Tur-ump
I just read Katy Tur's entertaining book Unbelievable, about her year and a half embedded with the Trump campaign. If you're looking for a beat-by-beat story of how Trump went from candidate to president, this isn't it. She leaves out large parts of that tale to concentrate on her personal story.
She had a tiger by the tail, and it was tough work. She describes the cheap accommodations, endless travel, lousy food, attempts to look good (or just alert) with little sleep. And then there's mercurial Trump himself, often attacking her by name in front of frenzied crowds.
She made her bones on Trump, but her portrait isn't too kind. His operation is amateurish, his followers are hateful, and the candidate himself comes across as a gaffe machine, alternately lying and speaking gibberish.
In trying to explain how unpopular the press is, she states
we dislike and ultimately distrust the media because journalism, honestly pursued, is difficult and uncomfortable. It tells us things about the world that we'd rather not know; it reveals aspects of people that aren't always flattering. But rather than deal with journalism, we despise journalism.
That might be part of the story, but it's a bit vainglorious. Sure, people don't like to see their candidates attacked, or their beliefs questioned, but sometimes the press can't separate its own political views from its reporting. And it's true, real journalism is hard--which is why so often, if you actually know about a subject, when you read a news report you feel they don't quite get it.
Perhaps if Tur understood that more, she'd be a better reporter.
posted by LAGuy @ 9:57 AM
6 Comments:
Hey, what happened to the Guy who wrote this: "I've never been much for blaming things on media bias. Our Mainstream Media doesn't seem to me to lean that strongly Dem or Repub (though things might vary by political issue), nor do I necessarily believe the bias we do have isn't countered elsewhere."
Though I certainly give you that it's countered elsewhere. I'd even say it's self-negating.
SWMBCg, etc.
Anyone who has ever been the subject of a story knows that (quite apart from political views), the story often does not capture the sense that those interviewed conveyed or meant to. In other words, "they don't quite get it," as stated.
While I have been rarely the subject of the news, in every instance I had that sense when reading the final product. And not always was the portrayal of me negative, if even there was such.
So what did the journalists do that bothered me? They went for a "story," a narrative arc with characters -often good and bad. The boring who, what, when, where, and how is not what we see, often. I assume reader prefer a narrative. I also assume that journalists prefer it as well. And this can be fine -IF done very carefully.
Now the real issue lately, very common in all journalism is the choice of what stories to tell. This is where the biggest bias occurs- selection bias.
None of this should criticism should be meant to undermine the important role of the press in our US society or more broadly. I have the greatest respect for the role.
To SWMBCg, etc.
I was waiting for you to respond that way (though I wasn't expecting actual quotes).
First, there can be plenty of bad or weak reporting--never denied that--while, at the same time, the general news available in papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post, or on network TV, essentially gets it right.
Second, things have gotten worse since I said that that (the quote is long enough ago that it was a different era). Politics has gotten more polarized and the reporters have also gotten more polarized.
Its difficult- good journalism and Trump admiration are mutually exclusive areas. One negates the other
It's not hard. Good journalism is good journalism in any era. Resistance is bad journalism no matter how you cut it.
Curses! Foiled again!
SWMBCg, etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home