Home / General / BREAKING: Reporter asks Americans who did not vote for tRump about tRump!!

BREAKING: Reporter asks Americans who did not vote for tRump about tRump!!

Comments
/
/
/
745 Views
Hustings Courthouse, Petersburg, Va. – Library of Congress

Will this unpresidented approach to journalism catch on?

A struggling post-industrial town. A Christian factory worker praying “constantly” for Donald Trump. Ernarda Davis, 65, is the kind of person Trump vowed to help, living in the kind of place Trump vowed to heal, and she wants badly for her president to succeed.

You’ve heard this kind of story before. Except people who look like Davis don’t usually qualify for 2017 articles about how voters are feeling about Trump.

She is black.

And when she was asked in Petersburg, Va., last weekend how Trump is doing so far, she curved her fingers into a rigid circle.

Zero.

“He needs to get hate out of his heart and open his eyes. And that might help,” she said. “Get hate out of his heart, open his eyes, and see what’s going on.”

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • trnc

    That’s a nice change from NPR’s semi-weekly check in with Trump voters.

  • But African-Americans were assured they had nothing to lose from a Shitgibbon administration!

    Seriously, more articles like this, please.

    • Yes. Perhaps even – dare I dream it? By reporters from U.S. papers?

      • DocAmazing

        Toronto leads the way. Who’s next? Buffalo? Detroit? Will this spread south, like glaciers?

        • keta

          Or retreat and dry up, like a glacier?

      • Warren Terra

        Yeah, I was going to point that detail out. I’m not sure a single article in a Canadian paper counts as evidence of reform in the American media. Besides, the reporter – Daniel Dale – has been on the Trump campaign beat for a solid year now, and done a lot of good work – including leading the way in daily fact-checking of Trump.

    • Hells Littlest Angel

      Actually, they were asked what the hell they had to lose. That question is being answered daily.

  • Willie Johnson

    A VERY SERIOUS TROLL WAS HERE.

    • Severian

      Either you forgot the sarcasm font, or you’re no better than David Fucking Brooks. Which is it?

      • mongolia

        The “serious person” is the giveaway

        • Harry Johnson

          Twice I tell thee I am serious!

    • ironic irony

      How the hell would you know? You didn’t even read it.

      • Droopy Johnson

        Did I mention my serioussness??

  • RPorrofatto

    Still waiting for those articles about working-class voters of any color who not only didn’t vote for Trump, but live in a fucking city — where 80% of Americans live. Not to mention it would be nice to hear about anyplace in the vaunted “heartland” that includes somewhere urban, because that’s also where most “heartland” people live.

    • RPorrofatto

      Missing the edit deadline as usual: 63% of Americans live in a defined city, but 80% live in an urban area.

      • Duvall

        The 80% figure wouldn’t include Petersburg, a small city in the Richmond metropolitan area?

  • Thrax

    I agree that the implicit “we only care about what white people think of him” assumption of these stories is annoying. And yet…”Clinton voter dislikes Trump administration” isn’t exactly news. (“Clinton voter likes Trump administration” *would* be news, but no one can find such an animal, apparently.) Whether the people who voted for him are happy about how things are going is arguably more salient than whether the people who didn’t vote for him are; it bears directly on whether he’s likely to get smacked in the midterms and lose a reelection bid. (Now, a piece about people who didn’t vote at all, or voted third party, might be even more interesting.)

    • applecor

      This, mostly, but to spin it a little differently, the people the MSM are targeting for these interviews are targeted because the MSM persists in believing they are swing voters, because their grandparents were swing voters in 1968. Since their opinions COULD ACTUALLY CHANGE!!!! they are newsworthy, I guess is the thinking.

      • Thrax

        Fair enough. “Someone who always votes Republican did so recently and plans to continue doing so” is not really news.

  • LosGatosCA

    It would be great if the media could put full disclosure/rationale on each piece. That way the reader would not only know how to classify what they are reading but also where to place that entity along various dimensions: political, integrity, competence, etc.

    It could work like the movie rating system

    1. C – Click bait article written to maximize readership to increase advertising rates/revenue.
    – Sensational headline, content easily understood at the 3rd grade level, information content negligible or repetitive, asserted without any supporting facts necessary. Reader can make up their own mind on the veracity, usefulness of the story.
    2. F – Factual news article written to objectively inform all readers on newsworthy situation.
    – to the extent possible every point, assertion, numerical representation has been fact checked and found to be fact conforming. Reader should be better informed about subject and encouraged to read more if the article’s points conflicts with the readers prior view.
    3. P – propaganda article written to burnish the reputation of the newspaper in the eyes of the likely reader. Panders to both siderism, piece slanted to satisfy RWNJ’s, glibertarians, preserve government/political access, etc.
    4. L – intended for local audiences only. Does not conform to national standards of newsworthiness yet keeps the media property relevant to the local demographic most likely to support the business model for the property.
    5. BS – straight up prejudicial content published to conform to the media property owners agenda. Constant war, minority disrespect, entitlement cuts, political endorsements, etc.
    6. G – gossip. Most Living and Sports articles get this designation. Sports ball statistics get an ‘F’, likewise movie box office grosses but every thing else gets a ‘G’ including how uppity NBA stars pursue the most lucrative contracts or best chance of winning.

    This Times article for instance would be labeled ‘L’ and instead of blaming the Times, the locals should be savaged. While Fox News labeling everything they do as ‘F’ rather than ‘P’ or ‘C’ would be an obvious way to discredit them as an objective media source.

    It would also simplify the whole public editor job or savaging of them when they don’t do their job correctly. Instead of having to reverse engineer every bit of content, assertion, or editorial analysis a sample discussion could be how could you rate that item an ‘F’ instead of a ‘P’?

    And articles would start conforming to standards. Throwing some ‘P’ content into an ‘F’ article would not pass the ‘F’ grade.

    Anyway, I’m sure the model could be greatly improved but that’s my proposal at the moment.

    • LosGatosCA

      Wrong thread entirely

It is main inner container footer text