It’s just a little ironic that a politician obtuse business person who boasts about his tax plans to support America’s biggest corporations would also be the person who the market, aka big business, distrusts most.
According to The New York Times’ Economic View writer Justin Wolfers, “stocks may lose 10 to 12 per cent of their value if [Trump] wins the November election.”
The article this post stems from is an opinion piece by a New York Times journalist who covers women’s rights, human rights, health and global affairs. Clearly, he is a democrat. This being said, his point is extremely valid regardless of what party he affiliates himself with: the media has a responsibility not to portray candidates within a shallow narrative, as they consistently and frustratingly do. (Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban has recently spoken out about this as well.) Not only is this not fair to the candidates, but it isn’t fair to the audience, the population, who trust journalists and the media to give them a full picture of what is going on in an election cycle.
The media has a responsibility not to portray candidates within a shallow narrative, as they consistently and frustratingly do.
All of that being said, the title of the article is: “When a Crackpot Runs for President.” But, I mean, he has a point.
Here is an excerpt:
On the PolitiFact website, 13 percent of Clinton’s statements that were checked were rated “false” or “pants on fire,” compared with 53 percent of Trump’s. Conversely, half of Clinton’s are rated “true” or “mostly true” compared to 15 percent of Trump statements.
Clearly, Clinton shades the truth — yet there’s no comparison with Trump.
I’m not sure that journalism bears responsibility, but this does raise the thorny issue of false equivalence, which has been hotly debated among journalists this campaign. Here’s the question: Is it journalistic malpractice to quote each side and leave it to readers to reach their own conclusions, even if one side seems to fabricate facts or make ludicrous comments?
President Obama weighed in this week, saying that “we can’t afford to act as if there’s some equivalence here.”
Read the full article by Nicholas Kristof published in The New York Times Opinion Pages on Sept. 15 2016, here.
Feature image via Newsday.com
Editor’s note: this article may border on an op-ed as there may be some personal opinions present…
On Sunday The New York Times published a timeline of all the outrageous, mean, stupid, even stupider, and plain ignorant things that good ‘ol Trump has said. Out loud. On tv and at conventions. The whole thing is unbelievable. Last summer a former colleague and I were in San Francisco watching the initial republican candidate debates and couldn’t believe that Trump had actually put himself in the race. We concluded that it was most certainly a stunt and that he likely had a new tv show premiering and was interested in ratings. Funny enough, yesterday I was listening to Hillary Clinton’s podcast and she said that she had had the exact same thoughts about Trump. But sweet jesus, no, this is a not a drill, I repeat, this is not a drill. This is real life and it is kind of terrifying that there are people want such a crazed, lying, loon for president, even if they don’t like Clinton. Clearly I am biased here. There have been and are many republican leaders I had felt support for and admired, but this guy deserves neither for all of the same reasons that we wouldn’t like a human in real life – there’s not much to respect. But, I digress.
This timeline is very important because it not only highlights a ton of stupidity, it also shows you at what point the republicans started abandoning The Donald in favour of my girl Hillary. It’s also the first time in history that a party has so publicly denounced its own candidate, as well as the first time that prominent republicans are choosing to vote for the democratic candidate. Without further ado, here is the timeline and all of the GOP people who say No, Trump, just no, sit down (or f*ck off).
Feature image via Salon.com
