In the final weeks of the presidential campaign, major newspapers are giving former President Donald Trump’s federal criminal indictment for alleged crimes related to the January 6 insurrection a fraction of the coverage they gave former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server in 2016, according to a new Media Matters study. Media Matters reviewed print coverage in five newspapers — Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post — for stories mentioning Trump’s indictment in the week following U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s October 2 unsealing of special counsel Jack Smith’s latest filing, which reveals damning new evidence of the former president’s alleged crimes.  We found the papers ran 26 combined articles mentioning Trump’s indictment in the week after the unsealing of Smith’s filing. But those same papers published 100 combined articles — nearly 4 times as many — that mentioned Clinton’s server in the week after then-FBI Director James Comey’s notorious October 28, 2016, letter on new developments in that probe, as we documented in a 2016 study. The papers ran more than 6 times as many combined front-page stories that mentioned Clinton’s server (46) as they did front-page stories that mentioned Trump’s indictment (7) over those periods. Obsessive news media focus on Clinton’s server in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign helped Trump to victory, even as Comey ultimately reconfirmed that no charges were appropriate in the case. But eight years later, with one presidential candidate facing active prosecution for federal charges related to his attempt to subvert an election, outlets are making different choices.
    • Optional@lemmy.world
      3·
      1 month ago

      There are no records that any of the executives referred to in the post donated directly to Trump’s presidential campaigns.

      Are there records that all of the executives referred to in the post donated to a PAC or a SuperPAC that funnels millions to trump?

      No. There aren’t any PAC donation records because SCROTUS legalized dark money. Of course we could argue about it, OR just look at the editorial slants and take this obvious fact at face value. Or assume the opposite in the ironic attempt to fight misinformation.

      In 2016 CBS Chairman Les Moonvees, before being removed for sexual harassment, said, “trump may not be good for America, but he’s great for CBS!” - and that was to a crowded room of employees and investors. Did he donate the maximum $2500 to trump as well? I say it’s a moot point.

      • pjwestin@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 month ago

        OK, so what you’re saying is that you know there’s no evidence to back up your claims, but you’re assuming they’re true based on your opinion of these outlets editorial decisions, and you’d like your opinion to be treated as a fact. Did I get that right?

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 month ago

          No, you did not get that right.

          What I’m saying is, I’ll accept the fact-check that there is no record of them personally donating to the trump campaign directly, and that’s sufficient to remove the image.

          HOWEVER, everyone needs to be very clear there are a myriad of ways the wealthy can “donate” to campaigns because of Citizens United, and that the media outlets in question have a long and verifiable history of not reporting damaging news or editorial slants against trump which in many ways is more valuable than $2500 in cash.

          SUCH THAT the idea that these CEO’s are not “donating” to trump because they didn’t give the legally required name for a direct campaign donation is laughable. HA!

          • pjwestin@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 month ago

            There aren’t any PAC donation records because SCROTUS legalized dark money. Of course we could argue about it, OR just look at the editorial slants and take this obvious fact at face value.

            Maybe you should clarify what the, “obvious fact,” was that we should take at face value. Because based on the context, it really sounds like you wanted us to accept your debunked infographic as fact.

            • Optional@lemmy.world
              1·
              1 month ago

              It’s pretty clear. If not, I’m not sure what to say to clarify.

              Media owners help trump. Much more than a personal cash donation would. Which is why, when the “debunking” states media owners don’t help (“donate to”) trump, it’s ironic.

              By saying the infographic is “debunked”, the implication is that media owners are not supporting trump. And I say again - they could very well be giving millions, as Elmo Musk does, without being directly identified in an FEC filing. So, the “debunking” is itself “debunked” by simply pointing out political donations can be unknown.

              To restate, so you can clip ‘n save:

              • all the corporate news owners listed in the now-deleted infographic support trump
              • voluntary support for trump could be considered “a donation” (of time, influence, other)
              • to say that the above has been “debunked” because these multi-millionaires didn’t give their name as an individual political donor is (a) technically true and (b) very much beside the point that the heads of all major corporate news media in America are supporting trump in some fashion if not in multiple ways including financial donations.

              So, pop quiz hotshot: is the infographic “misleading”?

              • pjwestin@lemmy.world
                1·
                1 month ago

                By saying the infographic is “debunked”, the implication is that media owners are not supporting trump. And I say again - they could very well be giving millions, as Elmo Musk does, without being directly identified in an FEC filing. So, the “debunking” is itself “debunked” by simply pointing out political donations can be unknown.

                OK, but by the logic you’re using, you could accuse anyone of anything. I could make an infographic that says, “Kamala Harris was caught killing small animals as a child,” and when someone says that never happened, I could just say, “Well, juvenile records are almost always sealed and expunged, and people who seek power are often have sociopathic tendencies, so this debunking is debunked, since it’s an unknown.” It’s just using the adage, “yhe absence of proof isn’t the proof of absence,” as a justification to continue spreading a lie.

                • Optional@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  1 month ago

                  Indeed you could and then the onus is on you to show all the examples of Kamala doing things like killing small animals. Does she talk about it? Does she wear things that indicate it? If she was the CEO of a corporate news organization, does she oversee stories promoting it? (Or, more likely, minimizing argument against it?) If you have boatloads of that evidence, you might have a good argument.

                  Got nothing? Well, that’s a poor argument. Maybe there are “Jewish space lasers” and MTG has broken the story wide open, but in the absence of literally any other piece of relevant information, it’s a poor argument to make.

                  I have metaphorical boatloads of evidence that the corporate news kaisers are supporting trump. So much so that pretty much anyone on here knows a bunch of them already. So much so, it’s hardly worth mentioning because it’s omnipresent. There’s more supporting evidence coming out every day.

                  That addresses the “just making up stuff” part, but let me once again, for the third time now, point out that financial donations to a campaign can be made in many ways that are not as rigorously documented as personal donations. So many ways, in fact, that the absence of these CEO’s names on opensecrets.org doesn’t really answer the question.

                  But if you’re simply arguing that as far as words on the infographic go, A is not B, then I’ll give it to you. Change “donor” to “supporter” on that infographic and we can have this exact same conversation again with the exact same meaning and relevance.

                  Is the CEO that presides over news coverage that doesn’t continually mention trump’s - conviction for hundreds of millions in fraud, the court’s finding of rape, the bizarreness of his speech, and a hundred other things that throw the ludicrousness of his candidacy into high relief - does the CEO that presides over not presenting that information support trump?

                  Yes. Yes they do. Did they give the equivalent of two dollars to his campaign fund and make sure their name was recorded? No. Oh! Well! Debunked! These are all egregious lies!

                  If you understand the point of the demographic, you can acknowledge its factual inaccuracy and its greater truth. Right?

                  • pjwestin@lemmy.world
                    1·
                    1 month ago

                    Hey, if you’re ever wondering what people mean when they say, “Blue MAGA,” it’s this; 8 rambling paragraphs of conspiracy theories about media companies’ CEOs, with no evidence or sources, to justify a debunked infographic. It’s long-winded, “Fake News.”