The Media's New Mantra Is Dump On Trump
Now more than ever, with social media polarizing debates left and right based on little more than how people feel about an issue, it is vitally important that we fact check anything people say before choosing a side on an issue. And just because the source came from the mainstream media does not make it credible either.
I didn't vote for Trump but if people are expected to believe the media the media needs to get their facts straight or they will lose all credibility.
I watched a video of women talking at a Woman's March rally claiming that Trump hates women and when someone asked why they think that they said because he doesn't appoint women to positions of power. So I fact-checked it and it turns out he does.
The media keeps saying that President Donald Trump is anti-women. If that is true then why has he appointed more women to senior positions in his first two years in office than any other president and why are the liberal newspapers and glossy magazines who claim to love women not reporting it?
His list of female appointees is long: Nikki Haley, Ambassador to the United Nations (not only a woman but also child of Indian American Sikh immigrants); Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation; Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Heather Wilson, Secretary of the Air Force; Sarah Sanders, White House Press Secretary; Kellyanne Conway, Counselor to the President; Linda McMahon, Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration; Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education; Jovita Carranza, U.S. Treasurer (also a minority and first-generation Mexican American immigrant); Neomi Rao, Regulation Czar (also a minority and daughter of parents from India); Seema Verma, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (also a minority); Heather Brand, Associate Attorney General; Kelly Sadler, Director of Surrogate & Coalitions Outreach; Mercedes Schlapp, Senior Communications Advisor (also a minority whose father was once a political prisoner of Fidel Castro); Ivanka Trump, Advisor to the President; Hope Hicks, Communications Director; Jessica Ditto, Deputy Director of Communications; and Dina Powell, Deputy National Security Adviser who according to White House sources will remain in her position through the end of January and will likely be replaced by another woman after Powell completes her first year in office.
The only president who appointed more women in US history was Obama in his 8-years in office. Given more time, at this rate, I'm sure Trump's number of female appointees will surpass those numbers.
Elaine Chao, the former labor secretary, is Trump's choice for transportation secretary. Chao, who was born in Taipei, Taiwan, and arrived in the US with her family at the age of 8, became the first Asian-American woman to serve in a Cabinet position.
Verma, who is the daughter of Indian immigrants and a graduate of Johns Hopkins University also served as Indiana's health reform lead following the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Obama Care, and is Trump's pick as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Why are organizations like The Women's March, National Organization for Women, Association for Women’s Rights in Development, not only not reporting this truth but they are actually reporting the exact opposite?
All three of these facts, in particular, seem very newsworthy so I find it very peculiar they have not made the pages of mainstream news organizations and pro-women publications.
Publications that claim to support women's rights should be all over this story, but they're not because it has become a selling point to hate on Trump. It would seem to hate Trump sells more papers than women achieving history-making success even among the groups that stand for women's rights.
Despite impressive hiring practices during his first year in the White House, President Donald Trump has received little to no credit for his choice of women for the most senior positions on his cabinet, as well as the West Wing.
In fact, the mainstream media only selectively reported on the male appointees of the Trump administration, claiming that he was appointing “more white and male than any first cabinet since Reagan.” This myth was perpetuated by Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) comments as well as media reports that Trump only valued the opinions of “guys named Steve.”
The New York Times even reported on Jan. 13, 2017 — a full week before Trump even took the oath of office or set foot in the oval office — that he apparently preferred men over women for senior roles.
The organization never published a follow-up story, in the same way touting the roles that women impressively took on within the administration. Instead, they chose to focus on the inane differences of “inner-cabinet” members (those in the line of succession to the presidency) versus other cabinet members, rather than looking at the wide-sweeping empowerment and hiring of women across the entire White House operation.
One of the greatest successes of Trump’s first year in office has been the empowerment of women. Certainly, there have been plenty of other successes in the first year of the Trump administration — a record stock market surpassing 25,000, unemployment at a 17-year low, illegal border crossings lowered by 76 percent, a unanimous United Nations resolution against a nuclear North Korea, and more than 1 million bonuses given to American workers in just the last three weeks thanks to Trump’s leadership on tax reform. However, to write about those accomplishments without mentioning the women who helped make it happen is to miss part of the story.
So, why have the mainstream media given him no credit? Why haven’t the glossy magazines – who pride themselves on empowering women in the workplace — given him credit where credit is due? If Hillary Clinton were president, they would be touting her accomplishments.
The answer is because Trump is a Republican. It’s accurate to state that he is just not their guy.
How can one prove this?
Only seven percent of journalists recently identified as republican during the last presidential election cycle; that’s right, ninety-three percent of journalists said they were not republican in 2015. Compare this number to 1992 when the New York Times reported that just 44 percent of journalists claimed to be Democrats.
The Center for Public Integrity also revealed through its analysis of the 2016 elections that journalists “overwhelmingly donated” to Hillary Clinton. So much for independently refereeing the match.
However, just because Trump doesn’t receive credit for his hiring of women doesn’t mean it’s any less significant. source
So when people claim that the media is biased it would appear to be true. Facts are facts and he is hiring women for senior positions, the media is just not reporting on it which is bad enough, but to actively report that he is against women is not only damaging to the president but also to the credibility of the press and by extension to the country as a whole.
People are making assumptions based on what they hear in the news and falsely reporting this storyline is not good for anyone nor does it support the idea of democracy which requires a well-informed citizen to function properly.
Feelings and popular opinions of the news don't offer enough factual information to make informed decisions on issues in this climate. Just because a video has gone viral and the media is parroting a narrative does not make it real news. From now on I'm double and triple checking everything the media reports especially when it comes to Trump.
Have I chosen sides on Trump or not? No, but I don't believe he hates women and if there is a side to choose I'll choose the side of equality every time. I also strongly choose to make real informed decisions based on provable information, not emotional claims based on what the media is saying. Both those positions are not mutually exclusive. I'm not a Democrat or Republican and think of myself as an Optimistocrat.
The whole idea that you're either with us or against us on an issue, especially when it's based on false information, is something I completely reject. Things are never that clear cut. The more people keep believing the claims that the media and YouTubers make without doing the research for themselves, the farther we will drift apart until we lose our ability to think for ourselves and reach any consensus, something I believe the media and the politicians are fully aware of and exploit for their benefit, not ours.
So, I urge everyone to think for themselves and do your own research before being so quick to believe anything presented to you. Now, more than ever, we need critical thinkers.
Related Posts
Do You Think Nancy Pelosi Should Have Compromised On Donald Trump's Offer For Border Security?
Why The Status Quo Hates Trump - It's Not About A Wall
Luzcypher's Announcement For Steem Witness
How dare you to ask me to think for myself! That's rac....Erhm... I mean misogyn...naah that's not right... Open minded?
Let's all have a beta cock group hug
Hahahaha! That's so funny.
I just recently posted something about that Gillette ad.
https://steemit.com/news/@luzcypher/men-don-t-have-a-monopoly-on-violence-the-myth-of-female-innocence
Maybe Republicans should ask themselves why journalists don’t vote Republican. Finding the answer and correcting the problem, if they feel it is and if they want those journalists’ votes, they can then fix it, otherwise they must like all the negative coverage.
Trump should start by actually getting a real hair cut instead of that stupid narcissistic vain comb over... the truth starts with that.
Posted using Partiko iOS
How Trump wears his hair has nothing to do with the truth in journalism which is what this post is about. Plus, journalists are bound by an oath to report the facts regardless of their political affiliations.
When a journalist goes to journalism college they drill into their head's the Journalist's Creed. The creed has been published in more than 100 languages, and a bronze plaque of The Journalist's Creed hangs at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
It makes no difference what political party a journalist is affiliated with they are supposed to follow that creed and certain ethics for the benefit of the public to ensure we are getting real news. Apparently, those ethics have gone out the window.
Journalism ethics are very specific. While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability, as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.
Like many broader ethical systems, journalism ethics include the principle of "limitation of harm". This often involves the withholding of certain details from reports such as the names of minor children, crime victims' names or information not materially related to particular news reports release of which might, for example, harm someone's reputation.
But what journalism has degraded into today is transactional journalism and that is very dangerous for a fully functioning society.
Reporters may offer favorable treatment in exchange for what they call getting a scoop. They may agree to let an interview subject dictate terms and topics and timing of publication. They may promise to ask some questions and avoid others. They may carry on cozy relationships that allow reporting to be influenced in ways they don't disclose to the public. Usually, reporters are favorable with those with whom they're ideologically in sync. All of this is bad for the public good and manipulates the debate. It makes it easy for a special interest group to accomplish a smear or put forth their agenda.
Today, the news bombards us with the same messages over and over again and when they do that I can't help but question the validity of what they are saying. Was it really investigative journalism that leads to the stories we're reading on the front pages or were they spoon fed to reporters to control the narrative and shape public opinion towards a conclusion regardless of whether the facts support the story? All too often, it seems, there are no facts to back up many of the stories we're reading.
I wrote more about this in How Fake News Happens Through Transactional Journalism - What Happened To Real Investigative Journalism?
Thanks for the dissertation, hehehe, but you could have just said journalist swore an oath to be unbiased and impartial.
And all I was saying was that the RepubliCons must be doing something to push all those journalists to the left.
Posted using Partiko iOS
That is an interesting point that would be worth investigating further. All I'm saying is real journalism is supposed to actively refrain from being biased and report the full story. In this case they don't appear to be doing that.
Could this be like a US Marine ordered to gun down Vietnamese babies... what to do? Follow orders or make shit up to get out of the situation?
Posted using Partiko iOS
What does journalistic ethics have to to do with following military orders? I don't see the connection.
I'm visiting Vietnam ATM. Beautiful country.
Both are supposed do something such as follow orders or remain unbiased... but what happens when the order is unethical or the politician is unethical?
Some marines rebel and some journalists fudge.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Oh, I see the comparison you're making. In both cases, the rules and procedure for not following orders or breaching journalistic ethics is clearly laid out. The military court martial's the offender and the journalist is supposed to get fired.
Journalism, unfortunately, has become more of a business and the public relations department of various business and political interests instead of real journalism. That is concerning and problematic for democracy. It also means that we have to rely more on our own critical thinking and research from different sources to come up with something closer to the truth about various issues.
We can't take any reported story at face value and must dig deeper to get the full picture, something most people will not take the time to do. This means we'll end up with more sheep who buy whatever story is presented to them as long as it supports their world view.
Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)
Ways you can help the @informationwar!
Hi @luzcypher!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 6.688 which ranks you at #129 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 220 contributions, your post is ranked at #15.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
I don’t think the argument that he hates women is grounded in reality, that’s just a silly thing to say. However, he does have a history of being a misogynistic prick.
I'm pretty sure every human on the planet has been a prick at some point or another throughout their lives.
I'm curious how a person strongly prejudiced against women, the very definition of misogynistic, could also hire more women in senior positions in their first two years of office than any other president.
How do we account for that exactly?