.
Flawed:
The key word in the foregoing and in Bruni's complaint is "objectivity". The problem with coverage of the campaigns comes down to the failure to "Tell it like it is", as we said in the 60s.
At bottom, Bruni's demand is for objective coverage. What is Hillary doing? What is Trump doing? What's the outlook? Reporters should aim to pick the objectively most important activities of the candidates, not the most tabloid-worthy, and then describe them as accurately as possible, rather than making them as saleable as possible.
However, Bruni has a competing, not at all objective concern. His subtext is: "We elected Trump, and next time we've got to elect anti-Trump. Objectivity will do that."
Objectivity should drive a program to elect one candidate? Good Luck.
5
Frank Bruni gives a cogent analysis of the media’s failure to stay out of the mud wrestling match that defined its coverage of the 2016 election. I suggest the following to whoever runs against Trump. Designate one hour each week, say every Tuesday morning at 9, as the only time you will waste on campaign nonsense. When asked such questions during the week respond, “that question merits consideration at next Tuesday’s waste of time, silly question hour. Next.”
I'm constantly looking for a glimmer of hope, and Frank Bruni's words to his fellow news writers, often after interviewing fellow veteran news writers, offers a lighthouse for all. Politics as entertainment simply hasn't yielded much in the way of sweet fruit. It's time to cut that tree down, and plant something that will feed us a healthier diet. We need the editors who will sift through the zillions of points of information and disinformation to present us with what is true and meaningful, and most importantly, what will make a difference in our lives. Does one sleazy story need to taint a candidate's entire being? Does clinging to certain tenets try make up for an overall history of misogyny, racism, and lack of intellectual and personal characteristics that make a truly great leader? I know it does not, and I hope the press, including the opinion writers (and yes, there should be a clear distinction), will go back to traditional values and do their jobs rather than thinking we need a steady diet of candy.
3
How about relegating the guy's statements to a little box buried in the middle of page 8 or placed somewhere in the last third of a broadcast?
It could be called something innocuous like "the president's corner" and it could carefully avoid using this guy's name.
Come to think of it, every time a politician's name is mentioned in any media, it should be attached to substantial, succinct and vetted coverage of what that politician is working on.
8
I wish Mr. Bruni had talked about how the TV broadcasts are controlled by an overarching company who owns many stations across the nation, and who tells them what to say and which topic to develop.
11
When we think of the presidency, we think of accomplishments.
George Washington, set in place what it means to be an "American." Abraham Lincoln ended slavery. FDR brought the nation out of the Great Depression and enacted the New Deal which included Social Security; John Kennedy sent us to the moon; Lyndon Johnson created Medicare, Medicaid and the Voting Rights Act; Ronald Reagan tore down the wall in Germany; Obama brought us out of the Great Recession and gave healthcare to 20 million Americans.
When the history books are written, what will they record as Trump's accomplishments?
3
His accomplishments might be listed as: ( like them or not)
Proving that the person who spends the most campaign money does not always win
Ending Isis as a major threat
Confronting Iran’s ever expanding influence in the Middle East
Confronting Cuba’s and Venezuela’s repressive governments
Finally trying to make China trade fair, or at least more fair
Moving the Supreme Court to a more conservative philosophy
Attempting to moderate government regulation of everything
Prison and sentencing reform
Proving that the American population ( or a significant part of it) believes in his political philosophy despite his repelling personality and narcissism.
Respectfully submitted.
2
The media, including state run tv and radio, will allow Trump and his surrogates unparalleled access to the airwaves to spew fiction. Political reporters will chase every shiny new object as if it were worthy of a Pulitzer in investigative reporting. Reporters and pundits will find another HRC to pummel and ignore the real threats running for or already in office. There is no reason to trust any media outlet going forward.
3
I have two anecdotes from the 2016 election relative to Mr. Bruni's column today. Both are from Wolf Blitzer's CNN program:
During one of the early Republican debates, Blitzer announced "BREAKING NEWS" that Trump had arrived at the debate. However, there was none of that for any of the other 10+ candidates who also arrived.
Later in that season, Blitzer had a viewer poll during his show asking which of Trump's kids should consider running for public office. Rich, celebrity kids, of course, should consider running for office. Unfortunately for the other candidates, they lack such children!
The media anointed Trump early in the election season. They made him relevant, important, and authentic. I wonder if they can manage to do something better in the coming months. So far, they don't appear to have learned any lessons. Fourth Estate, or just more Entertainment Tonight?
10
As for the media if it would refer to 'The President' and drop the 'Trump' he would be less pleased and the country would be better off. The way it's currently being handled he will definitely be a remembered President over all others regardless of how bad He is at the job.
1
@Paul I very much agree. During Berlusconi's reign in Italy it was often said that he should be referred to as "The President" instead of "Berlusconi" as his already notorious name and reputation essentially nullified criticisms against him. If the headline was "Berlusconi accused of bribes" or "Berlusconi accused of recruiting underage models for sex parties" the reaction was always "Oh thats's just Berlusconi being Berlusconi". If those same headlines were "The President of the Republic accused of bribes" or "The President of the Republic accused of recruiting underage models for sex parties" for one second at least people had to think about what that actually meant. The same applies with Trump: "Trump accused of paying off a porn star and a Playboy model to hide affairs", "Trump suspected of lying over Russian contacts" all sound very different than "The President of the United States accused of paying off a porn star and a Playboy model to hide affairs", "The President of the United States suspected of lying over Russian contacts".
Using his name alone utterly distorts the weight of the discussion at hand. What "Donald Trump" gets ups to is grist to the tabloid mills and the IRS. What "The President of the United States" gets up to is a problem not only for every American citizen, defenders of the Constitution and common decency, but for the world at large as well.
It's worth noting that Berlusconi's BBFs were Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi and Vladimir Putin.
Please question law enforcement, " Why is it that Trump hasn't been indicted?" So long as he is not arrested and convicted for his many felonies, is why his supporters laugh at the rule of law.
2
“Will we sprint to Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker or Mike Bloomberg for a reaction to what Trump just called one of them and then rush back to him for his response to that response? Or will we note Trump’s latest nonsense only briefly and pivot to matters more consequential”?
How about the media developing and maintaining a professional decorum that avoids the “gossipy” feel of today’s reporting. Watch Walter Cronkite tapes for inspiration.
3
"Spectacle" is the least important most base element of drama, and certainly a questionable value for reporting important information and events to the public. That said, it seems to be the main (and LAZY) approach of most of the media. That said, that said, Frank is one of the "Good Guys."
By the way, I tired about hearing about books explaining what happened in the election, when, first of all, we lived through it and secondly, many were aware of exactly what Mr.Bruni is addressing here.
A sentence I often use: "You rise to the level of your experience." We consume what we see, what is all around us. If all around you is a garden, that's your experience. If you live surrounded by sewage, that's your experience. Frank mentions that we eat up all these "Jerry Springer" (term used because of my lack of a greater vocabulary) stories, however we can only see what is put in front of us. That's on the media and not us.
1
We are a big country. A big country needs political and journalistic leaders with perspective, focus, and a willingness to debate issues productively. Neither arena possesses these traits, at least not in the last few years.
How, though, are journalists supposed to cover the White House? They can't entirely ignore it. They probably shouldn't cover every little tic it commit, either. What part of the presidency are they supposed to ignore?
1
The media is doing the same thing now with the government shutdown. Articles and questions from reporters focus on wall or no wall. America is losing out once again because immigration reform has been transformed into a binary issue. The victims of the dumbing down of the discussion is of course our government workers, the important jobs they do, and the humanitarian crisis at the border.
11
In my three decades as a liberal Congressional staffer, my final priority was always to devise quotable, colorful turns of phrase to attract public support for the substance of my boss' substantive positions.
That doesn't happen much anymore. Now liberals are grey- prose generators and Trumpies are spectacular. For that, we pay a terrible price.
3
I generally love Bruni's commentary, but I really object to his inclusion of Mike Bloomberg as a notable example of a possible Democrat presidential contender. It confers upon this very small-minded man some credibility as a candidate. It's rare to come across troubling reports about Bloomberg's decision-making ability because he himself is control of a major news organization and seems to gets a pass from every other news organization. Review the record of Bloomberg's picks for various NYC agencies, his actions on term limits, his disdain for New York City's working and middle classes, and his political and campaign tactics and you'll find he is not a person Democrats should be considering. He would, however, make a fine Republican.
3
Agreed. Bloomberg is a disaster.
1
I wish I wasn't as pessimistic about the possibility of the press coverage changing however there are just so many cable news producers and they have to fill 20 hours of air time per day. Each producer has a host who is under ratings pressure. News divisions at Networks were swallowed up by the Entertainment divisions. It's all about the show and Reality TV has been a hit for a long time. Trump's childlike Tweets and name calling are a big part of the show. Many of us try to drive by the car crash but still can't help sneaking a peak. It's human nature. Nothing will change regarding coverage but hopefully the people who voted for this disaster will have second thoughts this time around.
5
The networks have already shown us that they'll provide trump with as much prime-time coverage as he wants - and for free. They won't even need to report their gifts as campaign contributions.
This week trump kicked off his 2020 re-election campaign with coordinated messages from the oval office, emails, and TV ads. The oval office message was given at taxpayer expense and covered by all of the networks. It was the same message as that in the emails and TV ads.
6
Ain't gonna change. The "media" is too vast and diverse. Even if a part of it arrive at a consensus on how to handle this guy (ignore, be more disciplined to how much and what is covered/reported) there will be enough "others" to make that ineffective.
2
The media should consider why reporting on polls is “news.” What others are currently thinking or believing is unnecessary information for reaching one own’s conclusions on an issue, free of influence about what the crowd allegedly embraces. Indeed the polls were wrong in 2016 and yet the reports of them likely undercut independent thinking - a skill that must be taught and re-taught. We all need to review the facts, not opinions. Let the pollsters feed their info to the parties that commissioned them, but don’t confuse them with news and elevate them to credible information.
7
Brilliant point. Eliminate polling reports before elections. Eliminate media talking heads. Promote civility. Increase coverage of policy issues. This might be the beginning of true public discourse.
1
Here is where I think all the media including Fox is missing on this wall. First there is no way Trump ever intended to build a wall on the whole border. We are talking only about areas the DHS says are needed. Second most of the allocated money will be to repair or strengthen existing fences that are clearly inadequate. My solution to the shutdown is cut the amount in half, democrats specify that it can be used only to repair or enhance existing fencing. Then we move on and let the 2020 election determine what direction we want to go.
2
Ok, fair criticism I suppose but where is DJT in the same breath??? He espouses nothing of the kind. It’s wall wall wall. Nothing about the nuances of border security from this 70 something child
Follow Chelsea Clinton on Twitter. She knows how to handle him and his followers. As Speaker Pelosi goes forward she should freely use videos of Trump speaking positively about the proposals and bills being put forward.
As for the Wall, I want to see a New Yorker cartoon portraying a border wall of 40' high BabyTrumpinDiapers balloons facing our southern neighbors as a true deterrent to immigration.
4
Trump, all the time, is drawing less viewers and his tweets have become mildly interesting. Their shock value is the car wreck of yesterday. No one talks about Trump's behavior at my workplace any longer. But, outrage about the shutdown, tax breaks for the ultra rich, and health care costs are growing. As long as Trump ignores these three issues, his media light grows dimmer by the day. Reality is catching up. Again, Trump's daily Presidential rants are old, old news and seen as useless work.
But, the media is equally needy. As long as the media/Trump enabling relationship works financially, things will never change. Fox News World is here to stay. Trump is their perfect big, white guy who looks and sounds tough, cheap, and miserable. The cost from their viewers? Our lives.
8
There is nothing wrong with the media. It is doing its job: delivering what its audience wants, i.e., the sensational bits and pieces we call the news. If you want to blame any party, it is the audience. Can media really afford to alienate its audience?
4
Simply regarding Trump - and there are more important matters at hand (specifically the matter of why so many Americans voted for such a dishonest, manipulating human being and what that tells us about the state of the nation) - it seems to me that each major newspaper/news broadcast should have a daily feature that maintains focus on the 'enduring' aspects of his presidency (not the distractions) and the architects behind them; that maintains focus to 'elevate and illuminate' our discussion and understanding of these political events, rather than constantly focus on the last incremental tweet; that essentially seeks to keep our focus and eye on the ball, the important one: where is Trump trying to take us and why, and are we Americans - enough of us - really willing to go there.
1
Back in the day I looked forward to Ted Koppel on "Nightline". I worked in education so there was little opportunity to follow the day's events as they happened. I watched Koppel because I thought he would report the most important topics, he would report them thoroughly without bias, and report them fearlessly. I really don't count on any one person or network to do that anymore. Various reporters will hint at this type of commitment to their craft and sometimes take a public stance to do better, but in the end they are driven by ratings like everyone else.
It is my responsibility to pick and choose who is giving me the most useful information at any given time. I think there is a small part of the American population capable of doing this with some success. But for the most part I have little faith in Americans today to put much thought into anything. This is an age of sound bytes.
I now scan the Trump headlines then skip to the articles on China getting battle ready, Putin developing the hypersonic missile, the VA becoming privatized, etc. If I spend all my time watching The Trump Show, I'm afraid a tsunami of events I should have seen coming will overwhelm my life. It's not the media's fault for spending too much time on Trump. It's the consumer's fault for being too lazy or too ignorant to change the channel or turn the page. I count myself as one of these consumers though I'm trying to rehabilitate myself.
3
@Joe
I watch no television news reports, at all, and only read the NY Times, The Guardian, and The Intercept.
I read The Intercept specifically for an analysis of reporting in the Times and the Guardian, because as I've discovered over the last 50 years, especially reading the Times, venerable as it may be, it is focused on its particular view of how life on our planet should be, and seeks, as most mainstream media does, to manage readership perceptions.
Mainstream media is married to its particular political dogma, and will do all in its formidable power to insure the success of its political persuasion.
The hubris associated with this singular thinking is what denied us Bernie Sanders Presidency, and foolishly guaranteed the ogre in the White House would win.
Americans are as dumb as rocks, most of the electorate anyway.
And now we have all manner of so called pretend progressive Democrats vying to become our 46th President, when in fact, nearly all except for Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are worthy.
Sanders and Warren will likely not succeed because the mainstream media will, as always, be championing the corporate lackey contender, and will ensure he or she is elected.
And by the way, this is also why the Electoral college will never be done with.
2
In 2016 the media through Trump would lose and was the best Republican to face Clinton (i.e., he would lose). They gave him losts of coverage and surprised everyone by Winning. Since the Republican convention the Mainstream Media has been very anti-Trump and they are some 80% of the outlets. They are not Trump's accomplices.
In 2020 the MSM will line up (again) with the 1% and the credentialed class against Trump on a massive scale. He will get lots of coverage and it will be all negative all the time. My guess is that the average voter will not believe any of it. Their decisions will be based on are their lots of jobs, do we have good economic growth and are we involved with Wars. Trump's poliicies are to make these answers Yes, Yes, and No.
1
It is simply nonsense to claim, and then keep claiming, that “80%,” of the media is leftish. It’s just silly. Necessary cover for Trump’s spectacular incompetence and remarkable greediness, but still just plain silly.
“Trump basically ran on blowing the whole thing up . . ."
And the fact that the press didn't call this out for the lunacy it was, and now is, is an abject failure on their part.
I pray that this next time around less attention is paid to Trump's stunts and more to his vacuousness and how that contrasts with each and every opponent he has.
We need people in government who believe in the power of government to solve the big problems and who view the role of government as vital and entirely legitimate.
7
Frank, you're living in a dream world. Yes, the answer is always yes. You think 2016 was over the top? The avalanche has yet to hit us.
I don't have a TV and this is one of the many reasons not to have one.
2
The American news media continues to play Trump’s game. Trump continues to play the American people and it doesn’t matter what truth is to a lot of people. Please MSM start to ignore him. Don’t report on his tweets. If we want to read them we can do that for ourselves. Don’t tell us what to think, don’t waste anymore time explaining his behavior. The ones of us that get it, know enough to know Trump is a lost cause. The others amongst don’t want to know the truth. Stop showing his face so much, I’m feeling sick of seeing it. Let’s have a couple of Trump free days. I’m sure there’s more important topics you can cover.
11
Turn off the cameras.... Report his words not his "TV act". Reading his words in black and white without the picture is the best way to focus in on the pap that he spews. There would be a game change if reporters were
more prepared to challenge lies being sold to the country. Finally, Enough ....enough of the weekly rally's which have nothing to do with the conduct of the business of the United States at home and abroad.
The electronic media... TV
cleaned up financially. Now they need to serve the public not their purse.....
1
As far as the 2020 election goes, I don't have much faith in the media. I'm more cognizant of Trump fatigue, especially among centrists who will likely play the greatest role in deciding who ends up in the White House.
4
If no one points out that the emperor is not wearing clothes, everyone else wonders if perhaps their vision is lacking. We need the support of the media to confirm that our vision is clear and that what we know in our hearts about the truly dangerous character and mental state of this man is true. Ignoring it does not make it go away. It allows it to grow and poison us all.
9
How’s about they just do facts, and you do the pay attention, now here’s what I think that means part.
Frank, thank you for this incisive and timely article. Yes, now is exactly the time to be asking these questions and planning for the way the 2020 election is covered. Much scorn is given to "20/20 hindsight", but that's simply a shrinking away from what it really is - learning from one's mistakes. It's what makes us the most intelligent and dominant animal on this planet, because no one does that better than us over the long haul. Without hindsight there is no foresight, and without either there is no sight. Thank you for helping us to keep our eyes wide open. I pray your peers in the media will do likewise.
3
What gets overlooked in all the postmortems and criticisms of the 2016 campaigns is, quite simply, that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, and by a margin of 2.1%, with 2.87+ million more votes nationwide than Trump. It was the largest margin in history for a candidate who lost the electoral college. So much for all the media talk about "likability" and "those emails."
10
The media could do us a favor by being more careful about attributing the sources of positions. In particular, although Trump parrots stuff from Fox & Friends, they aren’t his ideas or convictions.
Likewise, in his Hannity interview on the border, Hannity repeatedly fed lines to Trump that he simply regurgitated without conviction or alteration. These Hannity supplied ideas were reported as if Trump was their origin.
The bald fact is that almost nothing Trump says beyond “it’s big”, “it’s great”, originates with him. It would greatly reduce Trump’s presence in reports if they were factual and said things like: “XYZ was said by nobody number 1, and later repeated by Trump, who upon questioning was found clearly not to have understood it at all.”
11
Some will recall Trump supported a bipartisan bill to avoid a shutdown until Limbaugh & Coulter brought up the Wall. Likewise, in his Hannity interview at the border, Trump simply paraphrased lines fed to him by Hannity.
More often than not Trump is regurgitating stuff he picked up from such sources and from Fox & Friends. But these things are reported as though Trump originated them.
Most likely quoting Hannity, or Fox, or Limbaugh is less likely to make print than an attribution to Trump. It would be more accurate and probably would lead to less about Trump in the media if the real source of the claptrap attributed to Trump was cited. That would be an improvement.
It also might lead to the more accurate impression of Trump as a know-nothing.
9
Having lived in Beverly Hills, and Los Angeles, at a younger age, and being around the entertainment industry, it was all about the money. The fact that this was the start of the anything you want to say era, in film, it was all right. "The Apprentice," was sold to the public as just such a show, as a flash in the pan type of entertainment. So, the public, which had already been whipped into eternal addiction to television viewing, was ripe for the anything you say, and in your face, presidential campaign of DT. Yes, if you want to blame anyone, it is Hollywood, and the naivety of the American public, and an outdated Electoral college, that passive Democratic voters sat on after the defeat of Al Gore during the election of George W. Bush in 2000 in the electoral college, even though Gore won the popular vote. It is almost too late to put it all back in the can. It remains to be seen if the public is further distanced from wanting really good leadership. In my opinion, we haven't had it since 2000, if you look at foreign policy, alone, which reveals a lot about the intelligence, and depth of presidents, and what their time in office has told us.
2
I urge Mr. Bruni again to return part-time go his past in FOOD SECTION and analyze the connections (if there are such) between the favorite foods and political views of VIPs. Such an exposé would be not only interesting, but culturally valuable.
Trump called into Morning Joe more than 20+ times during his campaign...which gave him "free" airtime ad nauseum. Good idea to report Trump-news the last 5 minutes of every broadcast! Also, a good idea to just report his Tweets and let the viewers decide.
8
That was surprisingly painful to read. I had forgotten how outrageous was the phenomenon of the 2016 campaign. Reliving it is necessary, but acutely uncomfortable. I’m still in shock, despair even, that we let this Trump horror show happen. And it’s worse than my fears, which is saying something.
I actually don’t expect Trump to be running in 2020. I believe his days as president are numbered. If I’m wrong, then shame on us for tolerating a criminal presidency.
But Bruni’s assessments and warnings are still important because it could happen again if we don’t confront our own roles in how this disaster occurred.
8
Will the media also neglect to cover his policy objectives? Many of them are strongly supported by large segments of the electorate, while only being mildly opposed. Yes, I believe the media does, and will continue to spike stories which do not sufficiently bolster progressive positions. This neglect only becomes more obvious as time goes on, and citizens are only becoming more aware of this adversarial position that they have assumed. Trust in our media organs will continue to deteriorate.
3
@Cluebat: Trump has no policy objectives but “Me, Myself and I First, Always”. The Republicans’ objectives we know: Power at every cost, Tax cuts for the rich, Repeal the ACA and Roe vs. Wade, An assault gun in every hand, no questions asked, No regulations and Everybody in it for themselves. If you’re poor, it’s your own fault and if you get sick, go bankrupt and drop dead. Strangle the government and death to the Democrats. The usual policy objectives of the Robber Barons and anti-democratic reactionaries they are.
I think we should all avoid using his proper name, altogether.
Proper descriptive phrases instead would better promote justice for democracy, which this country sorely needs...
And,
Let’s all look forward to the restoration of integrity in the new administration. Thank you.
1
All I want to say on this is in reference to the headline:
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!
The media DOES have both the clout and the responsibility to direct the information about 2020. Let's see less of the headline-grabbing fluff, and more about the candidates and their policies. The public needs to be educated, and in our instant news world, the media is supreme. Keep it up! And put some of the ideas from the opinion pages into the headlines!
2
Sadly, it's no longer about news and ensuring an informed citizenry. It's all about making money and keeping shareholders happy. So, news organizations will continue their race to the bottom by chasing scandal and sensationalism while Rome burns. If it bleeds, it leads. Etc.
In a way, I can't fault them since too many Americans seem more interested in fake drama shows (aka Reality TV) and tabloid news than anything of substance. It is no wonder that those who actually care about substance are seeking other information sources to stay informed.
3
The media should continue doing his job: every thing every president does or does not do. Because contributing or proposing solutions is not the media role.
1
The news media has the same problem as Facebook: making money conflicts with service to the public. So far, however, the media have not been brought before Congress to explain their operation.
Given the present Congress, such a hearing probably would not be helpful. But the problem remains: profundity is not popular.
3
@John Brews ..✅✅ I don’t ever recall FB promoting itself as a member of the fifth estate, whereas I’ve heard the MSM touted as fair and impartial for the last fifty years. I can’t imagine how people look at social media- as a benevolent shepherd of their lives?
"The considerable muck in Clinton’s background never did, and never could, match the mountain of muck in Trump’s."
Even in an editorial pleading for a new approach to the 2020 Presidential election, Frank Bruni can't help but stumble into false equivalence yet again. I guess we all missed the part where Hillary Clinton used her connections to avoid military service, received half a billion dollars from her father while professing to be a financial genius and undergoing multiple bankruptcies, was sanctioned by the US government for racial discrimination, married multiple times after conducting public affairs, paid off porn stars, refused to release her tax returns and conspired with foreign governments during her campaign. Yet her wrongdoing was "considerable" because of controversies even her opponents admitted was fabricated to damage her politically in which there were no indictments and she and her staff were cleared after multiple investigations, and maybe Whitewater too I guess.
If this column is the prescription for reform, try again.
15
@Todd
You'd think that after 40+ years of corrupt republican investigations of the Clinton's who are basically republicans themselves there would be a kind of realization in the GOP that they are innocent of what they have been accused of by the GOP.
The media are like dogs chasing cars, and they can't help themselves when it comes to the Trumpmobile. If they had only realized that Trump lives for media coverage: if from the beginning they had just ignored him, he would have gone away. Too late now.....
2
So in summary, how can we the press do a better job of helping the Democrat candidate win the 2020 election.
5
@Matt: Indeed, in as far as the Russo-Republicans (thank you Socrates) and Putin’s servant Trump are traitors to the USA, its People and its Constitution, they deserve to lose! Support truth, honor and grace to win, none of which can be attributed to the current lying con in the WH and his rabid supporters, his corrupt Senate leader, and the spineless Republicans.
"The media" has a choice: you can deny Trump coverage and air time, but that lets him put out, unopposed, the message he wants to put out. Or you can go on doing what you've been doing for three years, ridiculing him, trying to smear him, and so on, which will actually help him get his message out and will in addition create a lot of backlash against Democrats. Or third, you can play it straight and simply report the news rather than try to drive the news.
"The media" and the federal government are pretty much tied in being distrusted and disliked by a very large portion of the population, and the more you editorialise rather than report, the more you'll be distrusted and disliked. Walter Cronkite you're not.
2
This is a thoughtful, thorough piece. But, Frank, what about those 'tough choices" Trump's predecessors did not force us to make?
Bill Clinton told us NAFTA was not a tough choice, and we accepted that. How did that work out -- almost 8 million manufacturing jobs lost?
We should have made that a tougher choice. On the substance, no antics needed.
George W Bush 43 told us Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he had to be brought down. Most of us bought that decision hook, line and sinker. How has that worked out?
We should have made that too a tougher choice. Again, all the antics were on the mainstream "Bring it on!" side.
Barack Obama allowed the insurance and drug industries and their lobbyists to write almost all of the ACA (Obamacare) law, which included 28 million new families in health care insurance coverage, but forced 15 million independent and self-employed families -- taxi divers and diner owners, anyone with some income but without employer sponsored health coverage -- to see premiums plus deductibles (maximum out of pocket) increase by 400% between 2010 and 2017.
Passed by steamroller by Obama's Congress, how has that worked out? Isn't it just possible that that should have been a much, much tougher decision to make? Were lobbyists really the best law-givers we could have used?
People who don't assume abortion is good, or that we need wide-open borders, or that jobs are low-priority -- are they pro-antics and anti-substance,? Tell the truth.
3
@mitchell: Perhaps you should substantiate your numbers instead. Manufacturing job losses related to NAFTA ran in the hundreds of thousands, not millions, and hundreds of thousands of other jobs were gained through NAFTA. Bush II lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11, and I do remember critical reporting about invading Iraq then, Obama had little choice on the ACA and health insurance would have been even more expensive now without the ACA with no protections for pre-existing conditions, in you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one, but stay out of other womens’ health decisions, and who is saying we need wide open borders? The Republicans under Reagan who declared amnesty to undocumented workers because Republican employers needed cheap labor? It’s not the Democrats for sure.
"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," Moonves said at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in San Francisco, according to The Hollywood Reporter — perfectly distilling what media critics have long suspected was motivating the round-the-clock coverage of Trump's presidential bid.
"Most of the ads are not about issues. They're sort of like the debates," Moonves said, noting, "[t]here's a lot of money in the marketplace."
The 2016 campaign is a "circus," he remarked, but "Donald's place in this election is a good thing."
"Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now? ... The money's rolling in and this is fun," Moonves went on. "I've never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”
https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/les-moonves-trump-cbs-220001
286
@linda Spot on, Linda- thanks. Frank's commentary is the lesser for missing this tidbit.
33
@linda
Having known about Moonves' remarks for years and been disgusted for that long, I was gratified to learn he finally received his comeuppance for matters unrelated to being an enabler. However, they were for matters that closely resembled what the man who lives in the White House has said about himself and how he treats women.
70
@linda Yes, and we know what kind of moral compass Les Moonves operates by. What goes around comes around.
8
According to all polls, the media isn't trusted by the public anymore.
AND, the media doesn't seem to care - they are counting their profits.
Media distrust is a scourge on reporting.
4
Please stop following his tweets. Strongman propaganda. Non sense. Pay more attention to his presidential record and policies.
1
How many times did the Today show have Trump on for long interviews in 2016 - - with Matt Lauer (or Samantha) never challenging his blatant mistruths?
3
Unfortunately the media will continue to do what they are doing now: broadcast sensationalism.
They have discovered (with Colbert/Fallon and MSNBC) that factual reporting doesn't sell as well as sensationalism- true or not.
The media has focused only on the bottom line.
3
We the people have a role to play as well. When the national discourse devolves into name calling and other trivial things we owe it to our fellow citizen to turn off the TV and to not click on the offending link. Our civic duty extend well beyond voting on Election Day. We are deciding what kind of country we want every day by our actions, what we read in the papers and what we watch on the news network.
2
A current illustration of the thrust of this opinion piece is coverage of the shutdown. It’s all about Trump and White House meetings.
The will of the American public is being thwarted by Senator McConnell’s refusing to allow bills passed in the House come to a vote in the Senate.
Where is the exhaustive coverage of Senator McConnell?
9
Yeah, all sorts of crazy unearned political coverage -- and money, like, oodles of money! -- out there.
Anyway.
You know what would be a hilarious nickname for Beto?
Robert Francis O'Rourke!
3
Frank demonstrates the total cluelessness of the mainstream media by turning to Dan Rather as a paragon of so-called fact-based news. Rather's stupid, gullible 2004 story about W's service record, based on obviously faked documents, destroyed his credibility and justifiably cost him his job.
5
A reporter makes one mistake and they are finished. Try holding a politician to those standards and they won't last a day.
3
A long overdue complaint about press treatment of Trump. Will the NY Times listen to their own columnist?
5
THANK YOU, for everything you’ve written here! I’ve been complaining and simply enraged not only at the Fourth Estate’s wholesale abandonment of its Constitutional duty but also it’s blatant misogyny. I’ve been bewildered that you all embraced a wannabe strongman who, if he had had half a brain, could have destroyed your jobs. What’s wrong with you all?!
“That’s a specific question but also an overarching one — about the degree to which we’ll let him set the terms of the 2020 presidential campaign, about our appetite for antics versus substance...”
THERE IS NO APPETITE FOR ANTICS! You decided, not me. I NEVER wanted the antics and you never asked. You just SHOVED Clinton misogyny into my face everytime I came here for SUBSTANCE, for respite from a tabloid world, and if I didn’t have a brain stuffed with curiosity about the rest of life, culture, and the world, I would have abandoned the NYTimes on November 9, 2016.
PLEASE show this column to your clearly center-right Republican owners and publishers and tell them readers like me are on the verge of leaving forever (the awful, tunnel-visioned scrolling nightmare redesign of the website’s front page has already caused me to spend far less time here lingering between the once plentiful and clearly demarcated sections).
6
@left coast finch If the NYT is center right to you, I suggest Democracy Now!
In 2014 media would not give Obama the airtime he requested to discuss immigration!!!! tooo political they thought.
Worthwhile investigation: who owns mass media and what is their political agenda. Other than the obvious one of Murdock.
See the Washington times for more.
2
Mr. Bruni,
is this column supposed to somehow compensate for your coverage of George W. Bush in 2000?
4
Of course the media will screw it up. They'll cover every single tweet that comes from Trump's addled brain, but won't cover:
1) the actual policies of the Dems
2) the ways that the Dems are mostly in agreement
3) the violation of norms and decency by Trump and his admin
4) the rampant corruption in the WH
5) The devastating toll of climate change, gun violence, and wealth inequality
7
@Josh Wilson As far as Democratic policies go, so far I’ve seen-
AOC’s Green New Deal and suggested 70% tax rate.
Feinstein’s assault weapons ban.
Virtually every Democrat pushing a $15/hr. minimum wage.
Open borders? I don’t believe Democrats want that, but let’s see some actual proposals.
These are not popular policies, even here in Vermont.
Nicknames are not the liberals problem. Eight million Obama supporters voted for Trump! Americans are fed up with so called elites, so called intellectuals and liberals crying about how bad America is. The middle class is fed up with rants and opinion writers telling them how to live.
4
Obama supporters voted Against Hillary (who still took the popular vote, of course) and with supposedly good reason. I'm no fan of hers either, but she would have been 1000 times better as president than DJT.
1
Well, the New York times routinely devotes several pages to bashing Trump, not to mention about half of it's opinion page, including this column. So I guess this is starting tomorrow.
Furthermore, Mr. Bruni ignores the fact that Trump has a great talent for giving his opponents nicknames which perfectly demean them and also emphasize weaknesses or foibles. Even most of Mr. Trump's most ardent critics don't think he became president to enrich himself, while "crooked Hil" and her husband seem to have gone into politics only to enrich themselves. "Pocahontas's" academic law career certainly took an upswing after she started characterizing herself as native American, moving from Rutgers to Penn and then Harvard. No one is suggesting that Mr Trump got into Fordham or Penn because he falsely claimed he was a minority. These nicknames appeal to average Americans because they emphasize ways in which liberal elites game the system to their own advantage. Plus, the more they are repeated, the more they have the ring of truth.
Trump's opponents would do well to come up with some good nicknames of their own: poor little rich boy, Cheatin Don, Lord Fauntleroy, or simply "the moron" might do. Based on this column, and everything that has come before, I would also propose: Teflon Don.
3
If I voted for Trump — and I ain’t sayin’ I did — how would I feel when the New York Times calls him a con man? Or a lyin’ two bit scoundrel? Or a treasonous lackey of the Russians? How would I feel?
Well, I probably would feel mighty defensive. After all, perhaps I voted for the wrong “horse,” or, perhaps, that I was taken in by Trump’s first class horse manure. Pehaps, too, I wanted to come to the defense of that lyin’ scoundrel, bigoted scorpion, and sexist Neanderthal because. . . Because. . . Well, whatever my own inclinations and bewilderment, I probably would be reluctant to acknowledge the error of my vote. Admitting to myself or my family that we or I made a mistake is a tough admission regarding our own failings and shortsightedness. I certainly would not want to be called an aider or abettor of a treasonous, scandalous bunch of Trumpkinites. So you see my reluctance to acknowledge the arguable error of my vote.
2
Frank, maybe you can convince your editors to change the way they're currently covering the Government shut-down as a warm-up,
5
Depends where the editorial board thinks the money is...
1
Thank you!
2
All the problems that you mentioned continue on to this day in this very paper. I hesitate to open NYTimes sometimes.
8
@PAD If and when Trump invokes a faux National Emergency to divert federal funds for his useless wall, an impulsive, ineffective campaign promise to his base, (has ever there been a more aptly-named constituency?) I pray that inevitable court challenges bring the case to the DC Federal Circuit, where Chief Judge Merrick Garland would rule en banc. Sweet karma! However, this article is about the MSM’s substantial role in enabling Trump, before and during his dubiously-gotten term. Trump is THE Black Hole of media attention. His overwhelming initially-positive but eventually-negative press by the Grande Dame NYT, among others, was endless disproportionate free press. MSM completely missed that his base thrives on his talking-back (spewing) to MSM. Yet MSM continues to obsess on his every whim, his endless fluctuations, his incoherent babbling, which freely reinforces his “throw a bomb” manipulations of headlines. Trump’s psychodrama defies all norms, yet clearly, MSM haSDn’t yet comes close to cutting off his oxygen. As a civilian, I can’t imagine how to proceed, but I can assert that MSN is part of the problem, NOT the solution here.
3
@FMS You’re a citizen; we’re not under martial law yet.
Trump is the answer to the Sulzberger family's prayers.
Before Trump, the Times' owners were wondering whether the Times would end up as an empty husk like Newsweek - sold to an oligarch for exactly one dollar - or WaPo, fire-sold to yet another oligarch for a few dollars more.
Thanks to Trump, the Times has finally hit on the magic formula to survive in the Facebook age: 24/7 outrage, hysteria, slanted news.
All-Trump'n'Race-Gender-Wars-All-The-Time.
The results are in: Subscriptions are soaring.
Losses have been stanched.
The NYT is suddenly profitable for the first time in over a decade.
The oligarchs at the door have been stayed, at least for now.
As the old Garret Morris Caribbean ball player character used to say about _beisbol_, "Trump been berry berry good to the Times."
A beautiful friendship, one that will last through Trump's inevitable second term.
4
Point conceded, if repetitively and exhortatively argued. If this case can persuade even one publisher (your own, Frank?) to resist presenting click-bait as news, you will have made a real contribution.
1
The Media had a devastating effect on the 2016 Presidential election, including the NYT. There was, and is, constant and repetitive coverage of Trump and every Tweet. There were unnecessary and unfair articles about Hillary. Here's one. Shortly before the election, the NYT published a front page article about Hillary's first years as an attorney. The headline was HUGE. Hillary likely handled hundreds of cases, but the NYT article focused on 2 cases that could potentially damage her standing. One was a case in which she was on the "wrong side" of a rape case. The 2nd case involved a man vs. a Corporation. I was shocked. Media outlets have become as self-serving as the majority of the members of Congress.
4
I believe you overstate the importance of the MSM. Nick Names in political contests only work when there is an element of truth to support them and are perpetuated by the social media not the main stream. I know you reporters and media analysts tend to regard yourself as the ultimate and superior intellectual interpreter of comment, arguments and situations. It has become obvious that a great majority of the MSM are out of touch with the electorate. I think it was Hillary who was advised not to attack her opponent and that the media would do it for her. The media picked wrong and frankly the electorate was turned off. The term "Crooked Hillary" was too close to reality to be ignored. There were plenty of unflattering Nick Names assigned to Trump also. To think these really matter is to underestimate the ability of the electorate to dig deeper and vote on issues of importance. Hillary and the MSM lost. Suck it up.
2
The Times is complicit in helping Trump in 2016. They gave him more free press than he possibly deserved. They backed Hillary while undermining Bernie's candidacy.
The NYT is much more liberal than the country as a whole (much like where I live in Marin County) and they did not understand Trumps' appeal as a candiate and even their pollsters got the election 'dead wrong'.
When the top five articles on the top left side of the front page of the New York Times are all about Trump; how can the paper NOT be an accomplice of Trump in 2020? Competing against Warren or Biden; the chances of a second term for Trump go way up.
Mr. Bruni understands this risk but probably can't admit it in public.
3
Trump pretends he was anointed our king, but he was barely elected president. Perhaps we should begin referring to him as our "faux-king" president . . . .
Not a single mention of misogyny in this article about the media in 2016. Is it too hard to admit it Frank? This one word can explain most of your lame excuses about why Trump was treated favorably by the media.
4
I never rely on cable news sources for serious news. I find that most of the cable news channels are filled with repetitive opinions and infotainment as someone stated in the "Comments." Other than CNN's Poppy and James in the morning I find the other shows tedious at best and highly predictable. I find newsworthy reading at the NY Times, LA Times and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch far more to my liking.
Ever heard of McCarthy and Roy Cohn? Trump learned their tactics directly from Cohn and deployed them using the media of our time. History repeats itself.
1
I don't see why things should be any better in 2020 than they have been since Trump started running for office. The press hasn't learned yet, and they never will. Trump knows how to play them like a violin: just look at any news outlet; the front page is likely 3/4 headlines containing the name "Trump". He knows there is no such thing as bad publicity...all he has to do is say something stupid, or nasty, or outrageous, and the press yells: "SQUIRREL!!!" and they are all over him. They will never learn.
1
The answer is obvious. All the cable channels are discussing two remarks freshman congresswoman made about impeachment and 70% tax rates.
As if this is somehow equivalent to the shutdown and "I never said
Mexico was going to pay for the wall", as well as other idiotic statements from the White House.
Maybe the New York Times has learned the lesson, maybe not. You have columnists who focus on some weird stuff.
The eyeballs are more important to the media it seems than the boring shutdown or legislative maneuvering.
1
The NYT was indeed culpable not only of excessive DT coverage, but also of massively ignoring Bernie. While Bernie was filling massive stadiums with tens of thousands of young voters, NYT, PBS, and others turned their mics and cameras to DT's outrages and Hillary's little meetings at big fundraisers. If Bernie was reported on at all it was only as a spoiler to Hillary. The night before the primaries in California, the NYT declared HRC the winning candidate! Even so, he got 43% of the primary vote nationwide! HRC surpassed him in popular vote by only 3 mn. Why is he always left out of this discussion?
3
“our coverage of him had turned overwhelmingly negative by the final months of the 2016 campaign...”
Thank you for finally admitting the Times’ extreme bias. When its own motto says it’s supposed to report the news “without favor”
2
@Jay Holder It's not exactly "bias" to identify a lying, sociopathic criminal as such.
You know as well as we do that the media will be led by the nose by trump because it sells. Here is a way to counter it but don't hole your breath for it:
Instead of treating the president’s every tweet and utterance — true or false — as newsworthy (and then perhaps fact-checking it later), Lakoff urges the use of what he calls a “truth sandwich.”
First, he says, get as close to the overall, big-picture truth as possible right away. (Thus the gist of the Trump-in-Singapore story: Little of substance was accomplished in the summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, despite the pageantry.) Then report what Trump is claiming about it: achievement of world peace. And then, in the same story or broadcast, fact-check his claims.
That’s the truth sandwich — reality, spin, reality — all in one tasty, democracy-nourishing meal.
1
It shocked and infuriated me when this paper equated the Clinton Foundation, which has the highest marks from charity-rating organisations and has saved lives all over the world, with the Trump Foundation, which was nothing more than a tax-evasion scheme to transfer money into the Trump family’s pockets.
You’d better do better this time around.
7
I just hope we are done with Hillary’s emails. The Times led the charge on that and helped Trump get elected.
3
Trump has also managed to make you people in the media take your eye off the ball. You keep covering his latest outrages, and then fail to cover the ungoing damage he's causing. So, you gave him airtime this week, but when was the last time you reported on the freezing children in cages at our border? You also dropped coverage of Puerto Rico after a couple of weeks, when, in fact, the country still was without power two months after the hurricane. And what's the status if the wildfires in California? When was the last time you mentioned the Muslim ban? Lots of consequential things going on, and you pay attention to whatever Trump wants you to pay attention to. He's not at all smart, but he's outsmarted all of you.
3
The media needs to investigate what Trump has on McConnell and how many others as well.
2
@Deirdre
McConnell's wife is in the Cabinet setting her up for a quintuple or sextuple pension from the US taxpayers.
And of course as long as we are close people are being hurt and losing money which makes the government look incompetent which is gold to him. He knows the only folks who realize he is the problem are not his voters.
2
For two years I waited to hear more about what Democrats were doing to oppose the current administration and what sort of alternatives they would offer. For nearly two years there was a dearth of reporting on the Democrats. Then suddenly they take over the House and we start hearing at last from Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and others. Right around that time I read one sentence in the Times that explained it: editors were not assigning reporters to cover politicians that were out of power. Apparently, they assume that the loyal opposition is uninteresting to readers merely because they are not passing legislation. Not so. Every day for the past two years I've looked for articles that were not about Trump, McConnell, and the rest of the traitors to the American people. There were lamentably few. And yet I knew that Democrats were not sitting on their hands, because we were out in the trenches knocking on doors and doing the hard work of persuading voters to listen to us, face to face. The Times didn't bother to cover much of that, though, until the very last weeks of the election.
1
Please excuse the media. You only have to go back a few years and you will discover many articles in the media telling us that Republicans were unimportant and the Republican Party was dead. Somehow our girl Hillary unfortunately believed that too.
Dan Rather is right. All this president wants is to make a spectacle of himself. And it is is ghastly. The fact that this misfit was elected president is a statement in itself about the voters. What have we become when a womanizing dishonest buffoon can brag about his misdeeds and still get elected?
Maybe it's time to let the majority of voters elect the president instead of the antiquated system we use now? The Electoral College should become a system of the past. It's hard to feel that your vote counts when the system is rigged against you.
3
@Bethed The area around Trenton, NJ has a greater population than the state of Vermont (where I live). I think we’ll keep the electoral college.
1
Another lens for how to deal with Trump might come from psychologists who deal with bullies and narcissists.
1
Who thinks the media will do any better in 2020?
No one. Just as Trump is compulsive in his evil - it's who he is - the media are compulsive in filling the gaping maw of endless, 24/7 "coverage" - it's who they are.
And the consumers will buy it all and ask for more, watching spellbound as the country is set afire.
1
The media was complicit from the very beginning. During the birther nonsense. Everyday in the summer of 2015, you printed his every ignorant word because everyone knows summer can be slow for news. During the debates, the moderators and the news commentators frequently gave him a pass while they hammered Clinton. The media has a lot to answer for, and you better give some serious thought to how you will handle his ridiculous "information" blitz in 2020, or we will see him back for another four years.
3
The media helped create this golem and now it should accept responsibility and do its best to rid us of it. And let's start calling him what he truly is, a liar and a criminal.
4
Donald Trump is a predator. You never take your eyes off of a predator lest it attack you. Trump has been attacking the American people since taking office with his machete wielding "policies." We don't even know the full extent of what he has done, which regulations he has destroyed which may be literally killing us at this moment. I want to know the full extent of how this man is harming us. Although he is so beautiful, the most gorgeous golden-haired human god ever created out of the pantheon of beautiful gods, he is also seriously on a tear to abolish democracy in our country and the world. Don't kid yourself. He is a dictator in his heart and soul. The media must help make sure that's where his dictatorship stays.
1
It’s appalling and frightening to witness mainstream media devolving into tabloid media, peddling conspiracy, manufacturing hysteria and paranoia, thriving on sensationalism, and pandering to the lowest common denominator: intellectilually lazy Americans.
2
You are right: Trump's childishly stupid utterings are not newsworthy. It would be best to not report his verbal or tweeted garbage al all. Dead silence about his campaign unless he has to say something of importance that goes beyond "build that wall paid for by Mexico" or "lock her up".
I agree that the media has partial culpability in the election of Trump. Stop shining the light on his vulgarity. Focus on worthy subjects, and presidential candidates, and worthy, ethical people will have an opportunity to shine through.
1
Your question is your answer.
Just by writing this column, you, Mr. Bruni, continue to chase the shiny object at the expense of writing a column of substance. And your employer, the NY Times, does the same on a daily basis.
I long for a day when the NY Times doesn't have Trump's name and or picture on the front page (or top of the webpage).
Let's see NYT walk the talk. Focus on substance -- leave the tweets and Trump drama for Fox. Cover substance, policy, actually news. The EPA, the Climate, etc. Please.
2
Frank the media helps Trump every day by hammering on him personally every day. The same fools that thought this was effective before the last election have not yet figured out they have a failed strategy
1
Here's a thought: Stop being led around by the nose by Twitter. The more Twitter you consume, the more likely it is that you are being manipulated.
1
What stood out for me most, prior to the election of the current president; was his constant presence on talk-shows I watched. He was a constant presence even if only by phone. Now the same press is shocked, shocked mind you this male human was elected and won. I grew up with liers and theives and when something went missing I too was shocked such a thing occurred. Perhaps we can do better?
1
The media easily gets sucked into this every day, bouncing from crises to crises like a ping pong ball into a red solo cup.
The entertainment of news and the ratings, clicks and revenue it generates will be too much to resist, whether broadcast or online. It hasn't changed since the election - why would it change in the next two years?
The President* is merely a figurehead in this - the one that the flies are drawn to. I agree wholeheartedly what others here have pointed out - McConnell is ultimately the one who can and has caused more long term damage, dating back to before this Administration* even came into power. The outrage and anger is understandably directed towards The Fraud, but there are many complicit in this takedown of freedom and democracy.
1
Why do a handful of journalists like Mr Bruni, who do their job, have to write NYT articles imploring their fellow journalists to do theirs?
What would happen if, say, only a handful of generals were doing their jobs during a time of war? Answer - we'd be losing the war.
An analogy American journalists should consider.