I have a problem with ascribing great influence to the Maureen Dowds, Bob Woodwards, and Maggie Habermans of the journalistic world. My impression is that the vast majority of American voters neither read them nor recognize their names. My impression is hardly scientific inasmuch as it is based on anecdotal evidence. The in-law who believes Trump is a great businessman but wouldn't be caught dead reading the Times or the Post. He just wants to believe it and doesn't care what evidence one gives him contrary to his opinion. Another is the single issue voter (abortion) who doesn't care about anything else. A third is the great mass of out of work manufacturing employees who think Trump will fix that just because they want him to and who believe illegal aliens and minorities are displacing them in their jobs. In short, those writers ain't really all that influential. As some Republican politician was quoted on Herschel Walker's deficiencies, "I don't care about that; I want control of the Senate."
Trump was getting built up long before Fox came along. Despite all evidence to the contrary, despite a near continuous stream of business fuckups, he was built up into this mythic character. Similar process to John Gotti without, unfortunately, the same outcome—so far anyway.
And they're all a part of that. He was a fixture in the New York tabloids, where Haberman got her start as a reporter, in the Enquirer, on Entertainment Tonight and all those other gossip and entertainment shows, and all that bled into the news as well — they all had the same owners — and tens of millions of people watched network news back in the '80s. And people may not read the Times, but they read papers or watch local TV stations which take look at what the Times has to say when they're planning their own news and entertainment days.
It's not just one thing. Haberman and Dowd and whomever may not be individually influential, but collectively, and in concert with all these other vehicles, they are.
I'm among the fairly substantial number of people Democrats were yelling at for harping on the state of the economy for the millions of people in 2016 who hadn't yet recovered from the recession. I know why Trump could play on economic fears and competition for resources fears, but any of the Republicans could and would have done that too. The larger question is how he got into the position to do that over a period of decades, and how he turned the press into a promotional vehicle (or how they cooperated in that) throughout much of his presidency.
Trump is a spectacle and the press of whatever stripe loves a spectacle. I really don't know how much the Times or the Post influence local TV stations. I do think it's a stretch to assign responsibility to the Times for all the tabloids. To the Times owners? Maybe, but I do think the tabloids, regardless of ownership, like to cover con men, the more outrageous the better. Who was it who said, "as long as the spell my name right"?
I don't assign to the Times anything but responsibility for their own behavior, which is a sufficient indictment. They're probably not all that much of an influence on local television after the orgy of post-deregulation consolidation, but I'll betcha news directors and newspaper editors are still reading the locally printed issues of the Times and the Washington Post first thing in the morning. They still have more shoe leather out and about than anyone else.
I have a problem with ascribing great influence to the Maureen Dowds, Bob Woodwards, and Maggie Habermans of the journalistic world. My impression is that the vast majority of American voters neither read them nor recognize their names. My impression is hardly scientific inasmuch as it is based on anecdotal evidence. The in-law who believes Trump is a great businessman but wouldn't be caught dead reading the Times or the Post. He just wants to believe it and doesn't care what evidence one gives him contrary to his opinion. Another is the single issue voter (abortion) who doesn't care about anything else. A third is the great mass of out of work manufacturing employees who think Trump will fix that just because they want him to and who believe illegal aliens and minorities are displacing them in their jobs. In short, those writers ain't really all that influential. As some Republican politician was quoted on Herschel Walker's deficiencies, "I don't care about that; I want control of the Senate."
Where does he hear about Trump without the media?
Well, the media in general, but not that media. The daily Bugle most likely. Then there's the TV. For the folks I'm talking about, that's Fox.
Trump was getting built up long before Fox came along. Despite all evidence to the contrary, despite a near continuous stream of business fuckups, he was built up into this mythic character. Similar process to John Gotti without, unfortunately, the same outcome—so far anyway.
And they're all a part of that. He was a fixture in the New York tabloids, where Haberman got her start as a reporter, in the Enquirer, on Entertainment Tonight and all those other gossip and entertainment shows, and all that bled into the news as well — they all had the same owners — and tens of millions of people watched network news back in the '80s. And people may not read the Times, but they read papers or watch local TV stations which take look at what the Times has to say when they're planning their own news and entertainment days.
It's not just one thing. Haberman and Dowd and whomever may not be individually influential, but collectively, and in concert with all these other vehicles, they are.
I'm among the fairly substantial number of people Democrats were yelling at for harping on the state of the economy for the millions of people in 2016 who hadn't yet recovered from the recession. I know why Trump could play on economic fears and competition for resources fears, but any of the Republicans could and would have done that too. The larger question is how he got into the position to do that over a period of decades, and how he turned the press into a promotional vehicle (or how they cooperated in that) throughout much of his presidency.
Trump is a spectacle and the press of whatever stripe loves a spectacle. I really don't know how much the Times or the Post influence local TV stations. I do think it's a stretch to assign responsibility to the Times for all the tabloids. To the Times owners? Maybe, but I do think the tabloids, regardless of ownership, like to cover con men, the more outrageous the better. Who was it who said, "as long as the spell my name right"?
I don't assign to the Times anything but responsibility for their own behavior, which is a sufficient indictment. They're probably not all that much of an influence on local television after the orgy of post-deregulation consolidation, but I'll betcha news directors and newspaper editors are still reading the locally printed issues of the Times and the Washington Post first thing in the morning. They still have more shoe leather out and about than anyone else.