Is it true? Is it accurate? Does it hurt an innocent person? Those were the three tenets of whether to publish a news story way back when journalism was actually a noble profession.
Today the Litmus test appears to be: Is there some truth in it? Can it sell? Does it hurt President Trump?
We hear about Fake News all the time and, like everything in the media, the definition is fluid. President Trump seems to use the term when he doesn’t like a story involving himself. The media is trying to revise history (as usual) and claim Fake News means they made a simple mistake in fact checking.
As you might expect, both sides have their own agenda and the truth lies somewhere in the middle Most of us define Fake News as the intentional misleading of the reader. For example, Newsweek recently ran an article claiming Melania Trump ordered the removal of a 200 year-old tree from the White House grounds.
What the article did not include was the fact a tree specialist recommended the tree removal because it was in danger of falling. That small detail changes the narrative. Newsweek knew that fact but kept it out of the article. They made a correction later in the day after a firestorm on social media forced their hand.
The mainstream media does this all the time. The article was somewhat true. The headline was click bait so it sold. Plus, the article made the Trumps look bad. This is the new world of media. And the media does not realize, or want to admit, it is that behavior that is eroding its credibility.
According to the Washington Examiner, the Pew Research Center found the media’s coverage of President Trump has been more than three times more critical than the initial coverage of former President Barack Obama. The Pew Research Center said the early coverage of Trump was 62 percent negative while Obama’s coverage was just 20 percent negative.
It also reported coverage of President Trump has been twice more negative than that of former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
“About six-in-ten stories on Trump’s early days in office had a negative assessment, about three times more than in early coverage for Obama and roughly twice that of Bush and Clinton. Coverage of Trump’s early time in office moved further away from a focus on the policy agenda and more toward character and leadership,” said Pew.
The media’s coverage of the tax plan is also another fine example of propagandist journalism. If journalists took the time to actually read the bill and do the math, the stories would not have been so outlandishly apocalyptic. Instead, they took talking points from their Liberal brethren and ran with it.
What will happen to the media’s credibility when a good portion of Americans actually benefit from the tax plan? The same thing that is happening today because of its insatiable lust to damage President Trump.
The point the media constantly misses is people will compare their personal experience with the media’s coverage of topics and realize the divide between reality and Liberal fairy tales.
The biggest irony of all is if the media covered President Trump objectively, most readers would make up our minds about the man and, based on some of his actions, would have a negative view. Instead, most of us doubt what the media is saying about him and root for him because of their coverage. That headline is partly true, doesn’t sell, and doesn’t hurt Trump.
It does not meet two out of the three new tenets so it will end up in the slush file.