Today’s episode raises to the surface that today’s journalism is more focused on the micro. Where were all the stories about JFK’s dalliances, FDR’s use of supportive devices, etc.?
Today’s journalism would have addressed these topics to some degree, but earlier journalism did not.
I’m not a DT supporter but what I’d like to see is a more …
Today’s episode raises to the surface that today’s journalism is more focused on the micro. Where were all the stories about JFK’s dalliances, FDR’s use of supportive devices, etc.?
Today’s journalism would have addressed these topics to some degree, but earlier journalism did not.
I’m not a DT supporter but what I’d like to see is a more perceived seriousness on the part of the industry.
Lest we think this is just a recent issue—
So historically, Andrew Jackson couldn’t spell the word government (his best attempt was “goverment”). It may have been a good hit piece for the John Quincy Adams campaign. But journalists didn’t care much about the executive branch spelling acumen then (that didn’t matter until Dan Quayle).
But the media did publish hit pieces against Jackson’s bigamy. Was that the most newsworthy thing about the man? Again, reporters should be more focused on the macro.
Should DT have the unchallenged right to make unfounded claims? Of course not. But he does so primarily because he knows journalism will take the bait and keep him in the news cycle.
Today’s episode raises to the surface that today’s journalism is more focused on the micro. Where were all the stories about JFK’s dalliances, FDR’s use of supportive devices, etc.?
Today’s journalism would have addressed these topics to some degree, but earlier journalism did not.
I’m not a DT supporter but what I’d like to see is a more perceived seriousness on the part of the industry.
Lest we think this is just a recent issue—
So historically, Andrew Jackson couldn’t spell the word government (his best attempt was “goverment”). It may have been a good hit piece for the John Quincy Adams campaign. But journalists didn’t care much about the executive branch spelling acumen then (that didn’t matter until Dan Quayle).
But the media did publish hit pieces against Jackson’s bigamy. Was that the most newsworthy thing about the man? Again, reporters should be more focused on the macro.
Should DT have the unchallenged right to make unfounded claims? Of course not. But he does so primarily because he knows journalism will take the bait and keep him in the news cycle.