>The unprecedented effort comes as the president's attacks on the press continue — but some are worried the editorials could backfire.
>Newspapers and media outlets across the U.S. are launching an unprecedented effort on Thursday aimed at combating the constant attacks from President Donald Trump as well as negative feelings about the media's role in society.
>More than 300 newspapers around the nation are joining together to each publish editorials that explain the role of journalists and amplify the positive role journalism plays in society.
>The effort was spearheaded by Marjorie Pritchard, deputy managing editor of the editorial page at The Boston Globe, who asked other editors to combat frequent attacks made on the press by Trump.
>So far newspapers big and small have joined the effort, and not just ones from blue states. They include the New York Times, the Arizona Daily Sun and the North Little Rock Times.
>Not everyone in the media is on board. The Wall Street Journal published a critical piece about the initiative, suggesting the president has a right to free speech and that newspapers have been “colluding.” Jack Shafer, senior media writer at Politico, wrote that the coordinated effort “is sure to backfire.”
>“It will provide Trump with circumstantial evidence of the existence of a national press cabal that has been convened solely to oppose him,” Shafer wrote. “When the editorials roll off the press on Thursday, all singing from the same script, Trump will reap enough fresh material to whale on the media for at least a month.”
http://archive.is/fT6hW
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): BE0475EAC3AFC75D17542AB3F0ACDB86-36538.jpg (35.7 KB, 799x531, BBLZ9NG.jpg)
How is this any different than what they've been doing up until this point.
>this much damage control
God I love this timeline
God I love this timeline
File (): E25D9F84BF78DBB43025BC4265D193F1-235471.png (230.0 KB, 1326x682, screenshot-twitter.com-201….png)
>this_is_extremely_dangerous_to_our_democracy.webm
Get fucked Lugenpresse.
Get fucked Lugenpresse.
>>166276
Trump hasn't even done anything to them. He's only said mean things and questioned their credibility.
They paint it like they're about to all be lined up against a wall to be shot.
Trump hasn't even done anything to them. He's only said mean things and questioned their credibility.
They paint it like they're about to all be lined up against a wall to be shot.
It's amazing how eager the left is to confirm everyone else's suspicions about them.
>"How do we prove that we're unbiased and not conspiring to take down Trump and conservatives?"
>"Let's openly conspire to take down Trump and conservatives."
>"Great idea!"
They just did it with Alex Jones about a week ago, now they're doing it again.
>"How do we prove that we're unbiased and not conspiring to take down Trump and conservatives?"
>"Let's openly conspire to take down Trump and conservatives."
>"Great idea!"
They just did it with Alex Jones about a week ago, now they're doing it again.
>>166258
I'm beginning to doubt the existence of sapience in the media. You just don't make these kinds of mistakes and not learn from them, otherwise.
I'm beginning to doubt the existence of sapience in the media. You just don't make these kinds of mistakes and not learn from them, otherwise.
>media attempts to prove it's not a bunch of fake ass shit by simultaneously publishing a torrent of cookie-cutter articles with minimal paraphrasing.
It really makes me think.
It really makes me think.
>>166258
is anyone else disgusted by this whole shit about "the free press" and all this garbage they go on and on about? free how? we all know they have a fucking price tag. the washington post is owned by Jeff Bezos the new york times is mostly owned by some fucking rich guy in mexico and tons of outlets write puff pieces for monsanto and pharmaceutical companies. We also know reporters worked directly with hillary's campaign and they're probably doing the same in the midterms
is anyone else disgusted by this whole shit about "the free press" and all this garbage they go on and on about? free how? we all know they have a fucking price tag. the washington post is owned by Jeff Bezos the new york times is mostly owned by some fucking rich guy in mexico and tons of outlets write puff pieces for monsanto and pharmaceutical companies. We also know reporters worked directly with hillary's campaign and they're probably doing the same in the midterms
>>166305
The thing is, they really are free. They're protected by the first anendment, and the president can't do shit to them. Nevertheless, they claim dictator-tier persecution from nothing more than a few mean tweets, as if attacking their character were as bad as locking them up.
They're nothing but a bunch of corporate drama queedns.
The thing is, they really are free. They're protected by the first anendment, and the president can't do shit to them. Nevertheless, they claim dictator-tier persecution from nothing more than a few mean tweets, as if attacking their character were as bad as locking them up.
They're nothing but a bunch of corporate drama queedns.
>>166305
They're free in the sense that they can say and publish whatever they want, which means if they want to throw away their objectivity and dedicate themselves to shitting all over an administration that's entirely up to them. The thing is though, people don't have any obligation to listen to them and can tune them out if they want. The reason people have always traditionally trusted journalists is that in the past they have always at the very least feigned objectivity. People trust the press because the press' job is to report facts. Now that they've chosen to completely throw away even the pretense of objectivity people are realizing that they can't trust any of these jackoffs and they aren't listening any more.
Nobody is talking about censoring the press right now. Not Trump, not conservatives, not anybody. Free speech online is in more danger of censorship right now than some Harvard brat who gets a fat paycheck for writing whiny editorials about Trump, yet the press behaves like the world is out to get them. When Bush was President the press pretty much shit on him 24/7, although not as bad as they currently do to Trump. Then Obama came along and as far as the press was concerned the guy could walk on water. When it's a conservative in the white house, he can't do anything right; when it's a liberal, he can't do anything wrong. That's how the media operates.
Basically, Trump is the first conservative President to come along who doesn't just good-naturedly put up with it. But he's not trying to censor them. He's not using executive power against them, he just makes fun of them on Twitter and tells them to piss off when they're pestering him with nonsense questions during press briefings. They've never had to deal with anyone they attack actually fighting back before and they're losing their shit over it. They're used to a world where news is a one-way conduit of information and corporate-controlled media can act as the arbiters of truth, and that's no longer how things work. That's it. That's what all this bitching and moaning about Trump's "attacks" on the "free press" and the "assault" on democracy is all about. A bunch of corporate media tycoons are assblasted because nobody is listening to the whiny millennial dipshits they hire as staff writers anymore, and they unironically view this as a threat to the functionality of our political system, because that's how far up their asses their heads are at this point.
They're free in the sense that they can say and publish whatever they want, which means if they want to throw away their objectivity and dedicate themselves to shitting all over an administration that's entirely up to them. The thing is though, people don't have any obligation to listen to them and can tune them out if they want. The reason people have always traditionally trusted journalists is that in the past they have always at the very least feigned objectivity. People trust the press because the press' job is to report facts. Now that they've chosen to completely throw away even the pretense of objectivity people are realizing that they can't trust any of these jackoffs and they aren't listening any more.
Nobody is talking about censoring the press right now. Not Trump, not conservatives, not anybody. Free speech online is in more danger of censorship right now than some Harvard brat who gets a fat paycheck for writing whiny editorials about Trump, yet the press behaves like the world is out to get them. When Bush was President the press pretty much shit on him 24/7, although not as bad as they currently do to Trump. Then Obama came along and as far as the press was concerned the guy could walk on water. When it's a conservative in the white house, he can't do anything right; when it's a liberal, he can't do anything wrong. That's how the media operates.
Basically, Trump is the first conservative President to come along who doesn't just good-naturedly put up with it. But he's not trying to censor them. He's not using executive power against them, he just makes fun of them on Twitter and tells them to piss off when they're pestering him with nonsense questions during press briefings. They've never had to deal with anyone they attack actually fighting back before and they're losing their shit over it. They're used to a world where news is a one-way conduit of information and corporate-controlled media can act as the arbiters of truth, and that's no longer how things work. That's it. That's what all this bitching and moaning about Trump's "attacks" on the "free press" and the "assault" on democracy is all about. A bunch of corporate media tycoons are assblasted because nobody is listening to the whiny millennial dipshits they hire as staff writers anymore, and they unironically view this as a threat to the functionality of our political system, because that's how far up their asses their heads are at this point.
14 replies | 2 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived