Posted on 02/17/2017 8:22:31 AM PST by Louis Foxwell
Why the Media’s Trump Lie Machine is Failing No one believes the media anymore. February 17, 2017 Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
Every five minutes the many mouths of the media broadcast, type, post and shriek that President Donald J. Trump is a liar. After months of this treatment, more voters find him truthful than them.
49% of voters believe that Trump and his people are telling the truth. Only 39% believe that the media is.
The media’s war on President Trump isn’t hurting him. It is destroying the media’s own credibility.
After Trump’s win, the media came to the conclusion that its biased attacks on him had been too subtle and understated to connect with the “dumb” voters. So it decided to be far more overt about its smears.
The New York Times, which used to be the best at disguising its biases in the omnipotent voice of professional journalism, called President Trump a liar in its headlines. The media cheered this descent into naked partisanship by the paper of record. But it didn’t hurt Trump. It hurt the Times.
Headlines blasting President Trump as a “liar” are easy enough to find on the internet. The New York Times derives much of its influence from its appearance of serious professionalism. Calling Trump names made it hard to distinguish the New York Times from the Huffington Post.
The first time the New York Times called Trump a liar was during the election. Times editor Dean Baquet insisted that while Hillary Clinton might “obfuscate, exaggerate”, Trump was a liar. And when the Times printed lies about Trump, it too was no doubt merely obfuscating and exaggerating rather than lying.
The Times can’t call its own candidate who lied about landing “under sniper fire” in Bosnia, negotiating peace in Northern Ireland and being kept out of NASA and the Marine Corps by sexism, a liar. And yet it expects someone, anyone, to believe that calling Trump a liar is anything more than a partisan smear.
Before the first debate, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and Politico all ran stories accusing Trump of being a liar. The coordinated attack failed to accomplish anything at all.
“Our president is a pathological liar. Say it. Write it. Never become inured to it,” Times columnist Charles Blow ranted in January. By February, the Times was reduced to writing explainers to explain why its lies weren’t working. “Why Nobody Cares the President Is Lying.”
The public had become inured to a partisan attack from a partisan press.
The more the media attacked Trump, the less effective those attacks became. To call anyone else a liar, you need to tell the truth. And truth requires objectivity. The media had discarded objectivity in pursuit of political goals, but still “identified” as objective. In the parlance of political correctness, you are what you “identify” as, but the real world has never brought into this lie masquerading as a delusion.
Truth is not who you pretend to be. It’s who you are.
The media wanted the authority to determining who was lying without the responsibility of telling the truth. As the media made its partisan bias more obvious, it lost the credibility it needed. The more the media called President Trump a liar, the more the public believed that the media was lying.
“I think we're in a remarkably partisan moment, where people who don't like Donald Trump feel like the media is not doing enough about him. I think that's just wrong,” Dean Baquet complained.
The media is doing more than ever. And it’s accomplishing less than ever.
Instead the media has become trapped in a cycle of impotence. The harder it attacks Trump, the more credibility it loses. And this makes its attacks on him even more spectacularly ineffective.
Its arrogance has become its own undoing.
There were two reasons for the media’s influence. It had the infrastructure and it had credibility. The internet has made infrastructure largely irrelevant. If you are sitting in an airport, you might be stuck in front of a monitor playing CNN. But it’s usually just as easy to punch up FOX News on your phone.
The billions of dollars in media infrastructure, printing presses, broadcast towers and licenses, are becoming more irrelevant every year. And the media’s credibility is becoming irrelevant even faster.
Without broadcasting infrastructure, the media’s reach depends on credibility. The majority of Democrats still believe the media. The vast majority of Republicans do not. The media is an echo chamber that reflects this partisan structure. And its echo doesn’t reach past the ranks of the left.
The media is baffled at the futility of its efforts against Trump. It still can’t conceive of a world in which it isn’t trusted or needed. But Americans already don’t trust the media. And they don’t need it either.
The existence of a professional class of men and women who write about events was a leftover from an era when communication speeds were rising, but distribution still required investing in infrastructure: whether it was a printing press or a broadcast tower. The internet makes distribution absurdly easy.
Even the old privileges of the press, like the press corps, can be easily stripped away from it, as the White House has demonstrated by expanding the press corps to include more conservative outlets.
The New York Times was once known as the paper of record because it set the agenda for smaller papers. As one editor declared, “We set the agenda for the country in that room.” But the Times doesn’t set the agenda anymore. The internet does. The media’s political content is driven by the talking points of left-wing Twitter and the rest of its national offerings consist of viral videos and trending topics.
The media bemoans the collapse of its influence as a “post-truth world” filled with “Fake News” and “alternative facts”. But it was the media that destroyed its hegemony of credibility. After unveiling its “Fake News” smear, it quickly pulled it back again because it was all too easy for conservatives to use it to expose the flood of media lies.
A post-truth world rejects objectivity. The media imagines that its fact checks, which spin and editorialize shamelessly, put it on the side of truth. But truth is more than finding a factoid you can use to make a lie seem more plausible or a truth more unlikely. It’s intellectual honesty for its own sake.
The media believes that its left-wing goals are more important than objectivity or truth. But by abandoning the principles it claimed to live by, it destroyed its ability to achieve those goals.
Front Page mag - A Project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center
Daniel Greenfield Ping List Notification of new articles.
I am posting Greenfield's articles from FrontPage and the Sultan Knish blog. FReepmail or drop me a comment to get on or off the Greenfield ping list.
I recommend an occasional look at the Sultan Knish blog. It is a rich source of materials, links and more from one of the preeminent writers of our age.
FrontPage is a basic resource for conservative thought.
Lou
![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fiGVhiSe7Es/UC2iXPZr6dI/AAAAAAAAIBo/dnH7JqKKqVQ/s1600/sidepicture.jpg"left")
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
To get on or off the Greenfield ping list please reply to this post.
Nobody believes the Ministry of Propaganda anymore.
They had already shot their credibility before Trump came around.
Now they have a President who will fight back.
They are used to having no opposition.
Overuse.
Just like they did with the race card.
Just like they did with the women card.
[Even after focus groups told Hillary around the time of their convention that it was not working, Hillary tried to revive it in the latter days of the election cycle.]
The media have been caught in so many lies, they have lost the public trust. They have evolved into full-fledged propaganda venues.
The media could win this fight by reporting actual news and sticking to the facts.
The problem is the media does not see that as winning and will continue to destroy themselves.
Trump is an entertaining one man media. Obama depended on the press loving him, him living to manipulate them to cover in “cutes” for what he lacked. Frankly , without the press, Obama has the charisma of a Pizza joint sign waver on the side of the street.
Trump does not depend on the press, period. The level of enthusiasm he gets from his black supporters should indicate the genuine artistic level of the businessman there. Because Trump just does not get support from the alternative media.
The Obama debauched flat robotic press has only itself and Obama to blame
Funny, the media used fake news to attack anti-Hillary/Pro-Trump stories from alternative news sites, and as the author suggests, they have created a monster whereby THEY have become the poster child for "Fake News". I think one would call that, ironic. and funny.
I have to wonder if the “powers” meet and decide what to write then issue their orders to the underlings. I say this because they all print the same lies. I simply don’t believe these bottom of the barrel reporters think that much alike.
I also wonder if the Democrat voter would believe the media if they reported the truth about Hillary. In other words, who are the leaders and who are the followers?
Actually, I love watching the various “news” outlets implode.
I hope they keep it up, because pretty soon it will be FreeRepublic.com all the way! YES!
A classic cry-wolf problem
The New York Times is destroying their own credibility. Throwing it away - - dancing on the remains...
Jeremy Peters is a smart man but he's playing the fool for media elites... and he's taking down his own paper in the process.
Maybe if they had read the story in Aesop’s fables about the boy who cried “Wolf!” they might have had second thoughts about this tactic.
Flynn is a martyr now. He’s an Obi Wan Kenobi.
I know what you mean, but...I think they absolutely do think in this monolithic group-think with variation due to personal differences in temperament and intellectual training or capability.
Even though there aren't necessarily any "talking points" sent out by the DNC or anyone else, there is a huge amount of attitudinal and intellectual cross-pollination that occurs in the media world because they watch each other, and talk to each other. They may be in the same hotels, covering the same stories, waiting with time on their hands, drinking at the same bars or restaurants, and they talk to each other. They know, as liberals, how they are "supposed" to feel, and what stance to take on a given issue.
In an environment that is 85-95% leftist, they commiserate and conform.
Wait, 39% believe the media is truthful?! I just can’t believe the number is that high.
It’s like it’s the same words used in the media “news”
stories every day. As if, orders come down from
headquarters early every morning & it’s the same drumbeat
of the same words all day long. One day a few months ago,
they all came out with the DARK, DARK, DARK, DARK . . SAME
WORD . . in EVERY news report.
Looks like they’re still at it. - MAGA!
That part is curious but unmistakable. The once cosmopolitan nature of the media in general and the Times in particular has devolved into a provincialism that is not mapped geographically but ideologically. It is genuinely a mystery to its proprietors what the denizens of Flyover Country are thinking, what our priorities are, and the strength of our resistance to crude manipulation. Dissent from the Times groupthink was at first a sign of lack of urban sophistication; now it's fascism and treason. That isn't a positive direction, but it used not to matter. It does now, and this is why:
But the Times doesn’t set the agenda anymore. The internet does.
I knew certain newspapermen in Seattle who were convinced that a move online would merely expand their ability to architect The Narrative. They got eaten alive, and paywalls only made the matter worse. There was a time when a reporter's ability to type a take and have it appear before 50,000 subscribers the next morning was power in a very real sense. Now it's a mouse-click away for anyone with a computer. This is a paradigm change in a way that the advent of broadcast media never was, and certain convictions of what that power meant turned out to be silly presumptions on the part of silly and arrogant people.
Perfectly said. Hillary would have elevated the DNC Media to official State organs of disinformation and moved to silence opposing views. But now, leftists can rant and shriek, but they can’t enforce anything. They will still try, using their high-tech allies, but it’s too easy to just switch to another platform.
A story written by a dead white European male?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.