President Trump’s frequent and vitriolic attacks on the news media are encouraging fellow Republicans to develop drastically more negative opinions of journalists, pollster Dan Cox said Friday.
“It’s certainly having an effect if you look at where Republicans have moved,” Cox, director at the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), said during an episode of “What America’s Thinking,” Hill.TV’s public opinion show.
“The media has never been a terribly popular institution in the U.S., but more recently, I think it’s trended more negative, largely driven by Republicans moving in a far more negative direction.”
Apparently, Dan Cox overlooks or omits that distrust in Media-Entertainment Industry that includes news outlets are highly concentrated these days whose parent companies are 6 Corporations whose parent companies and subsidiaries own shares in each other. On top of that, they own shares in military contractors and military contractor’s private security services.
The freedom of the press is designed to evaluate elected and appointed officials policy structures and policy catalysts without fear of reprisal from said governmental officials, which is from the adage ‘don’t kill the messenger’. The issue omitted or ignored here is many journalists these days don’t want to be journalists; they want to be talk show hosts to convey their opinions of everything under the sun, and they re-imaged the First Amendment’s “freedom of the press” to argue it’s the Fourth Estate, which means Fourth Branch of Government. In fact, the Media-Entertainment Industry lobbied for the MMA, which nationalizes Media-Entertainment Industry by public-private merger. In the Soviet Union, this was Pravada. As George Orwell put it, this is referred to as a Ministry of Truth, and the central purpose behind such actions is to argue from positions of authority determines “truth and fact”.
Note, Jay Leno actually had a segment on journalists wanting to be talk show hosts around a decade ago as journalism simply turned into tabloid journalism focused on opinions and factoids.
In July, New York Times publisher A. G. Sulzberger met privately with the president to express his concern about Trump’s language.
“I told him that although the phrase ‘fake news’ is untrue and harmful, I am far more concerned about his labeling journalists ‘the enemy of the people,’” Sulzberger told the Times. “I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence.”
Lets examine the argument on its face:
1). Journalists have classically gotten extreme mail and calls; this isn’t new.
2). Journalists have become tabloid journalism focused on gossip, factoids, and opinions, which isn’t necessarily the same as gossip.
3). The premise behind blaming Trump’s rhetoric falls under “severe the Shepard, and the sheep scatter”, which is centrally an elitist viewpoint that the general populace desires and seeks some kind of “Messiah” or “Divine Interventionist” or “Prophet” or some such nonsense in which removing the Shepard causes the sheep to scatter, and the status quo continues with minor set backs if any. This is a form of Doctrine that contends take out the leadership, and the entire organization implodes.
If you look at the special elections and elections thus far, it’s pretty plain Trump is no “Shepard”, the irony is more often than not the “Shepard” is some kind of moral leader, yet everyone agrees that Trump’s no “moral leader”.
The point behind moral leaders isn’t to provide moral guidance; it’s derived from the adages ‘it’s easier to beg forgiveness than get permission’ and ‘moral leadership is easier to forgive’ in which the entire leadership decision making is considered “infallible” faith that decisions are made for the right reasons.
Just read the Media-Entertainment Industry’s news outlets from CNN, Politico, New York Times to across the aisle as Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, National Review, and etc and the common repeated theme of any news related to Trump centers on his rhetoric or tweets than his policy structures and policy structures and even when they do it’s in passing or begrudgingly in some cases as the National Review, Wall Street Journal, and etc effectively ‘well, it’s conservative’… Or allegedly at any rate.
Clearly, Media-Entertainment Industry and politics are incredibly linked and have been increasingly that way for easily an decade when to combat the War on Terror; it became legal for the Intelligence Community as the CIA and FBI to conduct propaganda or more commonly known public relations on the citizens and residents of the United States. This is effectively an unofficial Government-Media Entertainment Industry public-private merger also known as State Sponsored/Run Media-Entertainment. In fact, there’s even a bailout of the music industry MMA that I lost track of that would nationalize the Media-Entertainment Industry and merge it with government, which is effectively TISA revived as a bail out.
Generally, when one conducts research, it requires examining each side of of a given issue and explain the ins and outs of the entire issue. This is not what happens these days; instead, we get an angle of an issue that is politically expedient. This is why Media-Entertainment Industry’s news outlets have taken such an hit, and the response isn’t precisely “civil”. The reason should be common sense given the “moral leadership of the press also known as the Fourth Estate particularly in Europe have lost trust and faith of the US citizens and residents”.