MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell tore into the major cable news networks, including MSNBC, on Thursday after they aired former President Donald Trump’s press conference live and didn’t “fact-check every lie” he told.
O’Donnell then complained that “to make a bad news coverage situation worse, none of the networks – none of them – carried Kamala Harris’ speech live after the Trump appearance. None of them.”
O’Donnell concluded, “It’s 2016 all over again. The same mistakes are being made. I have never seen an industry slower at learning from its own stupid mistakes than the American news business, and you cannot expect them in the next 89 days to figure out what they haven’t been able to figure out in nine years: how to cover a Trump for president campaign.”
I watched both the Trump conference and O’Donnell’s take live and, yeah, he has a point.
The feed I had, you couldn’t hear the reporters questions at all. So all you could hear was Trump and there was no way to know what the actual question was based on his answers.
But nobody follows up on ANY politician and it’s been that way for a couple of decades now.
The classic example I always cite is one that happens all the time:
“Well, we’re going to get rid of job-killing regulations.”
The logical follow up question would be:
“Can you cite an example of a regulation you’d get rid of and in what way it’s a job killer?”
But nobody ever asks that question.
I think the more egregious part is that all of the networks covered Trump’s press conference, then failed to cover Harris’ speech. Giving air time to one candidate and not the other is not balanced reporting. It is giving free publicity to one candidate over the other. They went to Trump’s house on short notice rather than cover Harris’ public speech with plenty of notice.
Yup. Same as 2016…
“We’re live outside the venue where Trump is about to speak in just 7 short hours…”
Bernie Sanders hosts 30,000 people? Crickets.
But nobody follows up on ANY politician and it’s been that way for a couple of decades now.
Denver’s own Kyle Clark has entered the chat. He did a debate (don’t click; it’s boring af) for the CO4 house seat that included Boebert, and he didn’t let her get away with anything. It was great to watch. He’s absolutely loved locally, and probably has a future at the local level.
His interview with the Republican who paid for his girlfriend’s abortion was glorious.
The feed I had, you couldn’t hear the reporters questions at all.
That is true so often, even when it’s a non-crazy press conference. It would be so easy to just stick an omnidirectional mic in the press gaggle.
It’s intentional. If they had a mic for the press, you’d see the press better able to, well, press the politician in question.
The last thing people like Trump want is a journalist pressing him on why he keeps dodging questions and chopping word-salad.
But I don’t just mean for Trump. They almost never do it.
What the person being questioned is supposed to do is repeat the question before answering it. I suspect they’re intentionally not doing that.
Sure, but it’s not necessary. An omni mic in the press gaggle would be fine. It wouldn’t even require much work in terms of an audio mix and they definitely have someone doing a live mix anyway. We’re talking fading in and out.
Right? That’s how we get grilled in interviews. We can’t get away with general statements without answering the question, but somehow no one asks a presidential candidate the same follow-up questions.
deleted by creator
He famously doesn’t drink alcohol, but I’m sure he’d appreciate something else. :)
deleted by creator
A pan-galaxtic gargle blaster!
Dayum, don’t murder the guy!
weed?
He’s mad as hell and he’s not going to take this anymore.
There are many news segments with high degree of truth. Each and every journalist that makes a such a stand risks their career and often their life and the lives of their family to bring us the truth.
I’d never really thought about a journalist as a human being before I watched the movie Network (1976): Howard Beale, a prominent newscaster, perceives that he’s nothing to lose. Harrison’s Flowers (2000) does a great job depicting the risks associated with reporting a war and likely is the reason Adrien Brody was cast in The Pianist.
He’s mad as hell and he’s not going to take this anymore.
Great scene from a great movie!
The segment: https://youtu.be/ZD-oTJ49nls?si=Nw811XFtixpvDmr3
Damn, that got me a little hard and I’m not even american
Lawrence is an OG Edward R. Murow type mfer. He simply does not give a fuck and he nerds out over arcane political history on his show. It’s like having a civics class with the cool professor that you actually don’t want to miss.
on his show
He does this a lot? I’ve never seen him and I thought this was his resignation. I half expected Budd Dwyer, honestly.
Should I start watching news television again? News people speak so slowly so I usually read the news instead of watching it.
Maybe it’s not a mistake.
MSNBC is owned by NBCUniversal is owned by Comcast. Any publicly traded corporation – let alone one making over $100 billion in annual revenue – will trample over anyone and anything – democracy itself included – in service of its bottom line. They exist solely to grow without bound as fast as possible like a cancer.
Don’t let the company be faceless - it lets them escape accountability. The executive team at Comcast are willing to destroy democracy for a slightly higher bonus.
Ackchyually, it’s the their major shareholders.
Edit: Downvote away, but read the threads under this comment. It’s kinda important to understand if you’re unhappy with the status quo.
Shareholders are not creating the program schedule.
The shareholders hire the people who create the programming schedule. The shareholders are their boss. Those executives know what their bosses want: maximum profits, and thus maximum shareholder value.
You’re not wrong but it doesn’t even matter what the shareholders want. Company executives are legally obligated to secure profits if they’re publicly traded.
You’re not wrong but it doesn’t even matter what the shareholders want.
Of course it does. Shareholders elect the board of directors, and the board of directors hire the CEO. The shareholders, at least the majority shareholders, are the ultimate authority.
Company executives are legally obligated to secure profits if they’re publicly traded.
CEOs have an obligation to do what their bosses want them to do, which is true of every employee. Employees are hired to do what their bosses tell them to do, and if they don’t they get fired. CEOs are hired by shareholders, shareholders are investors, investors want maximum return on their investment.
That isn’t a justification as securing profits could be approached in numerous different ways. What we see typically is a focus on short-term profits at the expense of the company and it’s long-term viability. You could easily argue that doing this is a disservice to the company, its employees, and the shareholders.
That’s a cop-out. It’s the execs.
Who hires the executives?
The board. Usually composed of the largest shareholders.
Exactly.
I have no idea why you’re being down voted because you’re 100% right. Executives are EMPLOYEES. They are hired, and FIRED, BY the shareholders. They do what the shareholders want them to do.
Edit: I’m baffled at how many people don’t know how corporations are actually structured. Let me help you:
Shareholders are the owners. Each shareholder owns a percentage of the corporation. All the shareholders together own the corporation, it is theirs. The shareholders elect a board of directors to make decisions on their behalf. This board of directors hires the CEO, whose job it is to oversee and manage the operations of the corporation.
Yeah, it’s interesting.
To complete the picture, if the major shareholders set a goal of maximizing profits, this seeps into the hiring of execs and other employees down the chain as well as sets their goals. For example, a manager hiring a news journalist might hire a candidate that’s more amenable to producing clickbait than dry reporting, if that generates more views. Another example - the board might decide that doing entertainment for a certain demographic while dressing it as news could be a profit maximizing endeavor. Then all the hiring afterwards has to acquire people who would conform to these goals. If this example sounds familiar, that’s on purpose. 😂
Yes, and remember, there’s like 100 people/families who are THE major shareholders for all the big corporations… But they make it impossible to figure out who exactly they are because they hide behind blackrock and vanguard… If we’re going to name and shame anyone, it should be the owners.
Corporate media are doing everything they can to usher in a dictatorship that will see the end of freedom of the press. And if Trump wins in November, they will deserve it. The problem, of course, is they’re going to drag all of us along with them.
Pretty sure most of them gave up on freedom of the press a long time ago… Now they’re just pr for the oligarchy
Not American but I just hope they don’t fire him as retaliation. Maybe he can’t be fired for some reason, or maybe he just isn’t afraid to speak the truth, idk. Just, the world needs more people like that.
From my understanding, there’s nothing protecting him from being fired for this
Mistakes? I mean, if it’s deliberately done to drive views or a deeper, more nefarious agenda by right-wing billionaire media empire owners…is that a mistake?
Trump gets rating. MSNBC is a corporation. The primary objective of corporations is to raise shareholder value. They have no requirements to tell the truth or do what’s best for Americans. They will do whatever helps their shareholders and if that is ushering in a second trump presidency, they will do it.
Trump brings in viewers because he constantly says dumb shit. He’s a cash cow for networks.
Which is mind boggling to me because I would literally pay to never have to hear a word from him ever again.
His rant legitimizes everything I’ve said since 2016.
Broadcast Media is complicit in the right, and in Trump.
During the election they gave him tens of millions of dollars of free coverage/advertising that no other candidate got.
They have always treated him with soft hands, never pushing or fact checking like they would anyone else.
Miss democratic events to attend Trumps bullshit, then claim democrats don’t hold enough events… That they actively don’t cover and report on.
It has a vested financial interest in the right wing, and in Trumps presidency, because they constantly create controversy which drives viewership.
How many times did you hear about what Biden had done outside of Republican false hysteria? About his policies? About the good his policies could do, or did do, for the American people? About the support his policies, and he himself had? I bet you dont even need a full hand to count the times.
How many times has Trump been in the news? Republicans? How many times do they just let them come on, spout their raw, bullshit propaganda and lies completely unchallenged? Treating them like their disgusting, immoral bullshit is just as valid and just as important as any actual crisis facing the actual, everyday American public? Almost every time they are on Camera.
Broadcast media in America has betrayed the people, betrayed the country, and betrayed their duty to their journalistic ethics. And for what? Ratings. Ratings. Ratings and corporate access/power. The journalists on the street, and in the studios, Sold their integrity for the benefit of the powers above them rather than investigating it and revealing it.
Mediaite - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Mediaite:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
