Old rules false equivalency still guide most newsrooms/GOP uses that.

[Funtatlaguy]

There’s no more equal time rules that state that media outlets are required to give the same amount of time to competing political entities.
But, still so many operate under the misguided thinking that if they spend a certain amount of time on “negative” coverage of one side of a story that they must do the same to the other.

Here’s a hypothetical example.
Candidate A was found guilty of embezzling millions of dollars in a Ponzi scheme and went to jail as a convicted criminal for 5 years.
Candidate B once stole some milk and bread to feed her hungry baby and she spent a week in jail.
The media coverage would go as follows: “Well, voters in this race are going to have a hard time choosing between two convicted thieves”.
It’s called a FALSE EQUIVALENCY.

We are learning more and more just how this worked with Hillary and Trump.
During the campaign, any time that something like his abhorrent behavior or statements or findings about Trump came up, most media felt obligated to then say something “equally” negative about Hillary. And, more often than not, it was about her email server.
Even after there was no there, there.
Rice and Powell doing the same thing. No intent to deceive. No behavior or motives or horrible statements that could in any way compare to what Trump had done and was doing and saying.
And yet, think back to how many times you heard the media narrative framed that “well, the Republicans and Democrats have really given us two pretty bad choices”.
I can’t tell you how many times I would scream at my TV that “hell no, they are not....one is the most vile, incompetent, unqualified person ever to run for the presidency and the other is one of the most highly qualified ever to run”.

I know this is nothing new to those reading this here on this site.
But, it’s just not said enough by any of the few self reflective journalists that we do still have.
They created Trump. And, in many ways, (along with the Russians, Comeys late interference and other factors) they gave us Trump. But now that Trump has declared the mainstream media as his number one enemy, what are they to do. No politician, and certainly no president, has been this bold about open hatred, disdain, and manipulation of the media.
How have they handled it?
CNN runs silly apple and bananas psa’s about how facts are important.
MSNBC hosts keep throwing up their hands saying they are shocked, shocked I tell you.
Fox has, of course, become completely complicit state run tv.
Right wind radio rails on in lunatic fashion. There is no left wing radio much to speak of.
The Wash Post and NYTimes dig away but are weeks or months behind what Mueller is doing.
Social media has become the Hatfields and McCoys with loyalty or disloyalty to Trump meaning loyalty or disloyalty to the country.

Where do we go?
What if the Mueller report is scathing but not believed or reported properly, fully, or truthfully?
What happens to America then?

[lostnfound]

1. "lost in the partisan wrangling and finHer-pointing was the long-term impact on children"

”Health and Human Services blames Congress, saying its inability to pass legislation on border security “created perverse and dangerous incentives for illegal border crossings and child smuggling.”
For Kraft, lost in the partisan wrangling and finger-pointing was the long-term impact on children.
“As partisan and as divisive as the whole topic of immigration is, we need to start with what’s right,” she said. “Can we start with just keeping parents and children together while we figure out some of the other details?”
“The kids need to come first,” she added. “America is better than this.”

Washington Post, “America is Better Than This”

1.Trump creates new policy that separates kids from their parents
2- Democrats “point fingers” at Trump for the policy of separating kids from their parents. 3- The Washington Post (in an otherwise good article) describes it as “partisan wrangling”.

”There’s good people on both sides...”

[PatrickforO]

2. Exactly. I posted on the Hill that I object to the policy of ripping children

from their parents at our border, and immigrant hawks on the site immediately concluded that because of that, I am for just having open borders and letting anyone who wants come over here illegally and stay.

One does NOT follow the other logically. Wanting families trying to sneak into this country illegally to be treated humanely does NOT mean I want to just let them in. There's a legal process and that needs to be followed.

But ripping a nursing infant from her mother's breast? That's just morally wrong.

[Cosmocat]

3. One other point - this shit only cuts one way

Republicans lose their minds over completely made up b*******, and never once do you hear the media call it quote partisan unquote. And when that is the very definition of what they do.

[Funtatlaguy]

5. Yep, you said it.

[uponit7771]

4. K&R