"This matter has been made infinitely worse by the emergence of Donald Trump and his incredible ability to make headline news."
I disagree. I think you have it more correct a few paragraphs later when you note "[The press] covered every damn thing Trump said and let him dominate the airwaves, regardless of whether it was newsworthy.
Trump doesn't publish a paper or own a TV or radio station. His "ability" to appear in headlines is controlled entirely by the press. Sure, he certainly tries to draw attention to himself, but it's the press that provides him with the means for anyone to notice. He can do anything he wants. Without them eagerly pushing it, nobody would notice.
The earlier sentence reads like the press had no choice, when in fact it was very much under their control.
Which is, of course, much the point you make in your article. So what's mine? I see folks saying/writing things like "Trump's incredible ability to make headlines" and it's worrisome. Because it typically comes with an acknowledgement that things should be done differently but then a claim that they can't be. It's a "I know we shouldn't give Trump so much free publicity, but we *have* to." belief. Because the belief is that the beast *has* to be fed, the news cycle *must* be stuffed full 24/7.
And I don't think that's as true as they believe it is. But, of course, they're all too scared to try anything different because a) it might have some risk that it won't work as well as what they're doing now, as harmful as what they're doing now is and 2) it requires effort.
Perhaps I'm an outlier, but I don't like watching news that fills the airways for hours on a a"breaking" story when they don't have anything yet to say. I change the channel. And I suspect I'm not that much of an outlier.
(I actually agree with absolutely everything you wrote. I'd go even further with holding the press responsible for the decades of Republican abuse that preceded and led to Trump. It's just that when I see something that could imply that somehow it was something they didn't have full control over (because, for example, Trump has an incredible ability to MAKE headline news), well, button pressed.)
Do you really think (and I do mean this as a question) the media screwed up 2016 in a way that they might regret and not want to repeat? I mean, do you assume they did not act purposefully? I really don't know the answer, but it seems like a stretch to assume they just made some kind of mistake(s) and did not do what they did on purpose.
I don't think they paused for reflection long enough to consider the consequences of anything they were doing beyond an immediate "did I get this on the air fast enough? Did we get the clicks and eyeballs?"
Regret requires you think about what you're doing.
"This matter has been made infinitely worse by the emergence of Donald Trump and his incredible ability to make headline news."
I disagree. I think you have it more correct a few paragraphs later when you note "[The press] covered every damn thing Trump said and let him dominate the airwaves, regardless of whether it was newsworthy.
Trump doesn't publish a paper or own a TV or radio station. His "ability" to appear in headlines is controlled entirely by the press. Sure, he certainly tries to draw attention to himself, but it's the press that provides him with the means for anyone to notice. He can do anything he wants. Without them eagerly pushing it, nobody would notice.
The earlier sentence reads like the press had no choice, when in fact it was very much under their control.
Which is, of course, much the point you make in your article. So what's mine? I see folks saying/writing things like "Trump's incredible ability to make headlines" and it's worrisome. Because it typically comes with an acknowledgement that things should be done differently but then a claim that they can't be. It's a "I know we shouldn't give Trump so much free publicity, but we *have* to." belief. Because the belief is that the beast *has* to be fed, the news cycle *must* be stuffed full 24/7.
And I don't think that's as true as they believe it is. But, of course, they're all too scared to try anything different because a) it might have some risk that it won't work as well as what they're doing now, as harmful as what they're doing now is and 2) it requires effort.
Perhaps I'm an outlier, but I don't like watching news that fills the airways for hours on a a"breaking" story when they don't have anything yet to say. I change the channel. And I suspect I'm not that much of an outlier.
(I actually agree with absolutely everything you wrote. I'd go even further with holding the press responsible for the decades of Republican abuse that preceded and led to Trump. It's just that when I see something that could imply that somehow it was something they didn't have full control over (because, for example, Trump has an incredible ability to MAKE headline news), well, button pressed.)
Do you really think (and I do mean this as a question) the media screwed up 2016 in a way that they might regret and not want to repeat? I mean, do you assume they did not act purposefully? I really don't know the answer, but it seems like a stretch to assume they just made some kind of mistake(s) and did not do what they did on purpose.
I don't think they paused for reflection long enough to consider the consequences of anything they were doing beyond an immediate "did I get this on the air fast enough? Did we get the clicks and eyeballs?"
Regret requires you think about what you're doing.