New White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, just went on a 5-minute rant about how the media coverage of Donald Trump’s inauguration was inaccurate (See the video in the tweet below).
One of the things he discussed (at high speed – try and keep up), was that “This was the largest audience to attend an inauguration, PERIOD.” But looking at the image below from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38682574, it’s hard to agree.
Now, one could argue that perhaps the images were taken at different times (for instance), and that Mr. Spicer is right. But there is something about a man, racing through a speech in an ill-fitting suit that is hard to trust.
The above URL ‘Trump claims media ‘dishonest’ over crowd photos‘, breaks this down in more detail. Here is an exerpt:
What are US media saying?
The new president repeated his low opinion of the media dubbing reporters “among the most dishonest human beings on earth”. Mr Spicer vowed “to hold the press accountable”.
In their reaction, major US media outlets flatly denied the claims made by the US president and his spokesman.
The New York Times, singled out by Mr Spicer, denounced “false claims“.
CNN said it did not even broadcast the spokesman’s statement live. It said the press secretary had attacked the media “for accurately reporting” and went on to debunk the claims.
ABC News also goes into detail to refute the claims.
Pro-Trump Fox News reported the claims unchallenged.
BuzzFeed News accuses Mr Spicer of lying and goes on to provide Twitter memes generated from his remarks.
For the sake of balance, here’s the Daily Mail’s take on the whole event. (If that’s your thing).
Here’s an article I just read closely related to my post yesterday: Is the media responsible for Trump’s victory? (In a way you may not expect)
Is broadcast and print media not as influencial as it thinks it is?
See below for the full article:
I was listening to LBC (http://www.lbc.co.uk, 97.3fm) during the commute today (More than expected as the journey in took an hour and a half, but I digress). It’s a talk radio station, which I felt was probably worth a listen today, due to the news from the other side of the Atlantic. You should give it a go.
There was a particularly interesting conversation on the way home, where a caller (Named Sam in case you were wondering), suggested the involvement US media institutions had in the coverage and representation of both (President-elect) Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. The caller and the host agreed that all-but-one major TV networks (CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NBC), showed clear support to Democratic candidate Clinton (The exception being Fox News).
“Yeah, so she should have won?” I hear you cry.
But consider the alternative possibility; what if all that positive coverage from the majority of institutions for Clinton actually hid the fact that the American people didn’t actually want to vote for her? What if they (and we over here in the UK), thought it would – of course – go to Clinton as she was getting all the positive representation, but in the process actually missed out on hearing from the audience?
In case you’re wondering how the states voted:
A reminder perhaps in the shift in power from institutions to audiences?
What do you think? Agree or disagree?
We finally got our act together and recorded a podcast. Year 13 (and myself) were challenged to bring a topic to talk about. It was a lot of fun, but also a great way of discussing some issues and debates that we see in the media.
Give it a listen! We discuss lorry drivers on phones, gender stereotypes in education and regulating social media, among other things!
It’s available on soundcloud to listen to now:
Any ideas for future discussions? Leave a suggestion in the comments and we may discuss it in episode 2!