Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"I (and I think many/most? other people who feel this needs to be looked into) haven't said there is collusion "
The media devotes half its airtime to the story. As it turns out, they were likely correct. Trump Jr at least met with Russians in the hopes of getting dirt on Hilary. It's a legitimate story.
"Trump (and team) have brought all of this on themselves "
I agree he brings much of it on himself. However, the media has become the public relations arm of the Democratic party. All of the coverage of democrats is favorable, all of the coverage of republicans is negative. So while I agree with you that Trump gives them extra ammunition to use, the media would still be engaging in yellow journalism even the GOP nominated a genuinely nice guy, because that's what happened when they nominated Romney.
And Hilary brought much of this on herself, by engaging in the questionable actions that were revealed in the leaked emails. Do you agree?
"Trump also tries to bully the press"
Because they will never, ever give him a fair deal. Never, I'm not saying the media has to lie to make him look bad, he makes that easy for them. But he could be a choir boy like Romney, and they would still be determined to make him look bad. He recognizes that, and doesn't try to make nice with them.
If you think his relationship with the media is a net negative to Trump, I disagree. A lot of people recognize how biased the media has become, and rally around Trump because he calls them out on it so bluntly. It helped get him elected.
I'd say Trump and the media probably deserve each other. The difference is, it's helping Trump, and while Trump is helping MSNBC (whose ratings had nowhere to go but up), CNN has become a laughing stock.
|
I agree with everything you said. But two things, which I don't disagree with, but which need a bit of amplification.
First, "Trump Jr at least met with Russians in the hopes of getting dirt on Hilary. It's a legitimate story." Yes, it's legitimate, but so what? Is it because they were Russian that it's so important and supposedly wrong or treasonous? If they had been British would it have been wrong or treasonous? We're not at war with Russia. If somebody has so-called "dirt" on your opposition, what's wrong with getting it? It has happened time and again. What's wrong is if the info is false. Lots of "dirt" against Trump has been openly sought and received. Some has been given by foreigners. Somehow, if Trump gets "dirt" on Hillary, that "interferes" with the election. But getting dirt on Trump is a good thing. It doesn't interfere with the election. It is not collusion. It facilitates things, and the Press, rather than criticizing it, is more than willing to spend weeks on talking about it. You know--spreading the good information to help decide an election.
As for Trump bullying the Press, bullying is a prime tool of the Press. The Press has always bullied whoever it wants to be defeated. They don't like getting bullied back. Boo-hoo cry babies. If you don't want to be bullied, don't bully. Be more "fair and balanced."