New York Times: ‘Truth and Lies in the Age of Trump’
In its editorial (10.12.16), the New York Times posits:
‘The institutions that once generated and reaffirmed that shared reality — including the church, the government, the news media, the universities and labor unions — are in various stages of turmoil or even collapse. Because Mr. Trump himself has little regard for facts, it was easy for him to capitalize on this situation. …
‘Without a Walter Cronkite to guide them, how can Americans find the path back to a culture of commonly accepted facts, the building blocks of democracy? A president and other politicians who care about the truth could certainly help them along. In the absence of leaders like that, media organizations that report fact without regard for partisanship, and citizens who think for themselves, will need to light the way.’
News coverage of the US election: how the press failed the voters
Via Australian Policy Online (7.12.16):
‘This report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage during the 2016 general election, and concludes that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump received coverage that was overwhelmingly negative in tone and extremely light on policy.’
The tainted US election
Paul Krugman comments in the Brisbane Times (13.12.16):
‘Did the combination of Russian and FBI intervention swing the election? Yes. Clinton lost three states – Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania – by less than a percentage point, and Florida by only slightly more. If she had won any three of those states, she would be president-elect. Is there any reasonable doubt that Putin/Comey made the difference?
‘And it wouldn’t have been seen as a marginal victory, either. Even as it was, Clinton received almost 3 million more votes than her opponent, giving her a popular margin close to that of George W. Bush in 2004.’