Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Why Trump’s War on the Media Matters

Most presidents distrust the news media. Trump wants to undermine it as an institution.

I must break you.Flickr/Gage SkidmoreThroughout his presidential campaign Donald Trump complained extensively about biased news coverage, singled out individual journalists for criticism, challenged the very foundations of freedom of the press, and called for loosening of the libel laws.

Now as president-elect, Trump's war on the media continues. At a recent meeting with top television executives, for example, Trump berated the networks for their "outrageous" and "dishonest" coverage and, according to a source, he told CNN chief Jeff Zucker that "everyone at the network is a liar and you should be ashamed." The same day, rather than holding a press conference where journalists might ask him difficult or uncomfortable questions, Trump instead released a YouTube video updating the public on the White House transition, which he said had proceeded "very smoothly, efficiently, and effectively."

As president, Trump's mistrust of the media will certainly make life difficult for journalists trying to provide the public with a clear view of presidential decision-making. To be clear, presidential animosity toward the press is nothing new. All presidents get frustrated by what they view as an unsympathetic press corps that mangles and reinterprets their words for the news, making it difficult to communicate clearly to the American public.

As a result, presidents have long sought to reduce the number of press conferences they hold while increasing the amount of communication they do through other means. The emergence of social media has simply allowed Trump to take that trend to the next level. Though distasteful and dysfunctional, the Republic won't fall just because journalists have to watch YouTube like the rest of us to learn what Trump's been up to.

But the deeper danger is that Trump's war will undermine the media as an effective forum for debate and deliberation. By avoiding engagement with journalists and by stifling media critics through public shaming and other strong-arm tactics, Trump will weaken the ability of the press to play the role of watchdog and critic envisioned by the Founders and embodied in the First Amendment. By attacking the media's objectivity and credibility, the Trump administration will weaken what's left of public confidence in the public sphere and, by extension, in the entire project of democratic self-governance.

Trump already enjoys a disturbing level of support for his assault on the news media. In a post-election Pew survey, for example, just 22 percent of Americans gave the press either an A or B for its campaign coverage, with 59 percent giving it a D or F. A September 2016 Gallup poll found that just 32 percent of the public trust the press a fair amount or a great deal to report news "fully, accurately, and fairly," the lowest figure since Gallup first asked the question in 1976.

Nor is the timing of Trump's war on the media an accident. The media have become an arena of conflict in the partisan battles of an increasingly polarized political system. To those who believe that the media exhibits a liberal bias, Trump is a welcome corrective. Not surprisingly then, the recent collapse of trust has been driven primarily by Republicans, just 14 percent of whom now believe the mass mews media deserves even a fair amount of trust compared to 30 percent of independents and 51 percent of Democrats. A related trend is the increasing Balkanization of news audiences around competing news sources. As a 2014 Pew study showed, for example, 47 percent of "consistent conservatives" name Fox News as their primary (and trusted) source of news about politics, while almost completely avoiding other major news outlets like The New York Times.

Even more frightening is the fact that the trend appears most pronounced among younger Americans, who tend to be somewhat more liberal than their parents. In 2016 just 26 percent of those under the age of 50 trusted the news media compared to 38 percent of those age 50 or older. Nor does the advent of the social media help. Just 34 percent of American adults who use the web trust the information they get from social media sources.

How Trump will deal with the media seems clear. Less clear, however, is how the media will respond to Trump. The past 30 years or so do not provide much reason for optimism. The news industry has been pummeled by the fragmentation of the news audience and the emergence of the Internet. In the difficult economic environment they face, news organizations have shown little stomach for increasing hard news budgets or supporting much in the way of investigative journalism.

Instead, a good deal of what passes for American journalism today is simply information recycled straight from government sources. There are exceptions, of course, as well as newer, non-traditional sources of news and opinion that provide alternative narratives to the mainstream media accounts. Most encouraging, perhaps, are the emerging signs that Trump's election may lead to a reinvigorated sense of duty on the part of journalists, news organizations, and NGOs. Whether these initial responses add up to an effective counterpoint to Trump's bully pulpit, however, remains to be seen.

Trevor Thrall is a senior fellow for the Cato Institute's Defense and Foreign Policy Department.

Photo Credit: Flickr/Gage Skidmore

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    I'd rather Trump and the media were at war than have the love-fest Hillary would have had. Or rather, the blind obeisance she would have continued.

    Every time I see something how bad Trump is or will be or portends, I rephrase it in Hillary terms. As bad as Trump is or might be, I cannot imagine one single thing Hillary might be better at.

    Hitler vs Mao, or Stalin vs Mao .... yup, Mao was worst.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    And now that I've actually RTFA, I see I didn't need to read it.

    The same day, rather than holding a press conference where journalists might ask him difficult or uncomfortable questions

    Didn't Hillary run her entire cmpaign without any press conferences? Eh, they would have asked softball questions anyway.

    But the deeper danger is that Trump's war will undermine the media as an effective forum for debate and deliberation.

    You can't undermine what doesn't exist.

    Trump will weaken the ability of the press to play the role of watchdog and critic

    Their proggie bias has already killed that, and they'd have accelrated that trend under Hillary. Maybe Trump will encourage them to stand up again.

  • ||

    Maybe Trump will encourage them to stand up again ?

    Oh Yeah baby. Te press is back to being a stalwart warrior for truthiness and justice.

    "Trump's election may lead to a reinvigorated sense of duty on the part of journalists, news organizations, and NGOs. "

    It is their duty to speak truth to power now that a non leftist wields the pen and the phone !

    Bullsh+t like this and the pre election TDS displayed by Reason coupled with writers like Dalmia ensures that none of my earned income will be used to perpetuate such nonsense.

    I come here for the comments not the articles and the ads forced upon me while here fully compensate for the occasional article I read .

  • IComeHereForTheComments||

    You rang?

  • Ted S.||

    A lot of these same people think Hugo Chavez going on TV for five hours, bypassing the media, to put out his propaganda points is a stroke of genius.

  • Quixote||

    The media is lies, lies, libel and lies, no better than the repugnant fulminations of the Trolls, and it should all be criminalized, precisely as we have done in New York with inappropriately deadpan, electronically conveyed "parody." Surely no one here would dare to defend the outrageous "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge in America's leading criminal "satire" case? See the documentation at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • ThomasD||

    A corrupt and decrepit institution such as is the media is deserving of no concern or protection.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    I also see this about the author:

    Trevor Thrall is a senior fellow for the Cato Institute's Defense and Foreign Policy Department.

    I expected better from the Cato Institute.

  • ||

    Why? They've already denounced the Second Amendment.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Can both of you expand on that? I went to Cato's 2A page and I mostly saw a bunch of article from the lead attorney on Heller.

  • The Grinch||

    Link wouldn't work-google "Gun Control: Grounds for Compromise?" from Cato Inst.

  • Tony||

    No! Babies must be allowed to own surface-to-air missiles! No compromise!

  • The Grinch||

    Nice strawman you moronic dickhead. You are, without a doubt, the most tiresome and least intelligent poster on this site.

  • Tony||

    So there should be compromise on the right to bear arms?

  • Deven||

    I have a compromise: If you don't like guns, you don't have to buy one.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    No way! NO WAY! The second amendment says that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Every adult has a duty to be armed. The only "compromises" if the 2A were properly interpreted would involve such things as whether the standard, well-regulated militia rifle would be a .223 or a 5.56, and whether a citizen could substitute his 30-30 deer rifle for the standard rifle and still qualify as satisfying his duty as "well-regulated" militiaman.

    Of course, mental incompetents and criminals would not be part of the militia, so I suppose Tony would be exempt and would not have to buy a rifle.

  • Lysander||

    Buy a rifle? Every citizen should be issued an AR-15 after completing a class on gun safety and maintenance, in order to graduate from high school.

    I'm only half serious. Which half you will have to figure out.

  • The Grinch||

    You aren't interested in rational discussion so I'm not going to bother. Enjoy hurling your insults, O' Intelligent One.

  • ||

    He just starts by moving the goalpost outside of the stadium. Since there's no way anyone owns missiles, you know, those things that Tony wants the president to use to kill libertarians, then there is nowhere to even start.

  • GeoffB1972||

    You're setting a pretty high bar, there.

  • GeoffB1972||

    Doesn't AmSoc post here?

  • LV||

    I think you can shorten "Nice strawman you moronic dickhead." to just "Tony" from here on out. All agreed? Motion carried.

  • DesigNate||

    Babies can consent to a contract so how are they getting that SAM in the first place?

  • Episteme||

    No! Babies must be allowed to own surface-to-air missiles! No compromise!

    Suck it, animal mobile hanging above the crib!

  • ||

    Tony still has a gigantic case of the butthurt because his idol lost the election. What happened to that landslide, Tony? Remember when you said that Hillary is more than 50 points ahead in all the polls?

  • Tony||

    Nope. I won't be one of those Internet geniuses who claims to have predicted Trump all along, but it's not a matter of being butthurt over losing a contest. I'm ashamed that I'm having now to take the position that at least I won't be the first to suffer under the inevitable cosmic disaster that Trump's administration will be.

    The one silver lining is that I get to see if you idiots were telling the truth when you said over and over that you only piled on Obama and Democrats because they were in power, or if, as this thread seems to indicate, you'll all be carrying water for Trump as the obvious partisans you've always been.

  • Spinach Chin||

    "I won't be the first to suffer under the inevitable cosmic disaster that Trump's administration will be."

    Weren't you already spectacularly wrong about one prediction?

    Maybe you should take a break from prognostication...

  • dunce||

    We are so lucky to have a poster that can see the future so clearly. too bad your infallible genius is not more widely recognized.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yah, CATOs turned into a shithole.

  • SIV||

    Cuckatarians are the worst.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Leftists took over Cato a few years ago--you might recall the 'libertarians' at reason siding with them.

  • Tony||

    If you think the media and the Clintons have had a cozy relationship, ever, well that explains the idiocy of the rest of your thoughts.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    I see Tony's self projection is still working.

  • buybuydandavis||

    SJWs Always Project

  • Tommy_Grand||

    Tony is right; the media favored Trump. Tony also believes the media was tough on Obama. Tony thinks media treatment of Michelle Obama and whats-her-name Mellania (sp?) Trump has been equivalent. if you don't agree, it proves you are a stupid denier white nationalist.

  • Tony||

    The media very much without question favored Trump.

    Which was more political damaging as filtered through the media, Hillary's email account or Trump's multiple sexual assaults? Which should have been? Who's president now?

    It didn't favor Trump for ideological reasons (you idiots think that's what they do), but for ratings. The media has a pro-capitalism bias.

  • Deven||

    The media gave Trump a ton of coverage because they thought he was the only candidate Clinton could beat. Check Wikileaks Pied-Piper email.

    Damn you are a mendacious cunt.

  • Tony||

    You people are so stupid it's painful. You're supposed to be the freedom guys. Stop sucking the tiny cock of the most powerful man in the world while you trash any and all press skepticism of him. It's embarrassing.

  • ||

    And you're such a useless fucking excuse for a lifeform that when you get called out for being a blithering idiot and a liar, you change the subject and start throwing out mindless insults. Your tears are delicious Tony, but I still say you should have been a blowjob.

  • Sam Haysom||

    That tiny cock has sure ripped you a new one.

    I figured you'd be loosened up from all that time you spent with Obama and Reggie the bodyman Love.

  • Tony||

    It's a wonder you morons make it out the front door without tripping on your shoelaces.

  • Red Rocks Dickin Bimbos||

    And it's a wonder you can make it out of bed without cracking your skull open.

  • ||

    Why do you come here, Tony?

    Oh yeah... you're a sock puppet.

  • LV||

    Prolly 'cause we tie our shoes BEFORE heading out. Try it sometime.

  • ||

    Are you out of your mind, Tony? The media did all it could to derail Trump including at the debates.

    You calling people idiots is quite the touch though.

    Takes one to know one perhaps?

  • ||

    He knows that. But his case of butthurt is so severe that it's making him even more irrational than ever.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    The media has a pro-capitalism bias.

    You can tell by all the people who work in the media donating to Democrat candidates.

  • Tony||

    Just like most educated professionals. Also Republicans have maintained a fascist assault on journalism for decades. Maybe that has something to do with it. Rinse and repeat for why minorities also support Democrats.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    I take it by "educated" you mean people with college and/or graduate diplomas. As someone who labored in academia for many years, I can assure you that most diplomas have very little relationship to actual education.

    And of course graduate degrees are highly correlated with government employment, as government pays employees to pursue such degrees and raises their salaries once they attain them.

  • Agammamon||

    Tony|12.4.16 @ 11:54AM|#
    . . . The media has a pro-capitalism bias.

    *Reality* has a pro-capitalism bias.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Hillary's email account or Trump's multiple sexual assaults? Which should have been? Who's president now?

    Well, let's see, Trump grabbing women by the pussy is even less relevant to the presidency than Clinton getting a blowjob in the oval office. Hillary's irresponsible email use, on the other hand is very relevant to the presidency and government. So, I'd say Trump's sexual peccadillos were covered too much, while Hillary Clinton wasn't taken to task enough for her incompetence and irresponsibility.

    The media has a pro-capitalism bias.

    I sure hope so. We also call that a pro-democracy and a pro-freedom bias.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Trump was just talking about grabbing pussy. And, by his account, they let him do it, so if it occurred it would have been consensual.

    Sure, Trump is an American Berlusconi, and will be, at best, the fifth-worst president since Reagan.

  • Daily Beatings||

    Trump is an American Berlusconi ...

    ... minus the Bunga Bunga parties.

  • MJBinAL||

    Let's do something unusual, and think about this.

    Trump got lots of coverage from the Media.
    Most of the coverage was negative, but still covered him.

    It was clear to me, perhaps not to you, that Trump intentionally stroked the media hot buttons to provoke coverage. In a certain sense, he applied the old Hollywood saw "any publicity is good publicity".

    When the MSM covered both campaigns, the bias was pretty obvious. For example, there were many cases where Hillary had campaign events where attendance was very low, and they controlled the presentation to obscure that fact. On the other hand, for Trump events with overflowing attendance they controlled the presentation to minimize the popularity of the event.

    In short, we need to separate the Media giving lots of coverage to increase ratings (which happened), with "fair" and "unbiased" coverage (which did not happen). In general, the MSM attempted to spin the election toward Hillary, but was unwilling to lose all the $$ from the increased ratings that would have accompanied ignoring Trump.

  • MJBinAL||

    There is also another issue that had to do with the "packaging" of Hillary. The Media complained repeatedly that when invited to appear on unscripted Q&A sessions the Hillary campaign declined, but Trump nearly always agreed.

    Hillary's handlers believed, rightly or wrongly, that she made a poor impression in more "free-wheeling" settings. The result of this was one again, they were biased in the way they covered Trump, but Trump got more coverage.

    Hillary on the other hand spent WAY more money on campaign advertisement. It is easier to control the candidates presentation in this way and the Hillary campaign probably spent 10 times what Trump did on this.

  • ant1sthenes||

    No, Trump very much manipulated the media to his advantage, which is not the same thing. I don't remember any CNN staff secretly feeding questions to Trump to help him in his primary, or any emails detailing collusion between reporters and his campaign. Even for you, this is a new low of bullshit.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Lying Media did favor Trump. Inadvertently.

    By going Lying Scumbag 24/7 attacking Trump, they discredited themselves and credited Trump.

    The hatred honest people bear for the Lying Media propelled Trump to victory.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    The SJW absurdity did as much for Trump as the MSM. However, nobody did as much for the Trump campaign as Hillary did when she called Trump supporters a basket of deplorables.

  • Trials and Trippelations||

    Nice handle

  • ||

    +100

  • Tybus||

    Wikileaks portrayed more than a "cozy" relationship. More like an infant breastfeeding type of relationship.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Complete with the bawling when the nipple was retracted.

  • DesigNate||

    Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Fuck you are stupid.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Ditto

  • Liberty Lover||

    I have to agree with you.

    Have you noticed the new narrative is not America, but "Trump's America". The man is not even President yet. Still all the news outlets are telling us how bad it will be when Trump is President. While they may be right, they may also be wrong. We just don't know. Good or bad, Trump was elected to be different, not the same old corrupt Presidency we have seen with the last two Presidents.

    The media won't go away because of Trump. Trump is not a dictator, and we have a Supreme court to uphold the our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    By avoiding engagement with journalists and by stifling media critics through public shaming and other strong-arm tactics, Trump will weaken the ability of the press to play the role of watchdog and critic envisioned by the Founders and embodied in the First Amendment.

    It's like the last eight years never happened. From the outset singularly demonizing a certain cable news channel, moving on to preventing press photography in exchange for vetted, official snaps, and eventually seizing journalist phone records and prosecuting reporters. This is nothing new.

  • jack sprat||

    But it was ok because Obumbles was good with words(when they were on a teleprompter)!

  • Chip Your Pets||

    He was especially good with "umm" and "uhh".

  • buybuydandavis||

    At least that's what Biden said.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Yea, but Obama was right to do it. Just ask anybody who voted for him.

  • Number 2||

    This was going to be my point. I'll wager that Barack Obama has had more appearances on late night TV shows, yucking it up with sycophants, than press conferences.

  • ||

    How cozy was his relationship with pop culture?

    He gave the Medal of Freedom to how many of them again including De Generes?

    Talk about debasing an award.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Civilizational arsonists

  • Private Chipperbot||

    Found the Dan Carlin fan. That's a compliment.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    With media like these folks at CNN I can't imagine why Trump is not inviting them for sleepovers.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    WAIT! Is Trevor speaking of the candidate that was on EVERY DAMN MORNING TALK SHOW SEVERAL DAYS PER WEEK? Is that who this tard is talking about? The guy the pundits were crying about getting "free advertising" because he was on so many shows? THAT GUY?

  • Acosmist||

    Is there a second page where the article makes a point?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Never

    By the way, what the hell is going on with all the reloading and superfluous bullshit on this website? Did they hire a code monkey from National Review to bring simple text communications down to the speed of beginner telegraph?

  • Episteme||

    Standing athwart the Information Superhighway and yelling, "Stop!"

  • CptNerd||

    Beautiful.

  • Lee Genes||

    If the media is untrustworthy, which I believe a large portion of it is, then what is the loss? Are we to pretend that the media is something it isn't and just carry on?

    The same could be said of the government and what the insiders constantly tell us. That it's more dangerous to create change than it is to just grin and bear it.

    With any luck, the media will find a new commitment to objective journalism, but even if they do, it will take years if not decades for trust to be reestablished. And Trump isn't really interested in truth, just positive coverage.

  • Derpmaster General||

    Those guys sure did a bang up job playing watchdog to President Obama. Now they're hammering the "everyone to the right of us is the klan" and "you were too stupid to vote as we told you so now all 'fake' media will be removed so we can voxsplain only what you really need to know, as told to us by the DNC" lines like crazy. I wonder why no one gives a shit about the media.

    If I were a Trump supporter my retort would be a childish three words, "You started it."

  • wef||

    Yes, I am scared that someone who is literally Hitler is going to undermine the ability of the NY Times, WashPost, CNN, CBS, NBS, ABS and the rest to contribute to an effective forum for debate and deliberation. We should appreciate what those independent institutions have done to date and strive to protect their fragile position as voices of the people.

  • Trials and Trippelations||

    Sarc or Tulpa?

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    Are you using one of those cheap Chinese sarco-meters? Buy American!

  • The Grinch||

    It's hard to undermine an institution that has a solid foundation, something the American media lacks. They gave up on truth and objectivity long ago in order to push an agenda and have done a fine job of undermining themselves. Trump, as bad as he is, was treated so unfairly by the media that it was actually painful to watch/read at times and his desire for retribution is not a surprise at all. If he causes the schlerotic old media to come crashing down I won't shed any tears.

  • Deven||

    Think back on how they treated Romney. An argument could be made that Trump deserved a lot of it, Romney did not. Regardless of Romney's policies, he is a decent human being, and they made him look like Satans spawn. Something like 90% positive coverage for Obama during that election, too. It was ridiculous.

  • ||

    That's the thing that really blew me away.

    They managed to make a Mormon look impolite!

    No, seriously. The nicest people I've ever met in my life were Mormon. Even the two girls I worked with. Polite to the bone.

  • Mr Drew||

    ...polite to the bone.

    /waggles eyebrows

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Yep... serious wolf-crying action going on there.

  • Tankboy||

    Perhaps the MSM is like the Ottoman Empire? They backed the wrong side and wound up being wound up. If anything has contributed a perceived increase in partisanship it is that the media have over-reported partisanship. Like they over-report racism. They also spent at least nine years worshiping Obama. Is it any wonder their objectivity has vanished?

  • SRVolunteer||

    This article is delusional.

    It's both tragic and hilarious that it has come to this. The trajectory of the media my entire life (and probably before) has been to move to the left. 30 years ago the press was firmly in the Democratic camp. Nowadays, they are well to the left of the Dems.

    After newsrooms all over the country replace socialists with libertarian and conservative voices I'll start worrying about the appropriateness of Trump's 'war' on the media which consists primarily of pointing out the obvious.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It's like the Palestinians asking for a cease fire after getting their assess handed to them in a battle they started, but all they really want is some time to reload.

  • ||

    I always loved that about the Arabs. They yell and attack Israel, get their asses kicked and demand - with the help of the UN - the land they lost be given to them 'because'.

    Throughout history the armies who lose land don't get them back fair and square but suddenly with Israel it's the "moral" thing to do.

    GTFOH.

  • PapayaSF||

    +1

  • MJBinAL||

    +1
    +1
    +1

  • DRM||

    Still waiting for the Germans to get Königsberg back.

  • Tony||

    What malignant force is keeping libertarians and conservatives from dominating the media? Why are you guys so bad at life?

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    Now this is Tulpa.

  • Sevo||

    Nope.
    Garden variety Tony stupidity. It's what he's good at.

  • SRVolunteer||

    lol.

    I wish libertarians won more, but conservatives have been cleaning up.

    The best thing for them is probably that newsrooms stay exactly how they are, and a huge chunk of the electorate continue to believe they lack credibility.

  • Deven||

    Who owns 90% of the media, Tony?

  • Tony||

    Capitalists.

  • ||

    As if capitalists can't be progressive liberals.

  • kbolino||

    Because avowed socialists have never personally owned capital.

    Owning and benefiting from capital does not make one a capitalist. Hypocrisy is not limited to people you don't like.

  • Tony||

    What is the contention here? That some globalist conspiracy has installed ideological allies in positions of power in the media? Do you think they're all in a giant conspiracy?

    Does it occur to you that most educated professionals are liberals? Why is it their fault that conservatives don't have more market share? (Though you are seriously downplaying the amount of conservative propaganda in the American media.)

  • kbolino||

    Is natural selection a conspiracy? Do animals go extinct because the Illuminati wills it?

    Your lack of intellect is tiresome.

  • Greg F||

    Does it occur to you that most educated professionals are liberals?

    Does it occur to you that being an "educated professional" does not inoculate one from being a moron?

  • kbolino||

    Does it occur to you that being an "educated professional" does not inoculate one from being a moron?

    Or that being a liberal does not mean accepting every left-wing talking point du jour. But the left must pretend to be a unified front, lest they appear just as fractious and disagreeable as the right (even though they very much are).

  • Homple||

    "It is the classic fallacy of our time that a moron run through a university and decorated with a Ph.D. will thereby cease to be a moron."

    ~H.L. Mencken

  • PapayaSF||

    "There are some ideas so stupid that only intellectuals will believe them." —George Orwell (paraphrased)

  • MJBinAL||

    My father, a very practical and capable man told me...

    "The problem with educating an idiot, is that you get an educated idiot."

    (I don't think he knew you personally Tony.)

    Just an observation, most engineers (very educated) are conservative or libertarianish. I notice that the idiots tend to avoid degree programs where there are actual correct answers that are not subject to negotiation.

  • jack sprat||

    ^ this

  • Tony||

    I notice that most engineers are also creationists who can't have a conversation to save their lives.

  • Sevo||

    "I notice that most engineers are also creationists who can't have a conversation to save their lives."

    I notice Tony is a lefty imbecile with whom you don't want and can't have a conversation; that required a level of intelligence that Tony never achieved.
    Fuck off, shitbag.

  • Pat (PM)||

    I notice that most engineers are also creationists

    Lol.

    Who wants to bet me that Tony has both cited Bill Nye as an authority on climate science and credited him with DESTROYING creationist (and environmental biologist) Ken Ham without having any idea that his terminal degree was a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering?

  • ||

    But they design & build goods which are desired by people, as opposed to graduates of various Resentment Studies programs.

  • Cy||

    Because Univiersities openly discriminate against conservative applicants, both students & faculty:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05.....rance.html

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Who bankrolled Marx?

  • ||

    Engels.

  • Episteme||

    The Stonecuttters?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    What malignant force is keeping libertarians and conservatives from dominating the media? Why are you guys so bad at life?

    It's pretty simple: journalists are mainly recruited from English and social science majors; they end up with a lower income and worse jobs than their college buddies who studied accounting or science. They are already indoctrinated into progressive ideology in college, and their flagging careers and ability to make more money by sucking up to left wing politicians only deepens their ideological commitment. Over the last few years, they see their profession threatened by technology, which is why they increasingly call for government handouts.

    Libertarians and conservatives, on the other hand, tend to have real jobs.

    Did that answer your question?

  • buybuydandavis||

    What malignant force is keeping libertarians and conservatives from dominating the media?

    Personality.

    Libertarians do not wish to dominate. Leftists do.

    Libertarians wish to be left alone.
    The Left wishes to subjugate others to their will.

    The Left lives to be the foot in a boot, stamping a human face forever. Of course they work hard to get into media. And academia. They yearn for the sadomasochist thrill of subjugating their will to the Mighty Cause, which tramples all enemies under their cloven hooves.

    Once in positions of power, they ruthlessly advance The Cause over the supposed goals of the organization. In both media and academia, this has meant ever increasing Leftist propaganda over the truth, and ever increasing bias in personnel decisions for other servants of The Cause.

    You see the same Social Justice infiltration of other businesses, but they are generally less appealing to SJWs and less susceptible to their infiltration, because they require some skill and inclination beyond propagandizing.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I just hope ESPNs lobbying for Penn State over the Bucks works out for them like it did for Hillary.

  • Derpmaster General||

    Controversial opinion: Put Western Michigan in.

  • EDG reppin LBC||

    No. Not controversial. They couldn't even compete with the top 4 teams in the country.

    WMU is a nice story, and when the playoffs expand to an 8 team field, they will be included (only to get bounced in the 1st round). The best MAC team is the sixth best team in the BigTen. Reality.

  • EDG reppin LBC||

    Go Bucks!!

    Go Raiders!!!

    Fuck Michigan!

  • Lysander||

    Fuck college football. Communist conspiracy on the order of fluoridation.

  • SIV||

    This piece is why you shouldn't donate money to reason.

  • Derpmaster General||

    This.

  • Mr Drew||

    Could disagree more. Whom, May I ask, is doing a better job? Reason is far from perfect but still my chosen news outlet because they report with a less derp than anyone else.

    Before I found Reason a had to listen to NPR and read Fox to try and extrapolate the news

  • AlmightyJB||

    Not to mention all the news you don't even find reported at those other outlets.

  • The Grinch||

    Reason is better than most but not nearly as good as they could be (or used to be).

  • AlmightyJB||

    Certainly. I also know what brainwashing centers journalism schools are and that's going to be your largest pool of writers to choose from. That's why so many can't seem to write confidentiality about libertarianism without adding the caveats and apologies. We still get the stories though. We also get an uncensored comment platform to voice our opinions and critically review the material. Try that at HuffPo, you'll be banned in 5 minutes.

  • Deven||

    Reason is still good, the thing most of you all are not getting is that Reason is really here to please the Reason Foundation, not us. The Kochs are not really full on libertarians, which is why Reason tends to piss us off so frequently, especially lately.

    I'm not saying the Kochs are bad dudes, they just have interests that do not always coincide with libertarianism.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    And now you still do, but ENB and Fisher are far more entertaining.

  • ||

    Interpolate, not extrapolate.

    /annoying pedant

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Not pendant at all, they are two entirely different things.

  • Mr Drew||

    Dammit, you are correct, sir.

  • Mr Drew||

    Well, fair enough. I still donate because I think the job they are doing is close enough to correct that I'm willing to support it. But you are correct that that in no way implies that you should feel an obligation to do the same.

    I would like to see FreeThink come up with a news site.

  • Akira||

    "Whom, May I ask, is doing a better job?"

    Mises.org

  • buybuydandavis||

    Whom, May I ask, is doing a better job?

    Stefan Molyneux.

    Always has the best reports on any topical political subject. Has plenty of his own axes to grind, but actually puts those quaint little things we used to call "facts" in his reports.

    Stefan Molyneux

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Ditto

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    No, my first reaction was that this was a crap article, then I realised that Reason was tossing a large chunk of red meat to the commentariat. They love and fear us.

  • DesigNate||

    If you only put a couple of articles out over the weekend, they need to be chum like this otherwise we're not coming to comment.

  • ||

    This article, I believe, is a perfect example of the reason for most of the pants shitting by the writers here over the last few months. Trump's original sin in the eyes of the media(including Reason) is that he loudly refused to kiss their ring.

  • The Grinch||

    Media has moved on to the bitching and whining mode, in between attacks of course. I'm sure that will bring the public over to their side.

  • ||

    They don't get it, and I seriously doubt they ever will. They'll just double down on derp again and again until the only readers they have are Tony level partisan retards and the whole thing comes crashing down. Of course they'll blame the rubes in fly over country for being to ignorant/racist/sexist/whateverist to recognize their brilliance and just do what they're told.

  • SimonD||

    I think that most of their readers are Tony-level partisan retards now. Unfortunately, California, New York, Boston, and D.C. have a LOT of partisan retards with money.

  • kbolino||

    Unfortunately, California, New York, Boston, and D.C. have a LOT of partisan retards with money.

    Finance
    Technology (R&D, not production)
    Government

    One is a sector that the left decries, one is a sector that has gone mostly unregulated (thankfully IMO but still), and one is a sector that depends entirely on taxes.

    The word "sustainability" comes to mind, as in, "what is lacking in all of the above?"

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    It must be some cosmic coincidence that the media bitching and moaning sounds identical to Clintonista bitching and moaning.

  • Ted S.||

    It's also why they went ape-shit over Peter Thiel and Gawker.

  • John Titor||

    This. The articles on the Gawker case were a greater tell than anything they published on Trump.

  • WillMG||

    And called out their bullshit.

  • Mr Drew||

    -Insert disclosure about not liking trump here-, but aren't they dishonest? Haven't they been unfair in myriad ways?

    It's it possible that his sometimes hyperbolic accessions will cause them to try to be better?

    Well, probably not to that last.

  • Mr Drew||

    *accusations

  • BigW||

    If we had a free press that gave us unbiased news I might give a fuck about your arguments, but as of now I simply have no fucks to give.

    The press has reaped what is has sown, I will not stand for them. And before you say "don't you care about the free press" I'll say no, I don't give one shit about a press that thinks it's an elite class that are comprised of the ONLY ones with the "true facts". The press mentioned in the constitution is literally anyone who wants to print (or nowadays post) Anything.

  • The Grinch||

    If you want unbiased analysis, or at least sources that admit their bias, you have to go to blogs or fucking YouTube. People know this and that's why the media and the press as we've known them are done.

  • ||

    I was just having this talk with a prog. He was incredulous about how bad blogs are. When I pointed out that scientists and investigative journalists and other experts in their fields run blogs how does that translate into them suddenly not being 'reliable'? He went off on newspapers are purveyors of 'fact checking' don't publish unverified stuff. This coming from a guy who 'was still waiting on proof Hillary is crooked'.

    It was to laugh.

  • jack sprat||

    Well said.

  • kbolino||

    I believe very much in a free press. The established media outlets, even including Reason, are but one of many expressions of that freedom. I do not see that freedom being challenged in any novel or egregious ways. The only way in which Trump is at war with the media is by receiving the shots they've repeatedly fired.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Meh unbiased journalism is a fantasy. I would rather they were up front regarding their bias - especially ABC, NBC, and CBS. I think, however, that this election has finally exposed the bias of the big three TV channels to the average voter. I would rather watch a debate between two parties with opposing POV's than two parties trying to argue some point constrained by having to take on unbiased position.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    It's the claim of unbiased journalism that gives artificial credence to their positions and unduly influences folks that aren't political/policy junkies. Most people just browse through political content when the stakes are high, if they consider some institution like NPR or BBC to be unbiased then their POV is going to be skewed in the extreme.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    If we had a free press that gave us unbiased news I might give a fuck about your arguments, but as of now I simply have no fucks to give.

    A historical point here. The press has never been unbiased, anywhere, especially here. It was not born unbiased in the US and it never became unbiased later.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Perhaps the media should have considered the implications of declaring war on 50%+ of the people in the US before they did so.

  • Free Society||

    They wanted to have a culture war, they picked a side in that war and now they might just end up a casualty. They collude with the government and all the "grow the government" political groups. As an institution, they can get fucked. RT is a more objective network than any of the broadcast networks and news papers for fucks sake.

  • Free Society||

    By attacking the media's objectivity and credibility, the Trump administration will weaken what's left of public confidence in the public sphere and, by extension, in the entire project of democratic self-governance.

    Well that's a leap. But I'm sure in the following paragraph you'll go on on to substantiate that. Oh wait, no. But you do march onward without any explanation why.

    How Trump will deal with the media seems clear. Less clear, however, is how the media will respond to Trump.

    How will he deal with him. So all I'm getting out of you is that he doesn't like the media so he'll be a big meany towards them.

  • Brochettaward = (((pants)))||

    That sentence should be completely reversed. I have no clue what Trump is going to do to the media or how he'll deal with them, outside the occasional potshot. But I know full well what the media has done, is doing, and will continue to do with regards to Trump - crap their pants and make everyone else smell it.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yup.

  • Tony||

    So this is how it's going to be with Reason commenters, huh? Getting the kneepads out for Trump and trashing the press. Gotta love libertarians, always skeptical of the powerful elite--meaning some dweeb at the Washington Post with a pocket protector, not the billionaire manchild in control of all the nukes.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Please, don't feed the troll.

  • Tony||

    Pro-Trump opinion zone only!

    What pathetic morons you all are.

  • Brochettaward = (((pants)))||

    Tony, white or black? And why have you claimed to be both? Next I'm going to have to question whether you're actually even gay!

  • Tony||

    I've never claimed to be black because I'm not, but do carry on mistaking me for someone else for as long as you wish.

  • Brochettaward = (((pants)))||

    Bullshit. You claimed to be a gay black man from Oklahoma, you lying sack of shit.

  • Tony||

    No I haven't, and who the fuck might you be?

  • Brochettaward = (((pants)))||

    You lying fucking cracker. You have multiple times pontificated to us on race relations in this country and how you know racism is real because of your supposed lived experiences.

    Go fuck yourself.

  • Tony||

    Isn't the parentheses thing a signal that you're a cousin-fucking white trash neonazi?

  • Brochettaward = (((pants)))||

    Whatever I am, I don't lie about it online.

  • Tony||

    Maybe you should.

  • Brochettaward = (((pants)))||

    Maybe you should get cancer and die.

  • ||

    Give poor Tony a break, his butt hurts a lot.

  • Tony||

    I think it's funny that I'm less welcome here than a Nazi.

  • ||

    One-third of the way down and I don't think I've seen one pro-Trump comment, just a whole lot of "I don't feel sorry for the elitest, partisan MSM" comments.

  • Brochettaward = (((pants)))||

    Tony, what sort of pathetic, privileged shitlord pretends to be black in an internet argument to advance his cause?

  • Tony||

    No clue. Are we talking about Trump? Sounds like something the president-elect would do.

  • Brochettaward = (((pants)))||

    No, just you. Pretending to be a member of the disadvantaged classes online.

  • ||

    Wait, Tony is EdWuncler? So he can effectively impersonate someone intelligent and articulate? I am gobsmacked.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    The dweeb with the pocket protector is at VOX now.

  • Tony||

    But all who work for any reporting outfit that isn't Breitbart are now Unerwünschten, correct?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Fuck off tard.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Getting the kneepads out for Trump and trashing the press.

    Honey, I was "trashing the press" even when I was a Democrat.

    Gotta love libertarians, always skeptical of the powerful elite--meaning some dweeb at the Washington Post with a pocket protector, not the billionaire manchild in control of all the nukes.

    The "billionaire manchild" is certainly not part of the elite, both because he is a billionaire and a manchild. In order to be part of the "elite", you have to be an intellectual with delusions of grandeur and a penchant for pompous language.

  • DesigNate||

    Excuse me, we've been highly skeptical of Obama for eight fucking years now.

  • You ARE a Prog (MJG)||

    At least "the media" will this time recognize they're at war, instead of excusing or downplaying the federal government spying on them or shutting them out.

  • Sevo||

    TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP.
    BTW, did I miss any Trump threads overnight?
    (Matt, between the unending coverage of a guy who has yet to do anything, and your steam-powered server, the ol' check book is closed this year)

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and any effort Trump could make top "undermine" it has long since been outdone by the media's habit of sitting in the D lap...

  • Tony||

    1992 is calling. It wants its lame Republican talking points back.

  • Sevo||

    The idiot store is calling; they found out you rolled of the shelf.

  • kbolino||

    Right, the emails between the media and the DNC totally don't provide any new evidence or substantiate any claims from the present time. Everything is stuck in 1992 and nobody ever changes.

  • Tony||

    If the media were colluding with the Clinton campaign to get her elected, good. It obviously failed. And it obviously wasn't (emails!!!!).

  • kbolino||

    There is no corruption! But it's a good thing there is corruption!

    I'd like to hear your thoughts on juche, commissar.

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    If they were just sitting...
    Its the perpetual public nob gobbling that I object too. It's not even done well.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    By attacking the media's objectivity and credibility, the Trump administration will weaken what's left of public confidence in the public sphere and, by extension, in the entire project of democratic self-governance.

    For fuck's sake! Is there a profession more insufferable in its smug, unwarranted sense of self-importance than journalism? I mean, even surgeons tend to gain a sense of humility after their first patient death. Engineers come close, but still have yet to surpass journalists in this context.

    Maybe employees of an NGO?

  • Sevo||

    Members if congress?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Is there a profession more insufferable in its smug, unwarranted sense of self-importance than journalism?

    "Education is the only industry that blames the quality of its product on its customers." - George F. Will

    Looks like he can add one.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Yeah, I was going to say that it's a close race between journalists, educators and law enforcement when it comes to smug self importance.
    Since LE can literally kill or imprison me at their will, I'll give them the top prize.

  • John Titor||

    the Trump administration will weaken what's left of public confidence in the public sphere

    This is particularly funny because it never actively defends why the public media sphere is important, just that it is so profoundly so that the entire democratic system is a risk. When in reality the public media sphere has no one but themselves to blame for their current public perception. I don't know how an active collusion between media outlets and a Presidential candidate to produce propaganda is some kind of win for democratic self-governance.

  • Akira||

    "active collusion between media outlets and a Presidential candidate"

    Every "progressive" I know is always harping on about how Fox News is this evil biased organization but the rest of the media is totally balanced and anyone who disagrees is some kind of conspiracy theorist.

    You'd think that the revelations about Hillary's collusion with media outlets would put that narrative to rest, but no - they're still holding it tight.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    They don't know about the content of the DNC/media emails. They only know trump had the Russians hack them.

  • Deven||

    Hey engineers are wrong all the time, we're just smart enough to not be wrong twice on the same thing.

  • mtrueman||

    "Engineers come close,"

    There are worse things than smugness. Every read anything written by an engineer?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Girlfriend back in grad school was in grad school in English department.

    Said that Engineers wrote great papers. Logic. Reason. Facts. Organized to make a point.

  • mtrueman||

    "Girlfriend back in grad school was in grad school in English department."

    You're not an engineer, are you?

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|12.4.16 @ 1:10PM|#
    "There are worse things than smugness."

    Yes, we notice every time you waste our time here.

  • JeremyR||

    The fake journalists like Jon Stewart and Trevor Noah and Stephen Colbert and what not.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    "The media" taken collectively needs to earn trust. It should not be blindly trusted.

    When you've got a front page article on the BBC touting an extension to block "fake news" and the block list has sites like Wikileaks and a bunch of real news sites from a right-of-center viewpoint on it, they have forfeited any pretense at credibility.

    The MSM is encouraging censorship of views they don't like and actual news.

    It doesn't matter whether or not Trump hates the media. It's an ancillary concern. It does win him brownie points among the constituency that voted for him and begrudging acceptance from much of the constituency of the other candidates. It's simply the truth. Now, what will the MSM do about it? Will it continue losing mindshare to blogs and social media (which is where a lot of even worse spin is disseminated), or will it accept the mantle of responsible reporting and give people a reason to trust it again? There's more money in spin, so I expect more of the same.

  • Brochettaward = (((pants)))||

    I wonder if Wikileaks will get off the naughty list the next time they leak something that makes America look bad and a Republican is in office. My guess is that they will.

  • mtrueman||

    "I wonder if Wikileaks will get off the naughty list "

    I think you'd be very wise to take what you get from Wikileaks with a grain of salt. Same as any other outfit that relies on anonymous sources.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""anonymous sources.""

    they exposed the internal communications of people in in the DNC. its not the 'sources' that are anonymous. its the intermediary.

    Even if they have nefarious motivations in selectively exposing people's communications, the raw materials they exposed were *true*/accurate/ and in many cases verifiable.

    If you think that no one should trust what those leaks exposed, you might want to explain that to CNN, who fired some of their employees based on actions those leaks exposed.

    You could claim they only did that because of the 'perception' created by those leaks, but they'd have the means to validate those things themselves. If the claims were false they could show how they weren't.

    If you have a single example of anything wikileaks released being proved innacurate or faked, please share.

  • kbolino||

    Yeah, the sources are very much not anonymous. Every email that has been released is attributable to real, live, named people.

    The only question is over the veracity of those emails, which has so far gone unquestioned by their purported authors.

  • mtrueman||

    "Yeah, the sources are very much not anonymous. Every email that has been released is attributable to real, live, named people."

    The sources provided wikileaks with the emails. They are anonymous. Don't confuse a wikileaks source with an email recipient. It's conceivable, but unlikely that they are the same thing.

  • kbolino||

    Irrelevant.

    Either the emails were actually sent between the persons appearing in the From, To, Cc, and Bcc headers (the last of these only being visible on the sender's side) or they weren't.

    Who obtained access to the emails is immaterial to the content or veracity of the content therein.

  • mtrueman||

    "Who obtained access to the emails is immaterial to the content or veracity of the content therein."

    Unless they were faked or altered in any way. By those who provided them to wikileaks or anyone else. Or is this not possible and we should all just go ahead and take these leaks at face value?

  • GILMORE™||

    Unless they were faked or altered in any way

    Which neither you nor anyone exposed in these leaks has ever done.

  • GILMORE™||

    done = "shown"

  • mtrueman||

    "Which neither you nor anyone exposed in these leaks has ever done."

    Do you mean an attitude of skepticism is misplaced? Anything published by wikileaks is completely on the up and up?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Unless they were faked or altered in any way. By those who provided them to wikileaks or anyone else. Or is this not possible and we should all just go ahead and take these leaks at face value?

    Clinton and Podesta have had months to state clearly that these E-mails were altered and explain how they were altered. The fact that they haven't done this tells you that the E-mail leaks are accurate.

  • mtrueman||

    "Clinton and Podesta have had months to state clearly that these E-mails were altered and explain how they were altered. "

    These are people who make the most of obfuscation and deception. Don't underestimate them. If they are not subpoenaed and obliged to make clear statements under threat of prison, they will opt for the protective cloak of obscurity. Maybe you think Clinton and Podesta are retards. They aren't. They will do their best to avoid any detailed talking about these emails.

  • DesigNate||

    Either they were faked by the Russians to undermine our Republican process (which we have no proof of), or they are real and Clinton/The DNC actually worked to undermine our election process (which the emails, if true, are actual fucking proof of.)

    Which one do you think is more likely to be true?

  • mtrueman||

    "Either they were faked by the Russians... "

    Could have been non Russians. Why not Americans? After all, they have a lot more riding on the outcome of an election than any Russian does. Hillary Clinton and you may take this Russian stuff seriously, but the rat I smell has an American stink to it.

    I'm thinking of the Podesta emails. They seem a bit weird. And I don't think the fact that there hasn't been a lot of public discussion about them is a tacit admission of their veracity. But that's me. I may be more skeptical and have less faith in wikileaks than other commenters here.

  • mtrueman||

    "its not the 'sources' that are anonymous. its the intermediary."

    Wikileaks sources are anonymous. We don't know who gave wikileaks these emails or why or whether they are accurate.

    "If you have a single example of anything wikileaks released being proved inaccurate or faked, please share."

    I don't have anything of the sort. They doesn't mean we shouldn't be very wary of what wikileaks (and more to the point, their sources) is putting out their. I suspect there are things going on behind the scenes that may change our perspective on the story if we knew the bigger picture. I wouldn't be surprised if secret services were involved, and inaccuracy and fakery are their stock in trade.

  • kbolino||

    I suspect there are things going on behind the scenes that may change our perspective on the story if we knew the bigger picture.

    What, like a dump of internal email communications?

  • mtrueman||

    "What, like a dump of internal email communications?"

    Must be true if it comes from wikileaks. This is the attitude I am cautioning against.

  • GILMORE™||

    inaccuracy and fakery are their stock in trade

    Yet you still can't point to anything inaccurate or fake. Insinuation is weak tea.

    You're just repeating the same stupid claim which i pointed out initally. Yes, the people delivering the information are anonymous. the "sources" of information - the people exposed in the communications - are not.

    You're conflating the 2. either because you're stupid or dishonest, flip a coin.

    Be 'wary' all you want. That doesn't change the accuracy of the information. Your suggestion that "Secret Services" may be involved is immaterial. So fucking what? Even if there were some evil KGB conspiracy to undermine democracy = all they did was show how slimy the DNC was. Which isn't exactly news to anyone, but is nevertheless worthwhile information.

    You might as well express the same suspicions and 'wariness' about everything else in the media; because there's little difference. You don't know their *intent!*, they could be beholden to their corporate advertisers!! You can't be *sure*?!? Argumentum ad ignorantiam, stupid cynicism run amok

  • mtrueman||

    "Yet you still can't point to anything inaccurate or fake."

    Still? I never indicated otherwise.

    "Yes, the people delivering the information are anonymous. the "sources" of information - the people exposed in the communications - are not."

    The sources provide wikileaks with information. They are not necessarily email recipients or the subjects of email. I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

    "That doesn't change the accuracy of the information. "

    How do you know it's accurate?

    "Which isn't exactly news to anyone, but is nevertheless worthwhile information."

    It was covered in the news media. It was only a month ago.

    "You might as well express the same suspicions and 'wariness' about everything else in the media; because there's little difference. "

    I do, especially when the sourcing is thin, like a reliance on one anonymous source. I'm skeptical if it comes from the NYT, no reason why I shouldn't hold wikileaks to the same standard.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    The reaction to what gets posted on Wikileaks is what gives it much more credibility.

    Chelsea Manning is in prison for the rest of her life for what she gave them. Snowden is in hiding and there are many calling for his head. That would not happen if what they leaked were made up.

    The people who vetted those leaks as authentic also vetted the hacked emails, so I tend to believe that they are authentic. The response that the MSM, the DNC, and Clinton campaign had to the leaked emails also helps corroborate their authenticity. Instead of trying to prove that they were inauthentic, they shifted the attention to the motivations behind the hacks (supposedly Russia).

  • mtrueman||

    "so I tend to believe that they are authentic"

    Your faith may be justified. Wikileaks has done great things. I'm not certain we should take these latest revelations at face value.

    "Instead of trying to prove that they were inauthentic, they shifted the attention to the motivations behind the hacks (supposedly Russia)."

    Clinton, the New York Times and the rest of the press are ignoring the most damning content. For the closest thing to a MSM treatment of 'pizzagate,' have a look at Snopes, if you haven't already.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Clinton, the New York Times and the rest of the press are ignoring the most damning content. For the closest thing to a MSM treatment of 'pizzagate,' have a look at Snopes, if you haven't already.

    Why is what they Snopes has to say infallible but Wikileaks is fallible? Maybe Snopes is run by the spooks.

    Trust no one. The truth is out there.

    I'd have more to say, but the illuminati is watching. I'm getting too close and I have to go back underground.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Ignore the grammatical errors. The sodium pentothal is wearing off. They may have gotten to me, but there's still hope for you. Get out while you still can.

    END TRANSMISSION

  • mtrueman||

    "Why is what they Snopes has to say infallible but Wikileaks is fallible?"

    I was serious when I suggested you read Snopes's take on pizzagate. If you are holding out for the NYT coverage, well good luck to you. They are ignoring it entirely. They don't make any claims about Russian spies.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    That's just what they want you to think. Think? Drink. Yes, drink. Wait, what was it they wanted me to drink again? Drink me. Eat me. Baby, please don't beat me. Bare-bulb light directly in eyes. I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. Please just let me go. Nickelback on repeat. Can't sleep. Clipboards and lab coats, bearded cellmate smells of goats. Omaha, Osama, Obama. CENTRAL intelligence agency a joke, nothing CENTRAL about them, everywhere, all the time, define me to be on the outside.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Snopes? Snoops. Teach to think in groups. Cry-in. Deny-in. Report sent straight to Biden. Wikileaks. Creepy freaks. No privacy to beat my meat. Open secrets. Closed-form denials. Detaining us without fair trials.

    Media? An institution. They get it all from the mind of Putin.

    Wire, liar, denier. Trump himself lit CA fire.

  • GILMORE™||

    I'm skeptical if it comes from the NYT, no reason why I shouldn't hold wikileaks to the same standard.

    So a distinction without a difference then.

  • mtrueman||

    Stories based on a single anonymous source should be viewed skeptically. If you agree, nobody will think the lesser of you.

  • GILMORE™||

    If i accepted your idiotic conflation of "email dumps" with "unsourced claims", maybe.

    But i don't think very stupid ideas are made more-convincing by repetition.

  • mtrueman||

    I told you before. I really don't know what you are driving at. You've apparently taken exception to something I've written. I got that much.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I don't have anything of the sort. They doesn't mean we shouldn't be very wary of what wikileaks (and more to the point, their sources) is putting out their.

    We should be. But the E-mails are consistent, and if the E-mails had been altered, the people involved would have complained. Instead, they have refused to comment on the accuracy of the leaks, which pretty much tells you that they are accurate.

  • mtrueman||

    "But the E-mails are consistent, and if the E-mails had been altered, the people involved would have complained."

    You are assuming that those involved see some advantage is having this matter hashed over in public. If it were me, I'd maintain silence and wait for the fuss to blow over. Trump has already indicated that he's not going to pursue the matter in court. They are more than half way home already.

  • Pat (PM)||

    I think you'd be very wise to take what you get from Wikileaks with a grain of salt. Same as any other outfit that relies on anonymous sources.

    Brief reminder for those keeping score at home that mtrueman is a 9/11 truther. You almost couldn't make this shit up.

  • mtrueman||

    "Brief reminder for those keeping score at home that mtrueman is a 9/11 truther."

    9/11 left physical evidence, the stuff of science. The Podesta leaks are political through and through. How do we verify they are what they are purported to be? If you know how, please tell me.

  • anticollective||

  • mtrueman||

    I never suspected wikileaks of tampering with the emails. Others could have done the tampering. Many emails failed the tests referred to in the article. That does not get us much further.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bratfart is not a "real news" site. Its more like Pravda - party line propaganda.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Blocking web sites because you don't like what they say is akin to book burning for the same reasons.

    Know who else burned books?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I oppose blocking any web site.

    I am for net neutrality just so that sites don't get blocked or throttled.

  • kbolino||

    I am for net neutrality just so that sites don't get blocked or throttled.

    This is just fantastic. We have to give the government control of the Internet so that nobody gets blocked or throttled! Because the government has nothing but good intentions and would never block or throttle sites they don't like...

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    give the government control of the Internet

    Bratfart level nonsense. No one has done such.

  • kbolino||

    No one has done such.

    But that is exactly what you are proposing, moron.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    give the government control of the Internet


    Bratfart level nonsense. No one has done such.

    Well, the US government doesn't have the power yet. European governments do have that power, and they use it to censor content they don't like. So, yes, lots of governments "have done so", even nominally "democratic" governments.

  • mtrueman||

    "Because the government has nothing but good intentions and would never block or throttle sites they don't like..."

    They can and do. And they are helped by compliant websites like FB and Google. You'd know that if you read the New York Times.

  • kbolino||

    No. Shit.

    That's my whole fucking point.

    Great, another tiresome retard. Just what this conversation needed.

  • mtrueman||

    "That's my whole fucking point."

    So it's not about net neutrality. Or it is.

  • kbolino||

    Net neutrality is a grant of power to the government. How the government is likely to use that power is absolutely relevant.

  • mtrueman||

    "Net neutrality is a grant of power to the government."

    They do all that and more without the 'grant of power.' If you haven't read the Snowden revelations, you should.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Ironically, now that ICANN is moving out of direct Commerce Dept control (and its First Amendment constraints) and going so-called "private", there will probably be more government control over the internet. And not the cute cuddly government we have in the US, I'm talking the beating-you-with-a-rubber-hose governments that control most of the world.

    Remember all those threads about Facebook and Twitter censoring American conservatives and Euroskeptics, where dogmatic libertarians were falling over themselves to insist that "X is a private company so they can do whatever they want, even if it is horribly anti-freedom and suppressive of public discourse." Well, now we get to say that about the root domain servers of the entire Internet. Enjoy.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Teachers who don't like Huck Finn?

  • Palin's Buttplug||


    Far-right Austrian presidential candidate Norbert Hofer's campaign manager conceded defeat on Sunday to former Greens leader Alexander Van der Bellen.

    "The bottom line is it didn't quite work out," Herbert Kickl told broadcaster ORF as initial projections showed Van der Bellen leading with a score of around 54 percent to Hofer's 46 percent.

    "In this case the establishment -- which pitched in once again to block, to stonewall and to prevent renewal -- has won," he said.

    http://www.reuters.com/article.....SKBN13S0W0

    Jill Stein defeats Norburt Trump in Austria.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    By attacking the media's objectivity and credibility

    New personal best. I made it all the way to there before setting aside a half hour to send this response.

  • Jerryskids||

    Jesus, Trump's a no-class fat-headed thin-skinned blowhard ignoramus from Jersey where "What the fuck you lookin' at?" is considered a standard greeting, "Faggot-ass Motherfucker" a formal term of address, and "Fuck your mother" the height of witty repartee. Of course he's gonna talk shit about the media - and anybody who criticizes him or anything that annoys him. The douchebag asshole conman doesn't know a damn thing about anything outside his little bubble of fraud and corruption and maggot-fucking slime-wallering New York City goombahism. Stop taking any ridiculous nonsense that falls out of his piehole any more seriously than you'd take a bloated possum corpse flatulating when you poke it with a stick.

  • Brochettaward = (((pants)))||

    Oh, yea? Go fuck your mother.

  • Cyto||

    And yet, it is a more thoughtful analysis of the current state of media relations with the Trump transition than the article

  • John Titor||

    As I keep telling people, remember when Trump said how the Parliamentary system was great and how America should maybe replicate it?

    I have not seen dozens of articles screaming "TRUMP WANTS TO UPEND THE AMERICAN POLITICAL PROCESS AND MAKE US A PARLIAMENT!!!!!" Because that's not news that sells. Trump spews nonsense constantly, it's one of the reasons I've been saying we should actually wait until he's in power before we criticize things he actually does, not the bullshit Karl Pilkington-esque diatribes that people demand I take super-seriously.

  • ||

    Blind and bind them with your nonsense!

  • Sevo||

    This is GREAT:

    "Trump already enjoys a disturbing level of support for his assault on the news media."
    No, Trump reflects the following, he doesn't lead it.

    "In a post-election Pew survey, for example, just 22 percent of Americans gave the press either an A or B for its campaign coverage, with 59 percent giving it a D or F. A September 2016 Gallup poll found that just 32 percent of the public trust the press a fair amount or a great deal to report news "fully, accurately, and fairly," the lowest figure since Gallup first asked the question in 1976."
    So 'the public' is now aware of how biased and pathetic most of the press is, that that's a problem?

  • Tony||

    Maybe they're pissed that the media treated Hillary having an email account as 10,000 times more apocalyptic a scandal than Trump being a raping mentally ill ignoramus.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Calm down Tony. "The gays" are well down Herr Trump's hit list.

  • Tony||

    On the contrary we're being used as props for him to attack Muslims. It's very flattering.

  • kbolino||

    Suddenly, the left discovers that standing on dead bodies for political reasons is uncouth. This deep and abiding thoughtfulness will last until the next time a non-Muslim kills more than one person with a gun.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Reminds me of Dubya standing on 9/11 rubble with his bullhorn blaring for a War with Iran. The media laid down then too - even the NY Times printed his pro-war propaganda via Judith the GOP plant.

  • kbolino||

    Reminds me of Dubya

    Reminds me of the dozen or so times President Obama has stood on dead bodies to clamor for one political position or another, but that's probably because I didn't have functional brain death in 2008 like you did.

  • Tony||

    No I think the pro-gun people should have to take responsibility for Muslims who shoot up crowds too.

  • kbolino||

    the pro-gun people should have to take responsibility for Muslims

    Of course, comrade, every problem is due to the party's enemies. We must abjure them in all cases, even when it doesn't make any sense or undermines our own talking points!

  • John Titor||

    Maybe they're pissed that the media disseminated dishonest talking points to idiots about how "Hillary just had an email account"?

  • Sevo||

    "Maybe they're pissed that the media treated Hillary having an email account as 10,000 times more apocalyptic a scandal than Trump being a raping mentally ill ignoramus."

    OK, folks, has there EVER been a more delusional lost here?
    For the last time, it's only lying shitbags like you who presume 'having an email account' was the issue, and no, the media treated it exactly as lying shitbags like you propose.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Unsurprisingly you have it completely backwards. The problem was that she didn't use the email account she was given.

  • Tony||

    Which wouldn't be a problem to you in the slightest if she had an R after her name.

  • Sevo||

    "Which wouldn't be a problem to you in the slightest if she had an R after her name."

    So you figure you show up later with blatant lies and that makes you feel better?
    Pathetic.

  • DesigNate||

    Wow, I didn't realize he'd been tried and convicted as a rapist. Learn something new everyday.

  • GSL in E||

    This reads as though the author has seen All the President's Men way too many times, and imagines that our news media are filled with Woodwards and Bernsteins doggedly seeking the truth and exposing the secret misdeeds of public figures. The problem with that is that upsetting and embarrassing powerful people is no way to make a career in journalism, and most news outlets view their content as basically filler between commercial breaks or banner ads. The implication being that it's easier, more sustainable, and a lot more profitable for them to tell you what you want to hear, and to play on your emotions rather than your intellect. Which is how you end up with lots of fake news and biased commentary disguised as news.

    Frankly, the current state of affairs makes it very challenging to actually understand the world we live in. And if Trump can undermine the legitimacy of that system, he'll be performing a public service.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    There is a great episode of "Lucas Tanner" (one day every beautiful episode will be available to newer generations) about ideological reporters on the school paper. The busted wide open a school lunch scam (or something)! Then they had to go back to regular reporting.

  • ||

    Sports journalism on ESPN is particularly a low grade example. Didn't they act all 'I've never heard that kind of locker talk' after Trump's gutter talk? They talked as if locker rooms were pristine organisms of higher learning and existence.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Yea real locker room talk would make the Reason staff sob uncontrollably. Football is a rough game. Winning means mostly being tougher and meaner than the team you are playing...the coaches act accordingly.

  • GSL in E||

    To say nothing of the trash talk on the field.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    How about real newsroom talk, back when Royko ruled syndicated columns?

  • GSL in E||

    Sports journalism is the worst, agreed.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    It is difficult to be an overt racist and survive in sports journalism.

    See Fat Rush Limbaugh - even the NFL owners told him to fuck off.

  • GSL in E||

    As do Skip Bayless, Jason Whitlock, Colin Cowherd ...

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Yea, its amazing. It is as if ESPN personalities don't know anything about sports.

  • Cyto||

    This is a contender for the most dishonest article ever posted at reason. I feel like I am the victim of a hidden camera show. After ridiculing the notion that Trump would even run for president, I keep running into situations where I feel I must defend him.

    Throughout the campaign, Trump appeared on National Television interviews with both friendly and hostile media. I saw him on the Today show with Matt Lauer several times. I did not see either Clinton or Obama doing anything similar. In fact, I think Trump build a large part of his following through his appearances on long-format interviews on television and radio.

    But suddenly Trump is at fault for a war with the media. Even though the podesta emails have shown us that the media was clearly colluding with the Clinton campaign.

  • Cyto||

    Look, the guy has almost no positives in my eyes. But you cannot seriously suggest that he is in any way worse about dealing with the media then Clinton or Obama. He has consistently used long format phone and in-person interviews to bypass the media filter and directly access their viewers.

    Meanwhile, they run around asking set up questions designed to harm his campaign in cooperation with his political opponents. And at the same time colluding to carry the narrative for his political opponents.

    If you wanted to do an honest analysis of the relationship of the media with political candidates and the public, you would have to at least put the Clinton campaign collusion front and center. The fact that Trump is finding ways to use the internet and social media to go around the media is certainly no indictment of trump at this point.

  • Cyto||

    Oh, and don't post to hit and run from your cell phone.

  • Tony||

    Why defend him? Does he need it?

    Anyone notice how often I'm the only one who actually agrees with the libertarian position as expressed by this magazine?

  • Trials and Trippelations||

    Anyone notice how often I'm the only one who actually agrees with the libertarian position as expressed by this magazine?

    I give it an F

  • Ted S.||

    You're generous.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    libertarian position as expressed by this magazine

    ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I may never stop laughing at that one.

  • ||

    I can honestly admit I have never noticed that.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I did not see either Clinton or Obama doing anything similar.

    Obama was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly (protector of all things conservative) multiple times - during the Super Bowl and on 'The Factor' itself.

    Lauer is more midstream. If Trump had gone on O'Donnell's show he would have done the equivalent in bravery - but he stayed with sycophants like Hannity and O'Reilly.

  • ||

    I remember O'Reilly asking him what his favorite color was.

    O'Reilly must have been forced to let Obama write the questions before he would agree to the "interview".

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Trump was on every damn morning show every week for ever! He was on the Today show and everything, to the point that the pundits cried, and cried, and cried some more that he was getting "free advertising."

    Did Trevor miss all that, or was he crying then too?

  • Cyto||

    Yeah, that was kinda my point. I couldn't avoid that idiot for months on end.

    And it was hard to decide which was more painful, Trump's simpleton-sounding responses or the excruciatingly obvious "have you stopped beating your wife yet" style questioning by a Clinton-inspired media in the general election, or the horribly insipid questioning by a Clinton-inspired media during the primary.

  • ||

    Look over there, Cyto. You're on Candid Camera!

  • Cyto||

    That would certainly be a relief.

    I'm still holding out for waking up in bed next to Suzanne Pleshette. That would certainly be preferable to this nonsense.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Trump instead released a YouTube video updating the public on the White House transition,"

    This is what really has them shitting their pants. They no longer get to be the gatekeepers or get to enjoys inside access. Trump (and future GOP presidents) can skip the middleman and speak directly to the American people

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Like FDR's Fireside Chats, but with a Rethuglikkkan! 8-O

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    If you want to see some real presidential comedy, watch Jimmy Carter's fireside chat.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    But the deeper danger is that Trump's war will undermine the media as an effective forum for debate and deliberation

    .

    The media has done this to itself.

    Trump's certainly an asshole, but the media, with very few exceptions, is an utter abomination wrt presenting unbiased, dispassionate facts. The best we can hope for, at this point, is for everyone to doubt everything they are told, as it's extremely likely it's just an attempt to manipulate.

    THAT might actually be healthy.

  • Tony||

    Which are the exceptions? This should be good.

  • american socialist||

    FoxNews, Breitbart, and talk radio Tony. They're not an elitist asshole like you in demanding that the media actually report facts. The problem today, of course, is that the media doesn't report enough on how ISIS is pouring across the Mexican border or that millions of illegals voted for HRC.

  • Ted S.||

    The media has done this to itself.

    The only problem I'd have with Trump going after the media (and not just ignoring them) is that whatever he does, the next TEAM BLUE administration will do to wrong-thinking media (Fox, bloggers, et al.) in spades.

  • Ted S.||

    Let me rephrase it. If Trump does anything new that TEAM BLUE hasn't done before, they'll turn that new thing up to 11.

  • Aloysious||

    ... the mass mews media...

    Solecism? or are we mocking the high pitched whining noise some journolists make when they don't get their way?

    I like (b), myself.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Trump already enjoys a disturbing level of support for his assault on the news media."

    It is disturbing, so do a better job.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    That is what is disturbing them. Having to do any job.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Even more frightening is the fact that the trend appears most pronounced among younger Americans, who tend to be somewhat more liberal than their parents.


    Frightening, disturbing, waily waily, someone isn't getting the deference they thought was their due.

    Thus far, Trump might not have had the "most transparent administration in history" but that hasn't bothered anyone in the media for years.

    Maybe y'all are frightened and disturbed enough to do your fucking jobs now. Or not. Just don't expect us to comfort the comfortable while the media whines about their loss of courtier status.

  • Christophe||

    Everything after the first paragraph was pretty weak. If you're going to talk "War on the Media", it needs to be more than just "not holding press conferences".

    Frankly I think not holding press conferences, thereby forcing the media to go digging for material they can cover, is probably a better thing in the long run. The media can't be an effective watchdog if it's constantly getting treats from the executive branch.

    You could have covered more about the libel law changes he's proposed (maybe contrast our 1st amendment traditions with much more limited speech regimes in the rest of the western world), because that's an actual threat. Treating CNN/etc as the clowns they are isn't.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    "not holding press conferences" is good enough for the editor, the only standard that matters.

  • kbolino||

    It bewilders me that "not holding press conferences" is even considered "anti-media". A press conference is a propaganda presentation. The media does not require nor should it depend upon the existence of press conferences to investigate and report.

    This shows just how pathetic they've become. "How are we supposed to do our jobs if you don't spoonfeed us talking points?"

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    When one is the propaganda arm of a political party, which they confuse with the government as a whole, the lack of press conferences makes the feel unwanted.

  • GILMORE™||

    You could have covered more about the libel law changes he's proposed ... because that's an actual threat. Treating CNN/etc as the clowns they are isn't.

    Exactly.

    Trump's got a zillion and one flaws. But the way the media flushed its credibility down the toilet this year was not Trump's doing.

    (*and by "media", I don't mean 'everyone', so much as CNN, WaPo, NYT, NBC, CBS... etc.)

    Do you think they'd have been less hysterical and willing to throw all basic-standards out the window if Rand Paul had been the nominee? The goal was to drag hillary over the line at all costs.

  • kbolino||

    On those changes to libel...

    The only thing I've seen is w/r/t NYT v. Sullivan which, while certainly a enabler of "reporting" on famous people, is hardly a bedrock principle of classical liberal freedom of speech.

  • Christophe||

    Are we reading the same case?

    The one where a guy who wasn't even named in an ad criticising the agency he was supervising decided that was libel of his person, due to factual errors in the ad?

    And the court established that actual malice (ie: publishing facts that were known to the author to be false) was required in order to constitute libel?

    The risk of suppressing political speech in this day and age would be huge. I'm sure "Hillary, the movie" had at least a handful of factual errors.

    I can see why we'd that to be the standing interpretation, even if the knock-on effect on celebrity reporting isn't particularly relevant.

  • kbolino||

    Yes, the same case, but it is not about the case per se but rather how it has been interpreted since then.

    The transmutation from "public officials" (= government employees in positions of authority and representing government agencies) to "public figures"' (= anyone "famous") is the most notable change, but also that "actual malice" has morphed into a nigh-impossible bar to clear.

    Moreover, I can't say that I entirely agree with outcome of the case itself. It is one thing to say that people should be able to criticize governments and public officials (absolutely!), it is another thing in my mind to say that people should be able to invent factual claims about them.

    Ok, the government is engaged in civil asset forfeiture to the tune of $100 million per year (let's say); do you require the ability to inflate that number dishonestly, without facing liability, in order to report on what is actually happening? Would reporting on government abuses in this country really be impeded gravely if the NYT had been required to vet the actual number of incidents before publishing it? It's not like they couldn't have said "multiple incidents have occurred" as long as they can substantiate more than one.

    Of course, I don't think actual harm was proved in that case. Defamation should require both false statements and provable harm, and the defamer should only be liable to the extent of the harm caused.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The appellate judge that dismissed Zimmermans lawsuit against NBC did so because

    A) NBCs reporting had made Zimmerman a "public figure", which is outrageous circular logic and

    B) She claimed that it would be "impossible" for a reasonable jury to find actual malice in NBCs actions despite their admission of affirmatively editing video and audio tape to cast Zimmerman in the worst possible way.

  • ||

    "the deeper danger is that Trump's war will undermine the media as an effective forum for debate and deliberation"

    Seriously? The MEDIA has undermined the media as an effective form for debate and deliberation. Trump really can't do much harm.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "The overlap between Trumpism and Islamism is no coincidence. In my book "Islamic Exceptionalism", which discusses Islam's tensions with liberalism and liberal democracy, I argue that some public role for religion is necessary in religiously conservative societies...In less religious or post-Christian societies, a mainstream Christianity is no longer capable of providing the necessary group identity. But that doesn't mean other ideas won't fill the vacuum. In other words, be careful what you wish for: an America where religion plays less of a role isn't necessarily a better one, if what replaces religion is white nativism."

    Hamid "Foreign Policy"

    Could have been written by Reason as well.

  • ||

    Hey shreek, you and Tony sharing a basement now?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    There is a free market solution to reverse the media's abysmal trend.

    Board certified journalists.

    A code of ethics. A private board with the power to decertify any journalist violating those ethics.

    Only takes one organization to implement. XYZNews can certify their reporters and advertise as the only news agency with "certified journalists". The remainder will follow because they need to compete.

    You can still have political commentary, it just needs to be "labeled" as such for the viewer, as established in the code.

  • kbolino||

    There is no way to enforce honesty in the media if honesty from the media is not what the consumers of media demand. A professional licensing organization is just as (if not more so) subject to capture as the media outlets themselves.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    There is no way to enforce honesty in the media if honesty from the media is not what the consumers of media demand.

    I've gotta believe there are real humans out there that want facts. As I pointed out, you can still have your O'reillys and Maddows...you just can't call it news.

    Works for doctors. Works for lawyers.

    Perfect? Certainly not. Better than the shit-show we've got now.

  • kbolino||

    How do you know if reporting on topic X is honest or not? Because you know something about X. Call it a corollary to the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.

    What is more likely to exist in a population of hundreds of million: a few million people who are willing to accept reporting of varying degrees of honesty, as long as that reporting agrees with their biases, or a few million people who know enough about a wide swath of topics that they can judge and demand honest reporting on all of them? Or, if you prefer, which group is likely to be larger?

    It's an intractable problem to make categorically honest media dominant. You will get topically honest media at best.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    How do you know if reporting on topic X is honest or not?

    How do we know whether a lawyer violates ethics? A board investigates, right?

    Regardless, the reporter doesn't need to ensure everything he reports on is correct. He just needs to ensure his reporting is correct. e.g. Trump says the world is flat. The world doesn't need to be flat in order to report it. All that needs to happen for the news to be accurate is that Trump actually said it. And be able to provide credible citations.

    Further opinion, as to Trump's sanity/intelligence based upon that comment is clearly commentary. The code of ethics would demand that the two (news/commentary) not be presented together and that the reporter make clear to the viewer which is which.

    Violators of the code would be decertified. A black eye for those who employ him and a leg up to their competitors.

  • kbolino||

    How do we know whether a lawyer violates ethics? A board investigates, right?

    The same board that decided to get rid of many ethical restraints on its members' behavior? That one?

    You're missing the point. If people don't demand, it ain't going to happen, board or no board. Worse, a board that judges reporters' honesty but can't be itself meaningfully judged by the consumers just sets up a false authority with control of "the truth".

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    You're missing the point. If people don't demand, it ain't going to happen

    Not true. You don't need market share to make money in a market. As I point out below, those interested in facts would clearly be a niche.

    People, some small percentage of people, do demand it. You can't tell me that some percentage (20%???) of the population doesn't want factual accountability from the medial. Cater to that niche, profit from it, and see what it does to its competitors.

    The same board that decided to get rid of many ethical restraints on its members' behavior?
    Perfect? Certainly not.

    The code is simply a journalist's constitution. The board is a court. The difference between it and government is simply that it's voluntary and driven by profit motive. If the consumer loses faith in the board, it will simply stop watching certified news. There is incentive for integrity.

  • kbolino||

    If this demand exists, why is it not being met?

  • Chip Your Pets||

    If this demand exists, why is it not being met?

    M _ R _ E _ F _ _ L _ R E

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Now I know why I can't have a flying car.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    If this demand exists, why is it not being met?

    Just because no one has tapped it yet, doesn't mean the demand doesn't exist. It's a function of realizing demand and developing a business model to meet it.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Just because no one has tapped it yet, doesn't mean the demand doesn't exist.

    We're not talking about a flying car or a clean quiet power source that fits in your linen closet here.... we're talking about telling the truth. Something everybody knows how to do. It's low hanging fruit.

    And there are a lot of people who claim to want this product AND claim that they have gotten it.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    The difference between it and government is simply that it's voluntary and driven by profit motive.

    Of course the fundamental question here is, who is paying this profit-motivated board?

    The news sources paying them (the UL model) creates a massive potential for conflict of interest.

    The consumers paying them (the Consumer Reports model) is not without peril either. CR has to use very questionable trademark and copyright enforcement threats to maintain its business model. This is for detailed reports, too -- if you're just talking about a stamp of approval, that would be easy to communicate to non-subscribers.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    As I pointed out, you can still have your O'reillys and Maddows...you just can't call it news.

    You can't call it news? Did you just type that? How are you planning to enforce that?

    If you're referring to the National Truth Board's trademarked seal of approval, how is that any different from the peacock logo or the New York Times letterhead? Other than being even more consolidated and open to capture.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    How are you planning to enforce that?

    Through free market competition. The entire system is voluntary and exists only enforce the will of that market niche. Thus, maximizing profit for the participants.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Free market competition isn't going to prevent people from calling their content "news".

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    But it gives credibility to those competitors claiming your uncertified process isn't news.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Which is not what you said before.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    It certainly is.

  • mtrueman||

    "There is a free market solution to reverse the media's abysmal trend."

    Consumers are not forced to buy or read any newspaper or watch any TV. They already are free to choose. What if it's this choice that leads to the degradation you are noticing, ie the press is just giving their readers what pulls them in. They complain and complain about bias and dishonesty, but they can't help themselves coming back for more.

  • kbolino||

    But don't worry, mtrueman has the solution. Once the vanguard party has taken control of the means of production, they will produce the one true newspaper, called Truth, that will eliminate all of this "consumer-driven" nonsense and remove from people the burden of false consciousness.

  • mtrueman||

    Unlike others here, I have no problem with biased or partisan reporting. But don't let that stop you from attacking that straw man.

  • kbolino||

    It's not a strawman, because I didn't attack it. It may be a false attribution but I have my doubts that you actually disagree with it. You might like partisan reporting, when it agrees with you.

  • mtrueman||

    "You might like partisan reporting, when it agrees with you."

    For those who like partisan reporting they don't agree with, the market also has a solution. What more do you ask?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Consumers are not forced to buy or read any newspaper or watch any TV. They already are free to choose.

    CLEARLY, the majority (market share) of consumers are more concerned with commentary supporting their Team than they are with facts.

    Presenting facts (real news, if you will) would obviously be a niche market, at least to begin with. The beauty is, the niche has huge growth potential as would discredit the rest of the industry. Once known for presenting fact, it would be forever cited by the commentators, driving them to be more truthful.

    There is a market for truth.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Once known for presenting fact, it would be forever cited by the commentators, driving them to be more truthful.

    What prevents them from using their newly-gained, unquestionable reputation to push a political agenda?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    What prevents them from using their newly-gained, unquestionable reputation to push a political agenda?

    Profit.

    You are catering to the percentage of the population that wants facts. If your integrity is called into question you lose the customer.

    And certainly, if the business model is successful, it will soon have competitors, which gives the niche consumer choice. (i.e. who provides me the most accurate information)

    You may say, it's the model we have now. It isn't. No media outlet currently caters to the niche market that demands facts over commentary.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    If the fact-buyers could tell whether something is factual on their own, they don't need your board or its seal of approval.

    If they can't tell whether something is factual on their own, they won't catch your board when it certifies falsehoods, so the board will become corrupted by its power and we will be worse off for its existence.

    This is exactly the problem that exists with the current "high reputation" MSM organizations -- they are their own seals of approval, and they've become corrupt.

    The board you propose would be even worse because the barriers to entry would be enormous. Why would a news organization bother paying the new Truth Board on the block to get certified, when they haven't earned any reputation yet? That would be money down the drain.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Why would a news organization bother paying the new Truth Board on the block to get certified, when they haven't earned any reputation yet?

    For profit.

    Look folks. We have a new product to sell you. Facts. Here is the code of ethics we will live under. Here is the board that holds us accountable to those ethics. Here is the enforcement process. Anyone can refer our reporters to the board of review. No one else holds their reporters to these high standards. FOX doesn't. CNN doesn't. MSNBC doesn't. The NYT doesn't...

    If you like our business model and the product it produces, buy it. If not, don't.

    Eventually, you could make a business out of running ethics boards. And the media outlet will pay them membership fees to lend credibility to their journalists...because consumers will pay for that which they value.

    Free market solutions

  • Chip Your Pets||

    We have a new product to sell you. Facts.

    Not really a new product.

    Here is the code of ethics we will live under. Here is the board that holds us accountable to those ethics.

    Every news organization claims to follow a code of ethics. Why should I trust your board to hold you accountable to it, unlike those other news organizations? If they have done so in the past, how do I know they will do so in the future now that they have people trusting them. And trust means no verification -- if the consumer has to verify, then what is the point of having the board in the first place?

    Here is the enforcement process. Anyone can refer our reporters to the board of review.

    And the board will be flooded with so many referrals from those on the other side that it will either become a rubber stamp or be impossible for the consumers to police for corruption -- the potential for which is ever-present due to your business model of having producers pay for certification.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    This is exactly the problem that exists with the current "high reputation" MSM organizations -- they are their own seals of approval, and they've become corrupt.

    Hell, you could start a business of selling board certification membership fees to media outlets interested in tapping that market.

    All you'd need to do is convince one outlet to tap the market and all you want out of the deal is to be the enforcement board for their journalists and the ability to provide same service to their competitors.

    Independent board/company.

    And then you'd eventually get multiple certification boards, and they'll compete.

  • kinghiram91||

    I made a statement to this effect further down. Why do we need journalists at all? Can't we just be our own journalists and reporters through the Internet? That's originally what the Fifth Estate was all about. Peer-to-peer news reporting. No need for some guy behind a desk to tell us stuff, we'd just tell it to each other. And we wouldn't do it for ad revenue, or for ratings, but purely to disseminate factual information for its own sake.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    You may say, it's the model we have now. It isn't. No media outlet currently caters to the niche market that demands facts over commentary.

    LOL. All of them claim to be fair and unbiased, indeed FNC has that as their tagline.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Chip, you are spending a lot of time discrediting my idea. What's your alternative solution?

  • Chip Your Pets||

    There isn't a top-down solution. I'm irked by libertarians proposing "private" certification boards as panaceas, which they are constantly doing. Putting an authority in charge of something is a natural human response to a problem, hence the left's love of government solutions to everything, but libertarians proposing "private" certification boards as panaceas has nearly all the same problems.

    At some point the people have to be trusted to think for themselves or a democratic constitutional republic cannot work, regardless of the structures put in place. Our education system is drumming any inkling of that out of children, of course.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The entire point of our "educational system" is to create reflexive deference to authority through operant conditioning.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    How is a free market, voluntary solution, based upon making a profit, a top down solution?

    What I've proposed has NONE of the same problems. The media will pay the board to enforce the code because that's what the customer demands.

  • mtrueman||

    "Presenting facts (real news, if you will)"

    My advice, stick to the business, financial press for the facts. They have always had a reputation for thoroughness and accuracy.

  • kbolino||

    They have always had a reputation for thoroughness and accuracy.

    7/10 would laugh again

  • Chip Your Pets||

    They complain and complain about bias and dishonesty, but they can't help themselves coming back for more.

    Which explains cratering newspaper circulation and MSM TV news ratings.

    The MSM is dominant in its (shrinking) industry because of barriers to entry and name recognition.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Board certified journalists.

    A code of ethics. A private board with the power to decertify any journalist violating those ethics.

    Only takes one organization to implement.

    This sounds like the libertarian-sounding equivalent of appointing a blue-ribbon commission to solve all the problems that the previous blue-ribbon commissions created.

    With the exception of PBS/NPR, every major US news media outlet is privately owned. Lack of private ownership is not the problem. High barriers to entry, especially for broadcast media but also for cable channel lineup inclusion are a huge problem. The trust and respect that the common man has for the AP, NYT, WaPo, NBC, etc due to inertia, rather than any actual current reliability, is a huge problem. Adding to the stack another private organization with protection from competition and little if any accountability is not an answer.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Lack of private ownership is not the problem.

    Didn't say it was. I said none of them are attempting to tap the portion of the market that wants real news.

    The board is nothing more than a way for such a company or companies to police themselves if they choose to do so.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Every media news organization claims to report real news. So they are clearly looking to get that market.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I suspect such an endeavor would turn out exactly like the Comics Code.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Awww, poor media darling diddums! Is Big Bad Twump treating you with the hostility and contempt you exhibit toward everyone but your Liberal/Progressive pets?

    See this teeny-tiny thing in my fingers? It's the world's smallest gramophone playing "My nose bleeds for you".

  • AlmightyJB||

    WooHoo. Bucks are in. I knew they would be.

  • EDG reppin LBC||

    It's on like Donkey Kong.

  • ||

    Trump may very well turn out to be bad for the free press but the media acting like this is a new phenomena is disingenuous to say the least.

  • ||

    Maybe Tony and shreek can give each other a butt massage.

  • kbolino||

    Don't leave out AddictionMyth/dajjal, he's the heart of any party.

  • ||

    Both of those are shreek sock puppets.

  • ||

    Hmm, seems to me like shreek and Tony are the ones crying.

  • kbolino||

    I doubt it. The world is large enough to contain multiple deranged morons, and H&R is like flypaper to them.

  • ||

    100% certain AddictionMyth is shreek. He slipped up the first day he created AM and got his logins mixed up. Dude can't even sock puppet right, sad.

  • ||

    You got yourself, dummy.

  • ant1sthenes||

    No, I think it's Alice Bowie. Something about the weird passive aggressive attitude is the same. Shriek was always more gloaty.

  • Sevo||

    Maybe we shouldn't be so hard on turd and shitbag. Here they supposedly had the election handed to them; she's got a vag, the press is drooling over her and ignoring her baggage while Trump gets nailed if he misplaces an apostrophe, she's got that crooked Clinton machine behind her, she's sold political access as if it were bags of peanuts from the concession stand................

    And she LOSES TO TRUMP!
    That's got to HURT.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I survived the Bushpigs - I can survive Trumptards.

  • ||

    The Redhats are coming for you shreek. You going to reinforce your mum's basement?

  • Sevo||

    "I survived the Bushpigs"

    Turd, you couldn't prove it by your comments.
    Poor, sad Hilbots....

  • ||

    Shreek had the royal cankle licker job all wrapped up and then Trumputin ruined it. That's one sore butt loser right there.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I love how you "libertarians" in the Peanut Gallery are so pro-Trump since he despises everything you purport to stand for.

    From Eminent Domain to free trade to Big Gov Conservatism and Militarism and running down the free movement of people Trump is as fucking anti-libertarian as any major pol (except Bernie Sanders) can get.

    But Mitch McConnell will keep him in line!

  • Tony||

    Trump gets more credit for 1000 jobs than Obama gets for 16 million. LIBRUL MEDIA.

  • kbolino||

    Funny how those "16 million jobs" that Obama "created" don't look anything like the more than 16 million that were lost due to the recession.

    It's almost like the numbers have been juiced to tell a false narrative...

  • Ted S.||

    Government-funded science for the win.

  • Tony||

    It's funny how if the president had an R after his name you'd give him a ball licking for every single one of those jobs.

    Who said they have to be the same kind of job anyway? What's that about?

  • kbolino||

    It's funny how if the president had an R after his name you'd give him a ball licking for every single one of those jobs.

    Presidents don't create jobs (outside of the relatively tiny number of people working in the White House), businesses do. Insofar as the President ever deserves "credit" for anything, it's for not getting in the way. Where have I ever praised all the jobs Reagan or Bush 43 "created"? I haven't because they didn't.

    Who said they have to be the same kind of job anyway? What's that about?

    They don't have to be the same. But nobody deserves much credit for a recovery in name only. Relative to before the recession, LFPR is down, the ratio of part-time to full-time jobs is up, and CPI-adjusted wages are down. Yet inflation marches on and so does the increase in government spending and government debt. "Get fucked and like it" ain't much of an economic mantra, now is it?

  • Tony||

    Remember that time he threatened companies with government retribution if they did business in a way he didn't like? Like, yesterday?

  • Sevo||

    Shitbag, in case you haven't noticed, there's very little support for that blowhard here. Just slightly more than for that venal felon the electorate told to get lost.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Was there a day when Obama wasn't threatening companies with coercion if they did something he didn't like?

    Not that I'm thrilled about Trump, especially his protectionist side, but come on.

  • kbolino||

    Look, Timmy Geithner is only going to ask you nice once. But you're a smart man, and you're gonna do what he says, and you're gonna like it. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

  • Ted S.||

    And screwing with bankruptcy law.

  • kbolino||

    I realize it is unfathomable for you to understand this, but throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks does not represent an ideological criticism.

    Any libertarian with half a brain should be anti-Trump in many ways. But once you've got at least that much of a brain, you should also be intelligent enough to level insightful criticism and not just pathetic nothingburgers.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    There are very few of us who are pro-Trump.

    There are many of us who are pro-stop-proggy-lying. There is no dialog to be had with people whose needles are stuck in one incredibly divisive groove of a broken record.

    The increasingly shrill left:

    Racism, misogyny, white nationalism, anti-Semitic, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, alt right, not my President, fake news, NAZI, KKK, Racism, misogyny, white nationalism, anti-Semitic, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, alt right, not my President, fake news, NAZI, KKK, Racism, misogyny, white nationalism, anti-Semitic, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, alt right, not my President, fake news, NAZI, KKK, Racism, misogyny, white nationalism, anti-Semitic, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, alt right, not my President, fake news, NAZI, KKK, Racism, misogyny, white nationalism, anti-Semitic, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, alt right, not my President, fake news, NAZI, KKK, ...

    That isn't a point of view. It's a parrot taught to demonize people. When the left starts telling the truth about the right, then we can all be on the same page and talk about things that matter. Until then, enjoy your derision and mockery from the "Peanut Gallery."

  • kbolino||

    Look, the Buttplug "lives" around "rednecks" in "Dogdick, GA" which means he knows every single one of them personally and can attest that they are all, to the man, members of the Klan, Nazi sympathizers, and will be out lynching negroes and Catholics the minute they are "allowed" to. It is known.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    There are very few of us who are pro-Trump.

    There were a boatload of people here defending every verbal bowel movement that oozed out of Trump out during the general election campaign. Lots of assuming that Bill Clinton raped women with no evidence (and blaming Hillary for the alleged rapes), then turning on a dime and labeling as paid liars the women who claimed Trump groped them.

    Of course, they would immediately claim they are not Trump supporters. They just happened to be shoveling shit for him out of the kindness of their hearts.

  • DOOMco||

    that's not what happened.

  • Eman||

    WDATPDIM?

  • kbolino||

    I don't know how heavy John is to say whether or not he could constitute a boatload unto himself, but I'm not sure that calling him one is very nice even if it's accurate.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    He was not the only one. Not by a longshot. Gilmore, Suthenboy, Hyperion, Papaya, HM, Winston, Playa, whatever sloopy is calling himself these days -- they all stuck up for Trump on his indefensible behavior and statements.

    There were several threads where there were a couple of dozen on Trump's side and me all by myself on the side of decency.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    HM, ... they all stuck up for Trump

    Wait. I did what now?

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    We got lumped in with Winston somehow. Something tells me that I'm not going to need my A game for this.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Looks like I'll have to extend my AM/PM Links comments data visualization to all-day Sunday threads as well.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    This is very simple:

    Bill Clinton DID rape someone. Donald Trump DID NOT rape someone.

    Donald Trump SAID something. Bill Clinton DID something.

    Blink twice if you understand.

    Me pointing that out doesn't make me a "Trump supporter".

    I support burning this whole thing to the fucking ground. Trump may just be that can of gasoline. If so, great.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    I support burning this whole thing to the fucking ground. Trump may just be that can of gasoline. If so, great.

    Which means you do support him. That you see him as means but not end does not change the fact that you support him.

  • Sevo||

    "Which means you do support him."

    You just lost.
    THAT is not logic; it's bullshit.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    "me all by myself on the side of decency."

    You're.... white knighting yourself? Bro, you're not gonna get laid.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    The night is young.

  • John Titor||

    Gilmore, Hyperion, HM, Winston

    BAHAHAHA.

    Gilmore has spent the last couple months criticizing shitty news cycle stories and pointing out what to actually hit Trump on, Hyperion has been bitching constantly that Trump isn't putting any libertarian voices in his cabinet. I haven't seen HM say anything close to positive about Trump, and Winston will complain about everything until the heat death of the universe. Papaya would do anything to keep the Moors out of his backyard, he's not representative of anyone but himself. Playa's going full on 'burn it all down', which is basically the equivalent of saying Trump the American reincarnation of Nero. These 'defenses' seem pretty nonsensical.

  • Sevo||

    "There were a boatload of people here defending every verbal bowel movement that oozed out of Trump out during the general election campaign. Lots of assuming that Bill Clinton raped women with no evidence (and blaming Hillary for the alleged rapes), then turning on a dime and labeling as paid liars the women who claimed Trump groped them."

    Cite(s) missing.

  • GILMORE™||

    the recent collapse of trust has been driven primarily by Republicans

    AND PUTIN!!! HOW CAN YOU FORGET PUTIN AND THE SECRET COMPUTERS HES USING TO TRICK DEMOCRACY!??? ALSO = WHAT ABOUT THE FROG? THE FROG IS PART OF THIS TOO. IT IS AWFUL WHAT THOSE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING TO UNDERMINE OUR TRUST

  • AlmightyJB||

    Lol. Yeah, talk about complete cluelessness.

  • ||

    Anyone think that maybe shreek and Tony got married after the election and moved into Tony's mum's basement together?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    translation - LEAVE TRUMP ALONE!!!

  • Ted S.||

    Eeeeewwww. That's like SugarFree-level creepy right there.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    frankentrumpkinsteins

    There you go with the antisemitism again.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Ted S.||

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    WHERE THE HELL WAS JEFF?!?!?

  • Ted S.||

    Did you check the sidebar?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Thank you.

    I prefer my Pink Lady with Jeff awkwardly sandwiched between them as a living testimonial of America's post-war hegemony over Japan.

  • ||

    Every now and then, like every 5 minutes, shreek forgets he's posting as AM and goes from the normal passive aggressive victim persona into full on shreektard mode. 'My little frankentrumpkinsteins' is a perfect example.

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    Is today national sock day?

  • Akira||

    "The tactics [to 'sow distrust in democracy and leaders'] included ... releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign.

    Yes, it's true that they sowed distrust by exposing some corrupt and criminal acts by one of the candidates. Why is this a bad thing? Her trust deserves to be undermined!

    When whistleblowers exposed wrongdoing in the Bush administration, I don't recall these media twerps whining about "undermining trust in our leaders".

  • ||

    "Most presidents distrust the news media. Trump wants to undermine it as an institution"

    It deserves to be destroyed. The modeen incarnation, especially Reason, showed through its incompetence and mendacity that it deraerves nothing but utter scorn. 1/2the media was oit right in the sack for a criminal syndicate. And the other 1/2 was stupid enough tobtake Trumps baitnevery time.

  • kbolino||

    especially Reason

    Talk about butthurt. Read Vox lately? How about some Gawker sites?

    Yeah, Reason has kind of lost its way. It is not the sine qua non of media mendacity.

  • kbolino||

    This doesn't excuse their shittiness, only says that they aren't the bottom of the barrel (by a long ways, but hey there's always tomorrow).

  • Chip Your Pets||

    "This is worse than Mordor!" said Sam. "It comes home to you, as they say, because it is home, and you remember it before it was all ruined."

  • ||

    Yes. No.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Let's get one thing straight first. The MSM and the press are not coterminous. Press is an activity, not a group of people. Trump's refusal to associate with members of the MSM is hardly an attack on freedom of the press. Any more than Obama doing far more interviews with People Magazine, Rolling Stone, and ESPN than with traditional media was. The job of the press is to investigate and report what the president doesn't tell you about, not what he does.

    It was also asked why leftists dominate the media.

    Leftists gravitate toward institutions that had previously built up respect over a long period of time, and have high barriers to competition if not outright monopolies. Academia, traditional media, government agencies, big entertainment studios, labor unions, even the decrepit old-line churches. Once they come to dominate that institution, they use the respect and trust which they did not earn, to deceive the common person into believing their agenda, and wield the barriers to competition as a shield to stonewall or even silence critics and opposing voices. That's their MO.

  • kbolino||

    Press is an activity, not a group of people.

    Hear, hear. Freedom of the press is the freedom to print whatever you want to say, whoever you are.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Nicely put.

  • EDG reppin LBC||

    Well said, Chip. Thank you.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Tony grappled with the girdle restraints that were the only thing allowing the Lane Bryant pant suit to appear as it would on a normal woman. At long last he freed the clasp, letting her display all her atrophied, oleaginous glory.

    "Get the panties" Hillary commanded. "Yes, mistress" Tony meekly replied, pulling down the plus size garment which could have doubled as a cozy for a small dog. The faint odor of week old bread and despair assaulted his nose. Nevertheless, it was clear to him what he had to do. As if to punctuate his duty, Hillary grabbed him by the scruff of his neck and forced his face into her muff, his eyes only barely glimpsing the mangy patches of missing pubic hair.

    Tony started to get into it as his tongue moved over and into her womanhood. His hands grabbed her ass, and the flesh spilled between his fingers as if he were squeezing a bag of yogurt. Hillary was as yet unable to enter the mood, and started to speak as Tony dug further into her. "The goddamn press. They told me a bunch of questions ahead of time, and they didn't even ask half of them. Fuckers. I'll get someone to fix their asses to waste my time like that." Meanwhile, Tony had finally found purchase, and got Hillary's attention. "That's good", she tried to coo, but it came out as an awkward squawk, like a lizard that's just been stepped on. "After we're done here, I'll get the discipline rod." Tony's erection at the thought of the delights to come was palpable.

    w/ apologies to SugarFree.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Tony's erection at the thought of the delights to come was palpable.

    Erections have consequences.

  • Eman||

    *applause*

  • SugarFree||

    You have nothing to apologize for, my son.

  • Longtobefree||

    "But the deeper danger is that Trump's war will undermine the media as an effective forum for debate and deliberation."

    Sorry, it was not/is not anything Trump did/does/will do.

    Like the ending of "The Professionals"
    Grant: "you bastard!"
    Rico: "Yes, sir, in my case an accident of birth. But you, sir, you are a self-made man."

  • DOOMco||

    we almost have all the trolls today.

  • GILMORE™||

    Shikha and Hihn will be here shortly

  • DOOMco||

    (chuckles)

  • ||

    Live from Tony's mum's basement

    Tony: Shreek, did you drink the last jug of MD 20/20?

    Shreek: What?

    Tony: You said you'd buy more! You said you'd buy it for me when mum let you move in!

    Shreek: Stop crying, Tony! I'm trying to switch handles back to AddictionMyth, you're going to screw me up!

    Tony: Go get more booze, shreek, you promised!

    Shreek: I don't have any more money, Tony. Besides I can't leave the basement, there are Trump fans out there! Go steal something else from your mom to sell and get us some more jugs of that stuff!

    Tony: *sobbing* You promised, sheek! I rubbed all the butthurt cream on you and you promised! And you promised HIllary would win! *sobbing uncontrollably*

    To be continued...

  • DOOMco||

    next week, can shreek send the money order on time to keep the internet turned on?

  • PlaystoomuchHALO||

    Interesting argument, but it fails with the presumption that the press/media "objective", or ever has been. The difference is that now they don't even pretend any longer.

  • kbolino||

    See Tony above. Of course the press is objective, and even if they aren't, it's a good thing!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I liked the alt text, but I am thankful that Trump is not married to Brigitte Nielsen*.

    *The 80s were so strange.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Tony: "The media very much without question favored Trump."


    I have to write that one down, as part of the list of things the Marxians want to rewrite about recent recorded history. Let me know if I have it down pat:

    - People who voted for El Presidente Trumpo are racists. Like, all of them.
    - The Russians hacked our democracy.
    - James Comey is a secret Republican.

    And now the newest one,
    - The press was all along for El Trumpo.

    Maybe I am missing a few more but I'll compare my list with the new series of talking points that Think Progress publishes this week and thst Tony has been so gracious to spew out here. I honestly did not consider that last one because it sounded outlandish but at least I have to tip my hat to such chutzpah.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Herbert Hoover was a laissez-faire libertarian.

    The New Deal ended the Great Depression.

    The USSR was going to collapse in the 80s anyway even if Carter had remained president and been followed by Mondale.

    Labor unions were just innocently minding their own business organizing their communities when the capitalist robber-barons sent Pinkerton guards after them.

  • Akira||

    - Healthcare and banking were completely deregulated by Republican presidents and became dysfunctional because of it; they're just now recovering after Obama put his wise policies into effect.

    - Nobody ever learned anything before the federal department of education was created.

    - Women were oppressed, tortured, and abused before the women's rights movement got some laws passed.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    I'll just leave this here.
    It's from last year's Reason weekend.

  • DOOMco||

    seems like a fun guy to know as a friendly acquaintance

  • EDG reppin LBC||

    I'm digging Australia right now, mate. Listening to Chook Race and Dick Diver a lot. Great bands.

  • DOOMco||

    good call on Chook Race.

  • Lyle||

    You can't ever really trust the veracity of someone who is being paid to write stuff for a living.

  • Robert||

    Squinting at a gnat?

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    As president, Trump's mistrust of the media will certainly make life difficult for journalists trying to provide the public with a clear view of presidential decision-making.


    One has to concede the fact that the news media placed itself in this predicament unnecessarily, because it allowed its staff of journalists to practice advocacy instead of journalism. And what else can one expect from advocates but speak and publish opinion based on prejudices rather than provide objective information. One consequence of this lack of professionalism is that the intended customers are no longer accepting this flawed product. Another is that news media executives set themselves for traps baited by ideological scoring points, one example being the fake rape piece published by Rolling Stone where credulity and faith trumped reason and curiosity. That has been the underlying problem with the news media, that the members have been more interested in proselytizing rather than informing.

  • DEG||

    We have a troll infestation. This NSFW site is one of many cures.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • DEG||

    Yum.

  • DesigNate||

    I can look past her Hillary support because, Science Damn!

  • Rational Exuberance||

    As president, Trump's mistrust of the media will certainly make life difficult for journalists trying to provide the public with a clear view of presidential decision-making.

    That's still preferable to Hillary or Barry using the press like a US version of Pravda. And it is certainly preferable to Hillary trying to overturn Citizens United and effectively hand government-friendly media corporations a monopoly on political news coverage.

    Most encouraging, perhaps, are the emerging signs that Trump's election may lead to a reinvigorated sense of duty on the part of journalists, news organizations, and NGOs.

    The only thing that's be "reinvigorated" is the sense of self-righteous indignation and rent seeking by journalists and media corporations, and that would quickly come to an end as soon as some party paid off these people.

    The only way to get a better media landscape is for some of the most biased organizations (NYT, CNN, WaPo) to go bankrupt, and for a lot of journalists to become barristas.

  • Deli-bro||

    One of my friends manages a coffee shop. I hope he never has to manage any of those assholes.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Are you saying the media at large has been doing those noble things that you are afraid Trump will stifle? Because no the fuck "the media" hasn't. Some small parts of "the media" (like Reason) who are in no way taken seriously by legacy media attempt those things.

    Some rare individuals with brass balls do some of those thigs. Greenwald comes to mind.

    Most of it is a thin cruel of opinions presented as facts, facts presented at a sixth-grade level, and culture war shit because tits only pull in so many viewers.

  • Agammamon||

    As Trevor Thrall explains in a new column for Reason, "the deeper danger is that Trump's war will undermine the media as an effective forum for debate and deliberation."

    Nope. Sorry.

    1. If the media is dependent upon being drip-fed morsels of information carefully curated to support a specific narrative then they are already an organ of the state and not an effective forum for debate and deliberation. Go get your own information and then you won't be beholden to Trump for 'access'.

    2. The media's open collusion with Clinton during this last season has show the *extreme* level of partisanship that the mainstream press has. *That* renders them an ineffective forum all by itself.

    3. There are plenty of alternative media sources - Reason itself is one. Are we saying that Reason is useless because Trump won't invite a pool reporter to dinner with him? Because Trump is making Youtube videos instead of giving press releases? I want my donation back then.

    This all sounds like a bunch of whining that reporting may involve *work* if you want information that is unfavorable to Trump - not a problem in the previous years because no reporter cared about information unfavorable to Obama. But if you do the work, you'll find that you have a lot more independence and self-esteem - both individually and as a profession - compared to blindly repeating the party line.

  • Eman||

    Its the post-presidential era!

  • ||

    Fuck the media.

    That's all I really have to contribute to this thread.

    And it's been great watching the Donald proving that the media are nothing more than partisan hacks that lacks any sort of integrity. They did everything they could to tank the campaigns of Mitt Romney and John McCain and it worked. They had to deal with a guy who told them whenever he could that they can fuck themselves....and there was nothing they could do about it.

    It was glorious to witness.

  • Tony||

    He's not even sworn in yet and the fucking libertarians are falling over each other to lick the boot of the state.

    Well this was every bit the farce it appeared to be all these years. What a bunch of cunts.

  • Sevo||

    "the fucking libertarians are falling over each other to lick the boot of the state."

    Too stupid to lie cleverly.

  • drugwarisevil||

    "the deeper danger is that Trump's war will undermine the media as an effective forum for debate and deliberation." Then I see no downside. It's not as if the media serves that function now. The media is more than willing to trade obsequiousness for access.

  • Deli-bro||

    "As president, Trump's mistrust of the media will certainly make life difficult for journalists trying to provide the public with a clear view of presidential decision-making."

    Im sorry, but when was the last time the media even tried to provide a clear view of presidential decision making?

    The media deserves to be berated and mistrusted. Fuck them.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    My Internet isn't working. Can anybody tell me Colin Kaepernick's stat line?

  • JeremyR||

    So bad that Blaine Gabbert is now playing.

  • Sevo||

    Kaepernick's quarterback isn't working, either.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Most presidents distrust the news media, Trump wants to undermine it is an institution.

    You're doing a good enough job of that with your run-on sentences.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Two interesting editorials from the NYT: The General Who Should Lead the Pentagon

    The public notion of generals is that they know how to use only the military as a means of policy and so are more likely to get the nation into wars. That is a false conception in most cases, but especially in this one. General Mattis knows that war is the last resort, not the first one. He also understands that the threat of force works best when it works in conjunction with robust diplomatic efforts.

    Is anyone put off by the fact that a General would lead the Pentagon so quickly after retiring from the service?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    For those of you keeping score, that was one of two.

  • GILMORE™||

    Is anyone put off by the fact that a General would lead the Pentagon so quickly after retiring from the service?

    I can see some argument for being concerned about half that sentence = that a general would run the pentagon at all. It seems to me the time between his retirement and taking a new job in a technically-civilian capacity is sort of besides the point. The point of the Sec Def is to assure the public that the military is under civilian control; that change in perception (both internally to the military and with the political administration) is significant, but "in what way will it manifest itself"? is harder to say.

    I have read Tom Ricks for years and i find he varies from 'broadly correct' to 'wildly wrong' in his analysis of the military. He basically talks to a handful of "ex-military experts" at his job at one of these think tanks (the center for new american something?) and then reprints what they tell him. Sometimes the stuff he's told is batshit and stupid, and sometimes its right on the money. My problem with him is that he seems to have little ability to discriminate. He was all Gung Ho about reinstating the Draft, for instance. On the other hand, he's also made some good criticisms of institutions like the Branch "war colleges".

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I can see some argument for being concerned about half that sentence = that a general would run the pentagon at all. It seems to me the time between his retirement and taking a new job in a technically-civilian capacity is sort of besides the point.

    I agree completely - the "seven-years rule" seems nonsensical.

  • JeremyR||

    The problem is that the media is essentially an extension of the political parties. People go between the media and government and political organizations and back.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    What the Alt-Right Really Means

    Even so, this more narrowly defined alt-right may be a force. In the internet age, political consciousness can be raised not just through quarterlies, parties and rallies but also through comment boards, console games and music videos. The internet solves the organizing problem of mobs, even as it gives them incentives not to stray from their screens. The adjective "alt-right" does not just denote recycled extremist views — it also reflects the way those views have been pollinated by other internet concerns and updated in the process.

    For example, the alt-right has an environmentalist component, centered on a neo-pagan group called the Wolves of Vinland. The Norwegian heavy-metal musician Varg Vikernes, after serving 16 years for murder, has an alt-right blog that contains his musings on everything from Norse mythology to the meaning of the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik. There are sci-fi and video-game enthusiasts, too, including many who participated in the "GamerGate" uproar of 2014, which pitted (as the alt-right sees it) feminist game designers trying to emasculate the gaming world against (as the feminists saw it) a bunch of misogynist losers.
  • Crusty Juggler||

    But most of all there is sex. The alt-right has a lot of young men in it, young men whose ideology can be assumed to confront them with obstacles to meeting people and dating. Sex-cynicism and race-pessimism, of course, often travel in tandem. At the National Policy Institute conference, the writer F. Roger Devlin gave a talk on why young Norwegian women in Groruddalen, outside Oslo, preferred dating Somali and Pakistani gang members to ethnic Norwegian boys-next-door. "The female instinct is to mate with socially dominant men," he explained, "and it does not matter how such dominance is achieved."

    Likewise, the common alt-right slur "cuckservative," a portmanteau combining cuckold and conservative, is not just a colorful way of saying that establishment conservatives have been unmanly. According to Matthew Tait, a young ex-member of the far-right British National Party, the metaphor has a precise ornithological meaning. Like the reed-warbler hatching eggs that a cuckoo (from which the word "cuckold" comes) has dropped into its nest, cuckservatives are raising the offspring of their foes. One can apply the metaphor equally to progressive ideas or to the children of the foreign-born. Type "reed warbler" into YouTube, and you will find a video with more than a million views, along with a considerable thread of alt-right commentary.
  • GILMORE™||

    I think the NYT will figure out what the "Alt Right" really REALLY means maybe 20 years from now.

    the alt-right has an environmentalist component, centered on a neo-pagan group called the Wolves of Vinland.

    Right.

    somehow the fringe shit on the right is really new and scary and concerning, while the shit that's published daily @ Alternet or Democratic Underground or Kos is completely trivial and meaningless. This is super important stuff and totally needs to be 'understood' (read: 'blown wildly out of proportion')

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I thought it was an interesting piece overall. He did his research and doesn't panic about any of it.

  • GILMORE™||

    I did my usual thing which is to read the first 2-3 paragraphs, then the last few. (in addition to your excerpts)

    the essential problem with the thing is the unwillingness to challenge the core assumptions of the left about this 'racism' stuff. Scott Alexander's piece did it; this guy doesn't.

    he does say, "Perhaps we should not make too much of this"...

    ....but then proceeds to provide plenty of his own "magnifying the inconsequential"-examples.

    Attributing a random racist-blog as "the environmental component of the alt-right" is an example of the sort of 'treating the part like a symptom of the whole'-shtick that he and his peers have been selling all along.

    Its doing the same "validation by endless repetition" thing that the MSM does.

    ""But since then, and certainly since the National Policy Institute event, alt-right has come more and more to mean white nationalist.""

    To *whom*? Oh, right = to the people who've wanted it to mean this all along.

    Its less-ridiculous than some of the other so-called "explainers" , but its in the same genre. Its all about adding more and more detail to their "Racist Boogeyman" narrative until it becomes an unquestioned fact.

    Sort of like the way they've simply repeated "ITS THE RUSSIANS"!! to the point that they see the KGBs hand in everything.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I thought it had some interesting points, like this one.

    "The Vanderbilt University political scientist Carol Swain was among the first to describe the contours of this worldview. In her 2002 book, "The New White Nationalism in America," she noted that young people were quick to identify double standards, and that they sometimes did so in the name of legitimate policy concerns. "I knew that identity would come next," she recalled. "It had to come. All they had to do was copy what they were hearing. The multiculturalist arguments you hear on every campus — those work for whites, too." Mr. Spencer, asked in an interview how he would respond to the accusation that his group was practicing identity politics in the manner of blacks and Hispanics, replied: "I'd say: 'Yuh. You're right.' "

  • GILMORE™||

    I agree it has some points. The problem was as i said above = those evenhanded-gestures are there to mask the fact that its still the same general-thesis.

    If he'd instead focused the whole piece about how the Alt-right is a predictable and by-no-means new backlash to the aggressive-culture-warfare of the left.... i'd give him more credit.

  • Robert||

    I have a friend who was involved with the Wolves of Vinland recently. Said they resembled a motorcycle gang, which is one reason he quit.

  • ||

    All this thread is missing is Amsoc, Palin and Tony going off into a prolonged conversation.

    Wouldn't that showcase in disingenuous bantering be gloriously remedial or what?

  • __Warren__||

    Fire Chip Kelly now or wait til the end of the season?

  • Sevo||

    Kelly sucks, but so did Tomsula and to a lesser degree Harbaugh.
    The problem is the ownership and top management; no one with any degree of success is going to work for them. The management has tons of money under the cap, but spends it on weak or injury-prone players, so a coach is forever sticking leaky teams on the field.
    Come to the '9ers and watch your rep fade like those Levis!

  • esteve7||

    The problem is not Chip. Not by a longshot, it is all the owner and GM.

    Chip is a visionary and his system is the next WCO, but he doesn't have the pieces to run it, and he was stuck with the hand he was dealt this year. Give him time.

    Walsh was 2-14 then 6-10 before you know what. Not saying that will be Chip, but it's way too early to judge

  • buybuydandavis||

    To those who believe that the media exhibits a liberal bias, Trump is a welcome corrective.

    So to every honest person, Trump is a welcome corrective.

    Hmmm, I note that you don't seem to find Trump a welcome corrective.

    Do the math.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Excellent.

    The Reason Commentariat rises up to tell the author to go fuck himself.

    The only one defending the article is Tony, the resident Socialist Troll.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I just put 2 and 2 together.

    It's too pitiful and unsightly to even take glee over.

    This is the headline article for Reason's fundraising webathon.

    Think about that.

    An article that has aroused an ocean of hatred and contempt from their readers is their fundraising pitch.

  • GILMORE™||

    People will change their definition of "The Media" for convenience whenever getting into these debates.

    in my opinion what is meant by that term are the "Major" news outlets. Which are just a selective number of *businesses* in the industry of narrative-flogging.

    when people bitch about "The Media" they tend to mean only the subset that most widely re-circulates each others stuff. The NYT, the WaPo, CNN, the major TV networks, Reuters, etc. - and their internet counterparts.

    Notably - the wall st journal, despite being one of the top 4 news organizations in america, is generally left off the list.

    Because when they break a story that's genuinely significant? (e.g. their expose of the internal FBI politics surrounding the multiple clinton investigations) It is generally ignored by the above in favor of their own homegrown narratives

    e.g. in the case of the above, no one else who reported about Weiner's laptop email-stash emphasized that the people who had uncovered it were part of an entirely separate, second investigation of the Clinton Foundation

    Basically the WSJ broke a huge angle on the thing, and everyone else basically pretended it never happened.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Why Trump's War on the Media Matters: New at Reason

    "We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! "

  • buybuydandavis||

    Bwahahaha!

    I love it when Mark Steyn possesses keyboards.

    It's kind of sad to see Reason go into the toilet, though. I remember the days when I didn't just loathe half the writers.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    According to the good people over at SNL, Hillary Clinton and STEVE SMITH have something in common.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Chicago solves violence problem

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016.....agery.html

  • Ted S.||

    The band should have asked the venue owners to bake them a cake.

  • esteve7||

    God why is Trump so anti-press? I mean we all wrote non-stop hit pieces while ignoring everything bad about his opponent, and ceased all objectivity. Why doesn't he like us?????? /whine /whine /whine

  • kinghiram91||

    >By avoiding engagement with journalists and by stifling media critics through public shaming and other strong-arm tactics, Trump will weaken the ability of the press to play the role of watchdog and critic envisioned by the Founders and embodied in the First Amendment.

    But why do we need the media to be our watchdogs? Can't we just be our own watchdogs? That was the whole point of the Fifth Estate. The Internet is supposed to be a tool that empowers us to be our own investigators, our own journalists.

  • GILMORE™||

    Trump will weaken the ability of the press to play the role of watchdog and critic envisioned by the Founders and embodied in the First Amendment.

    "play the role" is amusingly appropriate. Some pretend better than others.

  • __Warren__||

    Is Arby's or Subway the Chipotle of sandwich places?

  • DOOMco||

    tough call. i vote Subway?

  • ant1sthenes||

    Does Arby's even count as sandwiches? You might as well call a hamburger a sandwich.

  • __Warren__||

    Hamburgers are sandwiches.

  • Agammamon||

    Arby's doesn't even count as *meat*.

    Still gonna eat there though. Plastic food, the food of the future.

  • SIV||

    Panera Bread is the Chipotle of sandwich shops.

  • GILMORE™||

    it think that's much more-accurate. the other 2 aren't actually useful comparisons at all.

    But the panera comparison would be improved if they had somehow managed to cause some horrible outbreak of fungal infections among their customers. It needs to have both upper-middle-class pretentions AND dangerously poor-quality

  • kinghiram91||

    AND serve alcohol. Chipotles in my area serve booze sometimes. I remember one time they had margaritas made with Patron as a special.

  • __Warren__||

    I've never eaten at a Panera's but I've been continuously disappointed by both Subway and Arby's.

  • ||

    Yeah it's terrible what Trump has done to your couch, but fuck your couch.

  • ||

    500 quatloos on the new thrall.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I'll see that bet, and raise 5000 quatloos that the newcomer will have to be destroyed.

    Only third article at the site, and everyone but Tony hates him.

    (I noticed the name too. Thought about working in Thrall metaphor, but seemed unnecessary. Name was already big sign saying "kick me". As if we needed any more reason.
    But I award you 100 quatloos for working in amusing and appropriate reference.)

  • Pat (PM)||

    Libertarians lamenting the disintegration of information gatekeepers and old media oligopoly and the fragmentation of partisan new media... on a political blog... without even a hint of irony.

  • woodNfish||

    There are no Libertarians at unReason, just more lying leftist presstitutes.

  • Bra Ket||

    I think the author is angling for a job at the NYT or something.

    And the juxtaposition of the words "Media Matters" in the title is suspicious.

  • ||

    Weigel'd again!

  • Sevo||

    Young girl kills rat with antlers; gun-grabbers scream:

    "Dad defends 7-year-old daughter's viral video of her first deer kill"
    [from the comments]
    "As for have a toddler pull the trigger of not just a rifle, but a California assault rifle, well, the picture speaks for itself..
    http://www.sfgate.com/lifestyl.....690919.php

    I'd say it says more about you...

  • Pat (PM)||

    a California assault rifle

    Is that like a California King? How can I tell the difference between a California assault rifle and a Wisconsin assault rifle?

  • mtrueman||

    Check the serial numbers?

  • Ron||

    the media already undermined itself

  • Inquisitive Squirrel||

    I love how this article blames Trump, social media, and the general public for the significant failings of the news media itself.

  • JB Say||

    Not sure how Trump undermines press freedoms. The press is free to be as biased for Democrats as they want to be. We are free to ignore them. Alternatives have been allowed (so far) to flourish. Trump is free to Tweet over the media's heads to an audience that chooses to follow him. What's the problem here exactly?

  • Empress Trudy||

    This is utter nonsense. The media disgraced and delegitimized itself and continues to still. Trump owes nothing to them and is not required to worry about which lies they tell.

  • Perry de Havilland||

    "But the deeper danger is that Trump's war will undermine the media as an effective forum for debate and deliberation."

    Sorry but that boat sank long ago, and the media sank it without any help from Trump. I was never a Trump supporters (or indeed Clinton) but anyone saying most of the media was not overwhelmingly partisan for Clinton is just barefaced lying, and in so doing devalued themselves. That is not deliberation or debate.

    If Trump is the answer then it must have been a very stupid question, but the media as currently constituted can go die in a ditch for all I care.

  • Michael Murray||

    Calling the media "an effective forum for debate and deliberation" is absolutely ridiculous. The MSM, and many other media outlets are nothing more than paid mouthpieces for someone's agenda. At least with most of them there is no attempt to deny it. The MSM simply lies- about their motives and the news itself.

  • ||

    No, sorry, the press was broken long before Trump came along, they are incapable of objective reporting.

  • Anarchist||

    Replace the word "media" in this story with the words "public relations arm of the Democratic Party" and then it will clear things up for you.

  • joebanana||

    The Donald is absolutely correct, except it's the "media" who's declared war on him. CNN, MSNBC, ABC,CBS, are all "fake news" networks and should have their "press" credentials revoked.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Trump doesn't need to "undermine" it, he just needs to stand aside while it destroys itself - and laugh uproariously.

  • AAC||

    It would be better if he did laugh at the media more.

    On one hand it's good that he doesn't take its crap because it dishes out plenty to republicans, who have always swallowed it whole. On the other hand, he gives it too much credibility by his overreactions and personal spats with it. There's a way to discredit the media without fighting with it. Kellyanne Conway manages it. Of course, sometimes she does it by nonstop talking.

  • Lawman45||

    The Media have shown themselves to be lying, politicians with a by-line. A curse on each and every one of the professional prevaricators. They have lost me to the Internet news services. Lie to me once and poof they go.

    In College the Journalism majors were all opinionated mediocre intellects, who followed the current Party line, and loved to hear themselves talk. Nothing that I have seen since Woodward and Bernstein has raised any hope.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Prior to the primaries, I was only vaguely aware of Trump. I'd not seen his TV show or paid much attention to the birther thing because I had better things to do. I was surprised when he won but mostly apathetic. I had hoped that Rand Paul would at least be a contender but alas it was not to be. Once the general campaign started it became pretty obvious that the media was engaged in straight forward character assassination. Every week there was a new magic bullet that would surely take this guy out: he called a judge a Mexican, he wants to put women who have abortions in prison, he admitted to sexual assault, he wants to sue the NYT for libel etc., etc., etc. It didn't take much research to learn that the attacks on Trump were 90% bullshit while the warmongering, corrupt, evil statist HRC, was getting a free ride. Far from being the voice of reason, Reason simply regurgitated this crap uncritically. Idiots like Chapman actually endorsed Clinton and the rare HRC criticism was always accompanied with a disclaimer that Trump was clearly worse. Like others here, I found myself in the uncomfortable position of defending this clown against the shameless bias at Reason and elsewhere. And now we have yet another self serving lecture informing us that only the media can save the republic from the evil Trump. Fuck you Thrall and fuck you Reason.

  • dunce||

    The press has not been an institution for many years, it has become the propaganda arm of the democrat party. The only republican they like is one in name only, McCain, a totally worthless war mongering piece of crap that repeatedly ran for president and was rejected every time.

  • jbsnc||

    Began reading newspapers in the late 30s and competently so by Pearl Harbor. Felt that journalists and newscasters were a cut above most in honesty, accuracy and composition. Felt I couldn't be as honest and accurate in reporting. The profession has slowing declined in character and grown in wealth. Much of the media is now untrustworthy. There is vast wealth to be had and when that is so that will become a major goal for most. How many times over will a nobody such as Shepard Smith become a millionaire? I dislike the expression but 'follow the money' often prevails. I think Trump edged out a win mostly by attacking the media's lack of honesty and fairness and gross favoritism. Before the election I called it a tossup. Why? A bunch of people are feed up with dishonest, partisan news people and their wealth.

  • Icepilot||

    Trump didn't force the media to lose their credibility - they did that all by themselves. And the media won't get back any credibility until they earn it.
    I wouldn't hold my breath.

  • Bob Mitchell||

    I don't want to see and hear commentators. I want to see and hear debaters. I want topics approached with different paradigm in mind. Leave Darwin behind and unleash freedom for those that have already proven him wanting.

  • AAC||

    The media was undermined long before Trump. It happened when it became a participant in the news instead of an objective reporter of it. Trump's animus is understandable. The media tried to stop him from getting elected. It should not be influencing elections. Period.

  • Chili Dogg||

    Trevor, you're kind of hard on Trump, but it was the MSM created the conditions, such as lack of trust, bias, and incompetence, that allowed him to exploit the situation. Most people didn't trust the media well before Trump announced that he was running for President. The kind of idealized media that you imagine does not exist, so Trump couldn't destroy it. He just took advantage of it.

    "Most encouraging, perhaps, are the emerging signs that Trump's election may lead to a reinvigorated sense of duty on the part of journalists, news organizations, and NGOs." Gee, I wonder why... Could it be because...he's a Republican?? Someone at Nat. Review (I forget who) wrote that we should elect a white, male President because that is the only kind that the media will hold accountable for his actions. Think of the whitewash we would have had of Hillary's actions, if she had been elected.

  • LifeStrategies||

    You say: "Instead, a good deal of what passes for American journalism today is simply information recycled straight from government sources." And yet you seem upset that Trump's message is that the main-stream media is not to be trusted. But the two are completely compatible!

    So why be upset that such liberal mouth-pieces are now distrusted by thinking people? Your message does NOT make sense...

  • BradA||

    The author assumes that the media are actually unbiased and to be trusted. As has been demonstrated numerous times, through leaks and actual admissions, nothing could be further from the truth. The difference in this cycle is that they are being called to account for themselves and they have been found wanting. Their continued intransigence will result in their relegation to irrelevance. Irrelevant because today there are many other ways of communicating information to the public. In the end, I imagine that the founding fathers would be more concerned that information could be freely disseminated than with the specific path, ie. the current main stream media, that the information takes.

  • woodNfish||

    Trump didn't start this war, the lying LSM (including unReason) did with their constant fake news. They need to be held to account.

    So I see that unReason is falling short of its begging goal - GOOD! As part of the lying LSM unReason deserves to die and your worthless lying publisher and editors get put on the unemployment line. F all of you lying dirtbags!

  • pxfragonard||

    Trump did not create this, which the author notes in the last paragraph. Much reporting does indeed come straight from both government and industry. In "Stonewalled," Sharyl Atkisson shows how news people have been used straight up as advertisers for both government and industry. But she also points out the enormous amount of taxpayer money that has been used by government departments to set up television recording studios of their own.

    A recent Netflix documentary about Kitty Genovese's murder fails to mention that Genovese was murdered in an election year. While the iconic nature of the Genovese murder was established: a narrative about city peoples' insouciance about their neighbors' violent murders, the reason for it was not. In order to avoid talking about a psychopathic black man's stranger murder in an all-white neighborhood, the New York Times went to extraordinary length to hide the fact under a monument to the uncaring of city folk.

    This is not the only time the Times has committed acts as outrageous. According to the Moscow bureau, Ukraine had no famine, Stalin pursued no purges. The Times has done great journalism and horrible journalism. Whether the one is used as a mask for the other is an open and reasonable question.

  • Myptofvu||

    When the game is rigged against you, the only way to win is to not play. Trumps lack of cooperation with the media is the right move.

  • Lysander||

    Could President elect Trump be setting a standard of excellence in his staff, cabinet and administration that has been lacking for decades in Washington? Can he demand a similar standard with the media? No candidate has faced opposition from the media on the scale that we saw over the last year and a half. His putting the media in its place should be roundly supported by Reason. You have no reason (pun) to fear Mr Trump.

  • Mekial||

    We have seen almost 8 years of media bias favoring a Democratic administration, culminating in their openly supporting HRC and opposing DJT during the election.

    Now we are supposed to forget all that and assume media reporting on the Trump administration will be accurate, fair, and free from bias, and since we can now trust the media, we should insist that the administration allow them to filter all communications and explain to us what every statement or act that's worthy of reporting really means.

    If this article is representative, the media is still suffering from election PTSD and probably needs medication.

  • YJDraiman||

    Who controls the Media controls the Nation and its direction
    American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people. Or people in any country with such Media power.
    YJ Draiman

  • BillCa||

    The media is simply crying over its own excesses because no one really reports on the media. Seriously, who watches the watchers?

    The media shifted to the left during the Vietnam war and never took a step back. Each year it kept moving further left with the Democrats and it's lost sight of the true middle-class American value system. When the media as a whole won't report on certain subjects or will only report one side of the argument they cease being watchdogs and instead become nothing more than government propaganda. We saw this openly in this election, right up to the close of the polls. The media played up and supported HRC despite the dribble of supporters who turned out, even in smaller venues while they ignored how Trump packed large venues, even stadiums, with enthusiastic followers. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

    Will the media do some soul searching and start requiring real journalistic standards from their reporters? Will they try for some measure of balance and objectivity? Will they demand their journalists disclose their interests or support in subjects on which they report?

    Let's put it this way - if President Trump held his first official press conference in the oval office and Jesus Christ appeared before the assembled and had a conversation with Trump, the headlines would read "Trump says he talks to Jesus!" or more likely "TRUMP BELIEVES IN GHOSTS!"

  • K. R. Mudgeon||

    The former mainstream media are justifiably despised and they made themselves superfluous and unwanted.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online