…and for news consumers
Thank you for your words of wisdom. Once again, showing awareness and balance. I had not considered some of your points.
Wise and thoughtful comments
Excellent! Thank you!
Dave, your thoughts on ethics are always helpful, and your ideas on the Trump indictment are no exception. I'm struggling, though, with the notion that journalists shouldn't report statements by public figures unless they make themselves available to be questioned.
Don't get me wrong: I'm no fan of Donald Trump and I have real misgivings about the role of social media in society. I would always prefer that the powerful be held accountable by subjecting themselves to questions. But officials have often made important news by issuing statements and then staying insulated from direct questioning. Are news consumers better served not knowing, at least until there is a media availability? Does your advice apply to social media, but not traditional forms of statements on official "letterhead"? Or does it apply only to "bombastic" speech, and if so, how do we determine what constitutes "bombast"?
I am not saying there's no such thing as a remark too outrageous or dangerous to pass along without context. Trump's "death and destruction" comment is troubling, but shouldn't people know he's saying those things -- even people who don't follow him on social media?
Thanks Dave. Journalists failed to draw distinction between many who supported Trump. Cong Bacon, R- Omaha, indicated he wants to read the indictment, which may be unsealed on Tuesday. He also stated he trusts our legal system. Also, Hutchinson's and Pences' statements did not use racist or anti Semitic tropes. These R's did not endorse violence or protests, either.
There are lazy efforts everywhere. Elected state, local and county officials without term limits ensures distance from those who are neither politically connected directly nor working for a high-profile organization.
Thoughtful, sensible column. Our democracy is not designed to deal with a malignant narcissist so our nation’s various institutions are being stretched beyond anyone’s imagination. That makes restraint challenging.
Another excellent article Dave. I like your points. It should be remembered that a Grand Jury indited Trump based upon the evidence that was presented and considered by those citizens. The DA made a case and that case was accepted.
I think you implicitly give too much credence to Bragg. His indictment of Trump is a blatantly political act.
It's blatantly political in the sense that Bragg reportedly campaigned on a promise to indict Trump.
It's blatantly political in the sense that other prosecutors declined to charge Trump in connection with this alleged offense. (We don't yet know what the actual charge or charges are.)
It's blatantly political in the sense that Trump is a declared candidate for president in the year before an election.
Great article, I learned a lot from it!
Your column certainly resonated with me. THANK YOU. It peripherally appears some of our press persons are overly burdened and may have to take the easiest way using prepared releases or quotes from twitter. Real press interaction has diminished. It is not too late for it to be demanded and thus returned. Please keep calling for accountability from our elected officials as well as the media.