"Mainstream Media" just isn't getting it - New York Times on President Elect Trump

OK, I've taken the year off basically and there have been reasons for that, but I want to weigh in on the subject of Traditional Media that has evolved into Corporate (shill) media and their personal biases against anyone and anything that doesn't toe their line. They don't represent a spectrum of opinion and they have chosen a role of Issue Creationism. Instead of providing information about the relevant current events that effect the public's lives, they are trying to create issues and formulate public opinion based on the issues they create.

I've also been hearing and reading a lot about what the Establishment and Status Quoers define as "Fake News" and "Fake News Sites". This all has evolved because people are seeking alternative sources of information, because the Establishment media has done what I describe above. The Establishment Media has narrowed their focus to the issues that define the Global Corporatists' agenda and seek to delegitimize anything that doesn't have a viewpoint through that prism. Make no mistake, those who push the "Fake News" meme are outing themselves as Global Corporatists. They should be called out on it.

I had the opportunity to listen to an audio from President-Elect Donald Trump's meeting with the New York Times (NYT) today. NYT felt a need to do a play-by-play description of the interview, which is fine, but goes a lot to the heart of the issue of what we saw with the traditional press's reporting of the elections this year.

What we have seen is that the traditional press has blurred the line between what should be editorial content versus the newsworthy actions that have taken place. There is a pride with traditional "old school" media that leaves no room for the reality of evolution and new technology. It is a sword that they are in the process of falling upon.

Mr. Trump believes he was treated unfairly by his hometown newspaper -- and as he states other media outlets. NYT and other media seem to take umbrage with the depiction, feigning innocence, teling the reading/listening world that they were only doing their job. Well, that would be perfectly fine, if they had covered the Hillary Clinton campaign with the same fervent gusto in editorializing Mr. Trump on every issues he brought forward or was brought forward against him in this campaign, instead NYT chose to fill a role as advocate for the Hillary and the Democrats.

Personally editorializing, I have no issue with NYT, or any other media outlet, being an advocate for a candidate, candidates, or issues; but they should be honest and upfront with the utmost transparency about where they stand. NYT, and other media outlets, have made the mistake, it seems, to believe that the news is about them and not the subject they are reporting on. Think about an artist. That is what a journalist is supposed to correlate with -- literature. Think about the portrait they are painting. Think about a fine work of art. In the Mona Lisa, I don't see Da Vinci's face in the picture. Yet, these self-important "journalists" seem to believe that part of their job is to now interject themselves into every subject.

NYT's presentation drips with the irony I describe above. We, the public, are supposed to look up to NYT, because of who they are. Their reporters tell us so in the lead up to the excerpts of this interview. The reporter (Ross Douthat) says that (his personal opinion, but he doesn't say it is his personal opinion - so is he speaking for everyone?) their is a fundamental surrealism about the man, Donald Trump. The reporter says he doesn't have a disrespect for the man, then he goes into Mr. Trump's background as a celebrity and businessman. Then he talks about how this meeting wasn't a formal and traditional meeting of a President and they aren't in awe of him.

Right there, from the get go, shows how biased and disrespectful this whole situation is. What made a Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton seemingly so awe inspiring? versus Mr. Trump? You see, that is this journalist's opinion, and it shows that the reporter isn't going to give Mr. Trump a fair shake, because he is essentially saying he doesn't respect him.

The reporter, Mr. Douthat states that he expected Mr. Trump to come in and be gracious (to the NYT) in a way he wasn't gracious to other media outlets in a recent meeting. Personally, I have learned, that isn't part of being a journalist. It is about having some sort of respect commodity. You earn respect by producing relevant information that has value. When you produce worthless opinionated tripe, then you aren't going to be respected. You are even entitled to have an opinion, if it is fair, justified, and constructive creating value.

To show the NYT's representative conceit, the reporter goes as far as to say that he expected Mr. Trump to be conciliatory showing deference to what a jewel the NYT is. Why should Mr. Trump be conciliatory. He won the Presidency in spite of all your newspaper did to try to keep that from happening. Your paper should be the ones who show conciliation in some form by at least going back and showing some humility in how wrong you had it about this election on so many accounts.

Mr. Trump even says that the NYT is a jewel. Not to put words in his mouth, but I believe he is speaking to what NYT was and represented, not the current iteration of what I believe are entitled, self-important pseudo-journalists who seem to feel that just because they work for the NYT they have been anointed as experts in the realm of whatever it is that they are reporting on. It doesn't work that way in the real world. In the real world you earn your position by creating value. Journalists create value by having credibility. Credibility comes from getting "it" (the news) right more than you get it wrong. The NYT got it completely wrong when it came to this election and that sinks their credibility rating. It doesn't matter what you have done in the past if you self-destruct your present.

I can go on and on, but you can go to the link to the article below and listen to the tone. It's basically another round table discussion on Trump. This is much of what personality and issue information has become. The media plays snippets of events and a group of people sit around and hash the subject matter out based upon a context they create through personal opinion. This is the echo chamber. This is where the lack of depth on issues comes from. Why not just throw a camera/microphone up in a bar. This is fine as an adjunct to news issues for further discussion of pertinent issues, but this is not news reporting.

I'll be back...

Audio: Inside the Room With President-Elect Donald Trump [The Run-Up] - New York Times - Michael Barbaro - November 23, 2016

Edits had to be done because my batteries were running low on my keyboard and so I had to proof read and re-edit. Peace to everyone on Thanksgiving.