Enemies of the People? Trump's Assault on the Press

[Katsumoto]

This is untrue. Trumps approval is currently roughly the same if not higher than Obama at the same point in his presidency.

I don't think so, you can see a comparison to Obama at the bottom:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

And that's just a tip of the ice berg, she goes on and on. Trump doesn't have to say anything against the NYT. It's own people are doing a fine job convincing me it they are my enemy.

The irony here is that the right-wing media are spreading fake news, in that she was actually being satirical. How do you read 'white people aren't even allowed to have polo' and take it seriously?

In tweets like the one embedded above, Jeong appeared to be commenting on the idea that white people often believe they are being discriminated against when they aren’t. To equate “being mean to white people” with the actual systemic oppression and marginalization of minority groups is a false equivalency.

But Jeong’s detractors removed this type of context, and began to circulate her old tweets in curated roundups that quickly went viral.

Jeong wrote:

While it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers. These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns. I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context, and would not do it again.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/1764470...acklash-racism

[Cope]

The irony here is that the right-wing media are spreading fake news, in that she was actually being satirical. How do you read 'white people aren't even allowed to have polo' and take it seriously?

Its highly unlikely that such excuses would be be accepted by the NYT if the subject of the writer's "satire" had been any another protected characteristic.

[sumskilz]

The irony here is that the right-wing media are spreading fake news, in that she was actually being satirical. How do you read 'white people aren't even allowed to have polo' and take it seriously?

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/1764470...acklash-racism

I believe this sort of content is the source of the term "voxplaining".

[alhoon]

The irony here is that the right-wing media are spreading fake news, in that she was actually being satirical. How do you read 'white people aren't even allowed to have polo' and take it seriously?

Had she be making such "satire" towards blacks, she would have never been hired.

PS. I am not saying she is racist, she may well be joking.
I am talking about the great hypocrisy of the NYT that forgive such jokes while they would balk at similar jokes towards minorities.

[Derpy Hooves]

I don't think so, you can see a comparison to Obama at the bottom:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/



The irony here is that the right-wing media are spreading fake news, in that she was actually being satirical. How do you read 'white people aren't even allowed to have polo' and take it seriously?



https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/1764470...acklash-racism

Yeah. Sure its satire
EDIT: Now here’s the Washington Post with their take: “An Asian American woman’s tweets ignite a debate: Is it okay to make fun of white people online?”
https://wapo.st/2AEQGNM

[Aexodus]

I don't think so, you can see a comparison to Obama at the bottom:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...roval-ratings/

That only goes to 2017. Last June, Obama was equal to Trump in approval, equal. A recent poll also showed Trump five points above Obama. Point being, they’re about equally as popular.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/scor...month_to_month
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...al_index_aug02

On a monthly basis, Trump was more popular than Obama by two points (acc to Rasmussen) in April, and Equal to him in July. Trump is more popular than you think, and Obama, less so. Both had extremely partisan support, so if you live in a blue state he may seem like no one likes him, but in a red state an outsider could be forgiven for thinking he’s the god emperor himself lol.

But anyway, the media coverage I feel selectively publishes negative coverage that is out of proportion with public opinion on Trump.

[Heathen Hammer]

The mainstream media declared itself the enemy of Trump, what with their 90% negative coverage, and I mean really negative. He's just acknowledging it, to be honest.

This isn't even about Trump. Mainstream media in US is owned by a small number of corporations, so image of some kind of independent "free press" providing different views and perspectives is simply false, it is mainly one-sided and on many crucial issues presents same narrative. As a result, it lost public trust long before Trump even entertained the notion of running for POTUS. Trump receives negative coverage by the media since he clearly refuse to play by the rules outlined by the interest groups that own it. It is important to understand that mainstream media is not objective, it is simply propaganda tool that its owners use to push certain narratives, no more, no less.

[fkizz]

The mainstream media declared itself the enemy of Trump, what with their 90% negative coverage, and I mean really negative. He's just acknowledging it, to be honest.

If I keep provocking and insulting someone to the highest limit, what is at risk happening next is obvious. Press branded Trump as someone dangerous enough to be enemy of the people, so now the Boomerang hits back.

More neutral newsources don't have any worries about this. You don't exactly see Trump saying Bloomberg is enemy of the people.

Can you provide some examples of the press promoting violence against Trump supporters? Can you prove that the press is deliberately lying?

On Trump, the press is deliberately lying. Here we have a cowboy who likes to live filthy rich near top models, and those "journalists" keep insisting his personality is not that of a billionaire guy surrounded by supermodels, but that his personality and goals is Literally Hitler and that Stock Market would plunge as soon as Trump won.

[Prodromos]

If I keep provocking and insulting someone to the highest limit, what is at risk happening next is obvious. Press branded Trump as someone dangerous enough to be enemy of the people, so now the Boomerang hits back.

More neutral newsources don't have any worries about this. You don't exactly see Trump saying Bloomberg is enemy of the people.

Yes, this seems like some kind of feud between Trump and the mainstream media, which is different from the press as an institution. Turn on CNN now, tell me whether their coverage of the Trump administration is neutral or negative. It's pretty much 100% negative, day in, day out. There is no way 100% negative coverage could be accurate and balanced journalism. Like him or not, they're pretty openly hostile to him. Is he not supposed to acknowledge it? As long as he doesn't use the government to forcibly silence the mainstream media, this is pretty much just entertainment.

More notable is his cozy relationship with media personalities like Hannity, who function as his unofficial PR department. But this is nothing new; Obama had a somewhat similar relationship with people like Jon Stewart, but probably to a much lesser extent.

[Katsumoto]

On Trump, the press is deliberately lying. Here we have a cowboy who likes to live filthy rich near top models, and those "journalists" keep insisting his personality is not that of a billionaire guy surrounded by supermodels, but that his personality and goals is Literally Hitler and that Stock Market would plunge as soon as Trump won.

That's your assessment, it's not evidence the press is deliberately lying. Can you show me examples where the press has deliberately lied about Trump?

[fkizz]

That's your assessment, it's not evidence the press is deliberately lying. Can you show me examples where the press has deliberately lied about Trump?

Is 10 examples enough?

[Katsumoto]

What do you mean by standards? You mentioned treatment. I don't think the press should treat a good president the same way as a bad president. The reporting should reflect the quality of the job the president is doing.

[Infidel144]

The reporting should reflect the quality of the job the president is doing.

Who determines what the "quality" is?

[Aexodus]

The media coverage does not reflect Trump’s approval ratings from the public.

[Big War Bird]

New York Times has hired this lovely person to its editorial board.

And that's just a tip of the ice berg, she goes on and on. Trump doesn't have to say anything against the NYT. It's own people are doing a fine job convincing me they are my enemy.

[Gaidin]

New York Times has hired this lovely person to its editorial board.

Warning the hidden image below contains words normally censored on TWC.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And that's just a tip of the ice berg, she goes on and on. Trump doesn't have to say anything against the NYT. It's own people are doing a fine job convincing me they are my enemy.

Is BWB aggravated that Cernovich and his goons won't be able to get an editor fired? SAD!

[Big War Bird]

Is BWB aggravated that Cernovich and his goons won't be able to get an editor fired? SAD!

I would be fine with her not being fired if no one were being punished for their social media smack talk, But her defenders are are not defending her on that basis. Her defenders seem to be excusing her based on her ethnicity and sex. They suggest these two attributes make her less responsible than a white man or a white woman, like Quinn Norton who I have already discussed. It is unacceptable to treat Sarah Jeong as an inferior human.

[Gaidin]

I would be fine with her not being fired if no one were being punished for their social media smack talk, But her defenders are are not defending her on that basis. Her defenders seem to be excusing her based on her ethnicity and sex. They suggest these two attributes make her less responsible than a white man or a white woman, like Quinn Norton who I have already discussed. It is unacceptable to treat Sarah Jeong as an inferior human.

I think they shouldn't have replied to the goons digging up ten year old tweets and should've just ignored them. But that's me. Apparently they feel it better to reply to the goons instead of their own readers like Disney is regarding Gunn.

What you need to understand is this. I got no problem if she trolls people. Awkward jokes happen on the internet. Even more awkward jokes happen ten years ago on the internet. It gets even stranger ten years ago on Twitter on the internet. Luckily I wasn't on Twitter. Apparently NYT went 'you're an editor now...stop that ' and they're happy after she revealed it to them before the goons did. She beat everybody in the race to make sure the bosses knew what was up and knew her context. Too bad for the goons. Too bad for you. Too bad for everyone else in this thread that thinks she did something wrong.

[Big War Bird]

I think they shouldn't have replied to the goons digging up ten year old tweets and should've just ignored them. But that's me. Apparently they feel it better to reply to the goons instead of their own readers like Disney is regarding Gunn.

What you need to understand is this. I got no problem if she trolls people. Awkward jokes happen on the internet. Even more awkward jokes happen ten years ago on the internet. It gets even stranger ten years ago on Twitter on the internet. Luckily I wasn't on Twitter. Apparently NYT went 'you're an editor now...stop that ' and they're happy after she revealed it to them before the goons did. She beat everybody in the race to make sure the bosses knew what was up and knew her context. Too bad for the goons. Too bad for you. Too bad for everyone else in this thread that thinks she did something wrong.

Their defense of her is not as you describe. (and you need to work on your math skills!) What you need to understand is this. They excuse her by actions because they believe she is less than fully realized human being. Why are you defending this?

[Genghis Skahn]

The irony here is that the right-wing media are spreading fake news, in that she was actually being satirical. How do you read 'white people aren't even allowed to have polo' and take it seriously?

If she had made those comments, satirical or not, about any other ethnic group on earth the NYT would have refused to hire her, period. You can pretend otherwise, but any sensible person sees the double standard here.

I believe this sort of content is the source of the term "voxplaining".

Yeah, that article was just laden with politically biased garbage.