837
In the final weeks of the presidential campaign, major newspapers are giving former President Donald Trumpās federal criminal indictment for alleged crimes related to the January 6 insurrection a fraction of the coverage they gave former Secretary of State Hillary Clintonās use of a private email server in 2016, according to a new Media Matters study. Media Matters reviewed print coverage in five newspapers ā Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post ā for stories mentioning Trumpās indictment in the week following U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkanās October 2 unsealing of special counsel Jack Smithās latest filing, which reveals damning new evidence of the former presidentās alleged crimes.Ā We found the papers ran 26 combined articles mentioning Trumpās indictment in the week after the unsealing of Smithās filing. But those same papers published 100 combined articles ā nearly 4 times as many ā that mentioned Clintonās server in the week after then-FBI Director James Comeyās notorious October 28, 2016, letter on new developments in that probe, as we documented in a 2016 study. The papers ran more than 6 times as many combined front-page stories that mentioned Clintonās server (46) as they did front-page stories that mentioned Trumpās indictment (7) over those periods. Obsessive news media focus on Clintonās server in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign helped Trump to victory, even as Comey ultimately reconfirmed that no charges were appropriate in the case. But eight years later, with one presidential candidate facing active prosecution for federal charges related to his attempt to subvert an election, outlets are making different choices.
Fake news from July. Removed for misinformation.
Fact check here:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/07/16/media-executives-donate-trump-campaign-fact-check/74407354007/
Are there records that all of the executives referred to in the post donated to a PAC or a SuperPAC that funnels millions to trump?
No. There arenāt any PAC donation records because SCROTUS legalized dark money. Of course we could argue about it, OR just look at the editorial slants and take this obvious fact at face value. Or assume the opposite in the ironic attempt to fight misinformation.
In 2016 CBS Chairman Les Moonvees, before being removed for sexual harassment, said, ātrump may not be good for America, but heās great for CBS!ā - and that was to a crowded room of employees and investors. Did he donate the maximum $2500 to trump as well? I say itās a moot point.
OK, so what youāre saying is that you know thereās no evidence to back up your claims, but youāre assuming theyāre true based on your opinion of these outlets editorial decisions, and youād like your opinion to be treated as a fact. Did I get that right?
No, you did not get that right.
What Iām saying is, Iāll accept the fact-check that there is no record of them personally donating to the trump campaign directly, and thatās sufficient to remove the image.
HOWEVER, everyone needs to be very clear there are a myriad of ways the wealthy can ādonateā to campaigns because of Citizens United, and that the media outlets in question have a long and verifiable history of not reporting damaging news or editorial slants against trump which in many ways is more valuable than $2500 in cash.
SUCH THAT the idea that these CEOās are not ādonatingā to trump because they didnāt give the legally required name for a direct campaign donation is laughable. HA!
Maybe you should clarify what the, āobvious fact,ā was that we should take at face value. Because based on the context, it really sounds like you wanted us to accept your debunked infographic as fact.
Itās pretty clear. If not, Iām not sure what to say to clarify.
Media owners help trump. Much more than a personal cash donation would. Which is why, when the ādebunkingā states media owners donāt help (ādonate toā) trump, itās ironic.
By saying the infographic is ādebunkedā, the implication is that media owners are not supporting trump. And I say again - they could very well be giving millions, as Elmo Musk does, without being directly identified in an FEC filing. So, the ādebunkingā is itself ādebunkedā by simply pointing out political donations can be unknown.
To restate, so you can clip ān save:
So, pop quiz hotshot: is the infographic āmisleadingā?
OK, but by the logic youāre using, you could accuse anyone of anything. I could make an infographic that says, āKamala Harris was caught killing small animals as a child,ā and when someone says that never happened, I could just say, āWell, juvenile records are almost always sealed and expunged, and people who seek power are often have sociopathic tendencies, so this debunking is debunked, since itās an unknown.ā Itās just using the adage, āyhe absence of proof isnāt the proof of absence,ā as a justification to continue spreading a lie.
Indeed you could and then the onus is on you to show all the examples of Kamala doing things like killing small animals. Does she talk about it? Does she wear things that indicate it? If she was the CEO of a corporate news organization, does she oversee stories promoting it? (Or, more likely, minimizing argument against it?) If you have boatloads of that evidence, you might have a good argument.
Got nothing? Well, thatās a poor argument. Maybe there are āJewish space lasersā and MTG has broken the story wide open, but in the absence of literally any other piece of relevant information, itās a poor argument to make.
I have metaphorical boatloads of evidence that the corporate news kaisers are supporting trump. So much so that pretty much anyone on here knows a bunch of them already. So much so, itās hardly worth mentioning because itās omnipresent. Thereās more supporting evidence coming out every day.
That addresses the ājust making up stuffā part, but let me once again, for the third time now, point out that financial donations to a campaign can be made in many ways that are not as rigorously documented as personal donations. So many ways, in fact, that the absence of these CEOās names on opensecrets.org doesnāt really answer the question.
But if youāre simply arguing that as far as words on the infographic go, A is not B, then Iāll give it to you. Change ādonorā to āsupporterā on that infographic and we can have this exact same conversation again with the exact same meaning and relevance.
Is the CEO that presides over news coverage that doesnāt continually mention trumpās - conviction for hundreds of millions in fraud, the courtās finding of rape, the bizarreness of his speech, and a hundred other things that throw the ludicrousness of his candidacy into high relief - does the CEO that presides over not presenting that information support trump?
Yes. Yes they do. Did they give the equivalent of two dollars to his campaign fund and make sure their name was recorded? No. Oh! Well! Debunked! These are all egregious lies!
If you understand the point of the demographic, you can acknowledge its factual inaccuracy and its greater truth. Right?
Hey, if youāre ever wondering what people mean when they say, āBlue MAGA,ā itās this; 8 rambling paragraphs of conspiracy theories about media companiesā CEOs, with no evidence or sources, to justify a debunked infographic. Itās long-winded, āFake News.ā