https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1250067315783274504

This is something anti-anti-Trump and Trump sympathetic figures say time and time again. They disagree with whatever crazy thing Trump says, and then attack the media for covering it. They think Trump's bizarre statements from the podium are supposed to be waved away, as if they came from a homeless person or a toddler.

Of course it's true that Trump is the king of lies, bullshit, and bluster. But he's not a toddler... the media is supposed to treat his words in a serious manner. The fact that this is something much of the right-wing disagrees with shows just how empty their media criticisms are. They've completely forgotten what the media is there to do.

Is that really it? Are the Trump sympathetic figures really attacking the media for the mere fact of covering something unflattering Trump has said, or are they mostly attacking the media for the specific way in which they cover Trump? Is it really a cultist "how dare you criticize the emperor"-reaction, or is it rather a "your criticism is unfair, and here are the reasons why"-kind of reaction?

In a similar vein, I feel like there is a huge disconnect between the importance that Trump supporters assign to his fibbing and hyperbolic rhetoric versus the importance the liberal media and Trump-critics give it.
"We know he talks and tweets a lot of shit, we've gotten used to it, and frankly, we just dont care" vs "shit talking and lying is dangerous and inappropriate behavior for a president, how could anyone ever accept such a low standard from the man occupying the highest office in the nation".

This disconnect is often surfacing here on PaRD too.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 14 2020 11:00am

the disconnect is hypocritical on both sides. yes yes i know "what if Obama said it" is a hacky response these days. but it's mostly hacky because people are tired of facing their own hypocrisy. When Obama spoke he was a danger to Trump diehards, and liberals in turn refuse to admit anything Obama said or did was problematic. One good example is Trump connection to the KKK via figures like David Duke, who we can all admit isn't really a central part of anything Trump has ever done. They have a tangential connection. But Obama's pastor being problematic is clearly more central to who obama is, whilst his supporters act like this connection means nothing.

David Duke you say - the usual privileged lefties’ default “gotcha” when they run out of material to cry about

yup, the same lefties that will draw 437 lines in the sand to explain why the "communist" label isn't appropriate for Bernie will be happy to make it seem like Duke and Trump are best buds.

ah like when he claims to have "ultimate power" because he says so.. And the one reporter is trying to tell him that the president really doesn't have that right etc.. he throws a kid tantrum "ENOUGH"
Guy's lucky I don't have a press pass LOL " hey you fat fucking liar, wtf is wrong with you?" would be my first fucking question.
seriously going to keep beating this drum.. WHAT IS THERE TO DEFEND? Why are we stooping so low to nit pick that the guy acts like a fucking child, who has half turned C19 daily reports into pseudo campaign agendas.

Please get a press pass. Please. What state are you in? I could probably direct you to someone who can help you although I get the feeling after talking to you for two seconds that said person would laugh hysterically, I'm still willing to help.

get it for me.. but you are a troll anyway so boring

I'm not going to do shit for you commie, get it yourself. Read the English better.

huh? you should check your own messages troll.

This post was edited by theCrossbones on Apr 14 2020 04:52pm