MSNBC 'journalist' Mika Brzezinski: "I Can't Pretend" To Cover Donald Trump "Fairly"
Yesterday I mused about Univision 'journalist' Jorge Ramos and his inability to be neutral as a journalist. In my opinion, when the journalists become completely politicized then it greatly damages the public discussion.
Unbelievably, now MSNBC 'journalist' Mike Brzezinski comes out as a politicized 'reporter'. How can anyone have any trust or belief in public discussion when the 'mainstream media' when they are openly politicized? Will tools like Steem change the economic incentives and bring back the ability to have an authentic discussion?
MSNBC 'Morning Joe' host Mika Brzezinski responded to Trump calling Hillary Clinton a "bigot," saying:
You have no idea. You have no idea what your words mean. And I can't pretend to sort of try and cover this fairly, and put it in the veil of objectivity. This is wrong. You have no idea what your words mean and what you're doing to this country.
What do you think? Do you want journalists that play politicized games with the facts that they present to the People? Or do you want investigative journalists that discover and report the facts no matter what they are? How can Steem change the economic incentives and behaviors of the journalists?
I'm happy that Trump is forcing some hands.
The more the media loses their minds over him, the more their mask slips off.
I'd like to see journalists leave major publications and organizations like MSNBC and work freelance full-time reporting within Steemit. They wouldn't be owned by anyone, which likely can't be said by this Brzezinski muppet.
@blakemiles84 In a normal year, I agree that the media favoring democrats is wrong. Now, there are multiple sources, to take just one example, that claim Trump doesn't like to read, to the point where he doesn't want long reports, doesn't read books, has never read a presidential biography. There are many people who would find this a bad thing in a presidencial candidate, myself included. If the msm can verify this as true, they have an obligation to report it, just as they would be obligated to report Hillary having a private email server or a major disease. When Trump had that bad ten days in early august and got lots of negative coverage, that was his fault, not the fault of the msm.
Finally, I view Trump as that old saying "which one of these things is not like the others" and the answer is T trump, for only bad reasons. We've had presidents as corrupt as Hillary, like LBJ and Nixon and they both did many good things while in office. In short, I think Trump is such a serious threat I'm alright with the media highlighting why. Especially when so many people vote their party on reflex.
The internet is killing these MSM platforms. CNN ratings are in death spiral. They recently got caught editing the Milwaukee shooting victims sister down to a 4 second clip of her calling for peace from a clip of her telling people to go burn down the suburbs. It's all about narrative with these people.
As long as mainsteam media is a for-profit business, it will always be corrupt. The only time you see actual truth, is when the person retires their career and is no longer owned by the network.
I have not idea. I have not watched fallacy-world, main stream media stations for over 15 years. Ad-hominems, red herrings, band-wagon, etc. It just goes on and on, giving me a headache. They can't even follow a spoken sentence to the final period.
They seem to feel the need to air partial statements. It's all there to misinform. This is a horrible elections cycle - that is for sure. Criminal or Business man?
Mika is one special snowflake. She will stop and stare into the camera with a half shocked half confused doe face. Its no surprise she would half say this and yeh I'd like to see a journalistic revolution or sorts.
First things first, for anyone who doesn't watch, Morning Joe, the program under discussion is clearly clearly not straight news, its news with the hosts giving their opinions. Its not supposed to be straight news
Mika says outright she's too horified to be objective anymore. And to counter her we have all of Fox news, which is sucking Trumps dick and licking his balls.
How you feel about this depends on how you feel about Trump, obviously. I genuinely believe, not that Trump is certainly a Republic ending threat, but that he's the biggest internal threat to the United States, including domestic terrorists and the like, that is, if we elect him, we're risking disaster. Its not certain, but its more likely just because he's the president. Either because he'll overreact to a foreign leader, or because something he does will create a constitutional Chrisis, by say ordering a general to do something against the law. Or by ignoring the Supreme Court when it makes a descision.
For all the talk of Obama being a dictator, he doesn't tell the supreme court to fuck itself when it rules against him. He goes on tv and says, "that was very disappointing," and moves on.
I know journalists are supposed to be objective. I understand that. But at the same time, I think journalists have a loyalty to facts. So when Trump says he'll build a wall across the entire southern boarder, and if, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, 99.5 percent of engineres say this is imposible, journalists have a duty to report what the experts are saying on that subject. I find the bigger problem with todays media is that they have a need to balance everything. Full disclosier, I'm not a republican, but this problem isn't always favoring my side. The problem is that if I get a following by saying the moon is made of cheese, and all reputable scientists tell me I'm wrong, when the msm covers the story, they'll have two scientists on saying I'm insane, but then they'll feel the obligation to find someone who agrees with me and they'll put him or her on tv for five minutes, even though that person is objectively wrong. The headline in that case should be "man falsely claims moon is made of cheese."
As inteligent people, we should not be relying on one media source. CNN, for example, shouldn't be your only source of news, pitty the thought. However, if you have a problem with the mainstream media, and then tell me Alex Jones is the shit, I'm dismissing you right away, no further thought necisary.
For me, what I want from my media is facts first, inturpritation of those facts second. A five minute news report about what Trump said recently, followed by opinion depending on the program.
And finally, I believe Trump is such a serious threat to the republic, who conducts himself in such an unorthodox manner, that he'll get unorthodox coverage. He's brought much of that biased coverage, but not all of it, on himself through campaigning in a very unusual way, to say the least.
Just so everyone knows where I stand. My thoughts on Hillary are that first, if I don't want Trump, I have to want Hillary to be president, its either her or him. And second, I'm not against the status quo, I'm for it, with slow change, by which I mean not only obama, but Bush JR, Clinton, Bush JR, Reagan, Carter, etc. Hillary Clinton represents the status quo, Trump does not.
I don't think the alagations against Clinton affect her descisions about United States foreign policy. If you want money you don't go into politics. You do something else that gives you more money. Everyone running for president wants power. Its what you actually do with that power once you get it that matters.
"Or do you want investigative journalists that discover and report the facts no matter what they are?"
The main stream media in America has been a CIA front for decades. It is therefore impossible to expect journalists to be anything more than the puppets they are.