From a purely tactical approach, Trump can’t afford to drop the FakeNews narrative he and his minions have latched onto. Without the boogeyman of the MSM, Trump has to actually produce results to get reelected.
Since he’s yet to do, the only fallback for him to get reelected is to keep demonizing the media so he can keep up this image that controlling all 3 branches of govt isn’t enough to make changes happen. If he admits there IS something to this quaint “Russia meddling nonsense,” he validates the media and invalidates all of his claims that the media was wrong this whole time (since he’s had access to this intel since before inauguration day).
Trump’s ONLY move is to dig in and push on the media even harder. If he doesn’t, he’ll lose his only opportunity to be remembered for anything meaningful in history and be relegated to a failed 1 term President.
Imo, admitting that the Russia interference is an actual issue after months of saying there’s nothing to it (when he’s had the classified intel about Obama not stepping in since day 1) would qualify as a self destruct.
Which means he actually needs to produce results. In lieu of actual results, he needs to continue to demonize the media as ALWAYS being wrong. He needs the only source of real knowledge to be himself.
I think it all comes down to the Democrats. They need a serious change in terms of leadership and message. Trump is likely to have some of the lowest approval ratings but if the Democrats aren’t unified with new message and leadership I’m not sure it will matter. They already managed to blow the wide open layup against him once by running just about the only person in the world who could come close to his disapproval ratings.
They are going to need more than just Trump sucks.
I can also see Trump blaming his lack of accomplishments on Congress and saying I need more time to drain the swamp or some other tagline. I still think his ceiling is incredibly low but he also has a base of support that is definitely going to think any of his lack of success is someone else’s doing.
And you can bet damn well Trump will continually hammer the message that he would be successful if it wasn’t for… (insert anything his fingers can tweet)
I think you’re discounting facing the incumbent party. The GOP had 8 years of Obama slipups and headlines to cite. All they had to do was sit back and refuse to vote on anything and let time take its course.
Dems will have the same advantage next time around. Trump is already giving quite a few headlines and he’s just getting warmed up. I think without SIGNIFICANT economic improvement in the lives of his base, him losing the popular vote will be the least of his worries.
Trump narrowly squeaked out a win with 8 years of Obama to blame. Next time he’ll only have his own “accomplishments” to cite (unless he keeps the MSM Boogeyman going)
Not to quibble, but it’s only fake news if it’s being reported as factual by either 1) a legit news outlet that knows it’s not been verified to a reasonable level of certainty, or more typically, 2) by an individual/organization mimicking a legit news organization that doesn’t care whether it’s true, but is simply advancing a political agenda. The idea in and of itself is not fake news–it’s merely one conspiracy notion among many (until/unless it’s proven true, of course).
As you say, it’s not fake news until it’s actually reported (in one of the methods I describe above). In this regard, is any organization actually reporting “Trump colluded with Russia in the hacking effort”?
You assert that “any news that is being reported that isn’t actually true, is by definition, fake news.” This would seem to include honest mistakes (for which legit organizations apologize, issue retractions, and take corrective actions). Is that your intention?
His associates/employees having direct ties to Russia isn’t disputed.
Trump’s son has confirmed Russian funding for various Trump businesses.
Edit: the question mark was because I don’t know why I had to explain it
Yes. They might not be CNN or MSNBC, but they exist. I’m not accusing CNN of being “fake news.” But fake news does exist that is targeted at Trump. Whether or not it’s national mainstream news doesn’t make it less fake.
Honest mistakes are also fake news. If you retract and apologize, you’ve done your fix in my book, but the original news was indeed fake by the definition of the word. I’m not saying honest mistakes means the org itself is fake news, merely what they reported.
I would say the source matters re whether something qualifies as ‘fake news.’ For example, a blog post by Joe Tinfoil-Hat (see the thread in Off Topic re husbands taking their wive’s name) does not qualify, IMO. It has to be (or purport to be) a news outlet.
Oh, I disagree completely. For me, fake implies and requires the intent to deceive; ie, the purveyor knows the information is incorrect/unsubstantiated, but reports it anyway in order to advance a political agenda. Without intent and an ulterior motive, an incorrect story is simply an honest mistake, not ‘fake news.’
Everyone can interpret the words how they choose. To me, a literal translation of Fake News seems to work just fine. If someone is preaching something as news, and it’s fake, it’s fake news.
I already have a word for intentionally pushing news that’s false. I call it libel or slander, depending on the circumstances. People can define “fake news” however they choose. A literal translation seems best in my mind. I’m not a political pundit or news anchor that needs to split hairs.
