I also thought about Brian Williams when I first heard that story. A cynical point, I’d bet most of the MAGA crowd has never heard about the helicopter story (or at least the untruths). That’s part of my frustration with the Trump cult and Fox News/conservative talk radio; there are good people completely in the dark about facts and issues that would be deemed inconvenient for their cause. That would include my own family in Iowa. If you laid out the conduct, the lies, the crimes and the ethics without attaching a name or political party to it, my family would never vote for such a candidate. But they live in a world of right-wing media and so do their neighbors so its useless trying to explain anything otherwise.
Interesting observation. I’ll check Fox online to see if they’ve touched the story. If Biden had told this tale, Fox would have been all over him like a pack of wild dogs.
We can expect Trump's tall tales to continue through the rest of the campaign, perhaps growing even more incredulous now that he's getting desperate. I continue to be aghast at how the MSM has devolved over the past few years, giving him a free pass to spew dangerous lies and hatred, yet somehow it's no longer newsworthy. There are dozens of examples of how his brazen behavior would have ended other's campaigns in the past, but now it's just a yawn to reporters. I'd love to read a DBOM column with your perspective on how outlets like The NY Times and so many others have recently flipped. I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I'd rather to hear it from an industry pro.
I’m glad to see some fact checking by major media but the double standard is so obvious. Where are the editorials demanding that Trump withdraw from the race, questioning his mental fitness? Why aren’t reporters hounding every Republican for comment on Trump’s confusion or lie?
Laura, I suspect the MAGA crowd doesn't care about the truth. But you are correct, where are conservative media fact checkers? It a disgraceful lapse of journalistic ethics and standards. Even this conservative believes that we won't have to worry about Mr. Trump after November. Thanks for asking the critical questions.
Dave, happy birthday to your wife and congratulations to her for having a good time with famous folks whose names she doesn’t know. Charming indeed. Brian Williams told one fib too many. I began to be suspicious when he claimed that he and has news team saw bodies floating by their hotel room when they were in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Despite his claim they had no video of the bodies. Really? Hard to believe they could miss them with even their cellphones.
Donald Trump and the helicopter emergency. I’m a conservative but have stopped listening to Trump’s lies.
Your story's ending about Laura meeting important people was heartwarming.
The rest of your story, not so much. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Reading the comments now. Scary times when truth has little to no value for a political party.
I continue to be amazed at the duplicity of Trump and his minions, including J.D. Vance, who is being projected as some kind of war hero for his service as a "combat journalist." Don't get me wrong, I'm a Vietnam and 1st Gulf War Vet and respect the service of all military members who deploy, even if they are not engaged in direct combat operations. Nonetheless, compare the reception his story is getting to that of another Combat Journalist. Seemingly a "convenient truth" to forget about how Al Gore's time in Vietnam in the same capacity was characterized by the Repubs back in the day--not to mention Trump's bone spurs and more recent characterization of vets as losers for serving their country. I won't even get into the John Kerry lynching.
David, the swift boating of John Kerry is one of the most disgraceful episodes in modern political history. A precursor to the attack politics we have today. I don’t think attacking Walz’s military service record is a winning strategy for Trump or Vance. Nor is attacking his response to the race riots in MSP considering Trump’s sitting in his hands on January 6th.
And it doesn’t make sense calling Harris an antisemite because she passed over Josh Shapiro when Harris is married to a Jew.
They’re really struggling to find their footing but I’m confident, sadly, that Trump will find a schoolyard insult to use describing VP Harris. It seems to be one of his few skills.
I hope Laura had a wonderful birthday. Your Brian Williams and Carole Simpson stories were a gift to us all.
Regarding Trump's latest lies, you make a lot of sense, as usual -- but I'm still stuck on your suggestion, supported by others whom I also respect, that "journalists should never put Trump on live TV."
Indulge me: Let's say you were still running the newsroom at KCCI and had a live crew covering a Trump arrival or departure. I'm not talking about a rally where he keeps journalists penned up at the back of the room until he directs the crowd to turn and hurl insults at them. Imagine instead that one of his trials occurred in Des Moines. Your reporter is live on air as Trump appears and pauses to make a statement -- maybe even to take a question or two. (Sounds unlikely, but crazier things have happened on live TV.)
Would you cut out of the live shot rather than take Trump live under those circumstances?
Scott, under that scenario - I would likely not cut out of the live shot. If it was brief, and he was responding to something in that day's news, I would probably take it.
To support my argument, suppose as a reporter I did a story relying on information from a source. If that information later was determined to be a lie, would I EVER rely on that source again? I would not and you would not.
I get it that Trump is a newsmaker and by definition makes news when he talks. But the post-2016 analysis by nearly all legitimate news media was that Trump was over-covered because he said such outrageous things. He got way more free media than Clinton did. The news media, by its very coverage, gave Trump too much credibility.
You likely saw Lawrence O'Donnell's segment late last week saying the media are making the same mistakes as they did in 2016. Carrying Trump's entire Thursday news conference live, as CNN and MSNBC did (and, I presume, Fox) is my primary objection. We're journalists. We're supposed to tell the TRUTH as best we know it. And allowing anyone to continue to spew falsehoods, when we know better, is wrong. Doing a fact-check afterwards cannot make up for the live coverage of a tsunami of lies.
As always, thank you for your thought-provoking questions.
Good points, Dave. I actually don't share the widely held belief that too much news coverage was responsible, at least in part, for Trump's 2016 victory. It's easier for me to accept that too much of that coverage was uncritical, in that it allowed untruths including outright lies to go unchallenged.
But I don't buy the argument, which came up again in the context of Trump's NABJ appearance, that he shouldn't be "platformed" by journalists because of his chronic dishonesty. As one NABJ member said (sorry I don't trust my memory on who it was), NABJ didn't "platform" Trump did; the Republican party and tens of millions of voters did. Journalists ask good questions and hold the powerful accountable for answers, which is what NABJ did.
As for the comparison with a reporter's source: I agree, no source who lies should ever be trusted again. But that is not the same as saying that source should ever be covered live again, especially if he is an important public figure. Live coverage and trust are two very different things.
Keep raising those good questions of your own. You make the rest of us think harder, and we need to.
Appreciate the discussion, as always. I’ll close with this link from NPR, which did an exhaustive fact-check of Thursday’s Trump news conference and found an average of two lies, exaggerations or misstatements per minute. A total of 162.
This is great work but how many will see it compared to watching Trump live?
After 43 years of covering presidential candidates in Iowa, I can say this is so far out of the norm. Never seen anything like it. And because it’s so unusual, journalists have to cover him in ways they’ve never contemplated before.
Agreed, Dave: Trump is far out of the norm. No debate there. If anything, that makes him even more newsworthy -- but the execution of that coverage is a far more complicated question. Maybe I'm naive, but I think reporting like the MPR link you shared can reach far more people, through social media and other forms of digital distribution, than might be in the audience of a live event.
I'll close with another undisputed truth: I could certainly be wrong.
Could it be that his followers actually want a leader is capable of any deceit, who would do anything is precisely why they support him?
I suppose. If they want to break the system, he’s their guy. Seems risky to me.
Happy birthday to Laura! This was a great read with a fun conclusion.
Thanks, Cindy.
I also thought about Brian Williams when I first heard that story. A cynical point, I’d bet most of the MAGA crowd has never heard about the helicopter story (or at least the untruths). That’s part of my frustration with the Trump cult and Fox News/conservative talk radio; there are good people completely in the dark about facts and issues that would be deemed inconvenient for their cause. That would include my own family in Iowa. If you laid out the conduct, the lies, the crimes and the ethics without attaching a name or political party to it, my family would never vote for such a candidate. But they live in a world of right-wing media and so do their neighbors so its useless trying to explain anything otherwise.
Interesting observation. I’ll check Fox online to see if they’ve touched the story. If Biden had told this tale, Fox would have been all over him like a pack of wild dogs.
Rod, good perspective. Thanks for your post.
We can expect Trump's tall tales to continue through the rest of the campaign, perhaps growing even more incredulous now that he's getting desperate. I continue to be aghast at how the MSM has devolved over the past few years, giving him a free pass to spew dangerous lies and hatred, yet somehow it's no longer newsworthy. There are dozens of examples of how his brazen behavior would have ended other's campaigns in the past, but now it's just a yawn to reporters. I'd love to read a DBOM column with your perspective on how outlets like The NY Times and so many others have recently flipped. I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I'd rather to hear it from an industry pro.
Thanks, Mark. There are others who are taking on the MSM over their double standard covering Trump vs Biden. One guy I read is Robert Hubbell here on Substack, a retired lawyer. Recommend this column from a day or two ago: https://open.substack.com/pub/roberthubbell/p/were-not-weird?r=3jrv0j&utm_medium=ios
Media has to do a better job nailing Trump down. How he has gotten away with so much is beyond me. Happy birthday Laura!!
Great column, Dave! Very sobering(the first part) but also very charming and sweet(the second part). Happy Birthday, Laura!
Thanks, Dennis. I enjoyed writing the second part a lot more than the first!
Thanks for the great column this morning, Dave. I learned and I laughed and that is a great way to start the day.
Happy Birthday, Laura!
You’re very kind, Kathi, and appreciate your support!
I’m glad to see some fact checking by major media but the double standard is so obvious. Where are the editorials demanding that Trump withdraw from the race, questioning his mental fitness? Why aren’t reporters hounding every Republican for comment on Trump’s confusion or lie?
Laura, I suspect the MAGA crowd doesn't care about the truth. But you are correct, where are conservative media fact checkers? It a disgraceful lapse of journalistic ethics and standards. Even this conservative believes that we won't have to worry about Mr. Trump after November. Thanks for asking the critical questions.
Dave, happy birthday to your wife and congratulations to her for having a good time with famous folks whose names she doesn’t know. Charming indeed. Brian Williams told one fib too many. I began to be suspicious when he claimed that he and has news team saw bodies floating by their hotel room when they were in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Despite his claim they had no video of the bodies. Really? Hard to believe they could miss them with even their cellphones.
Donald Trump and the helicopter emergency. I’m a conservative but have stopped listening to Trump’s lies.
Good column, Dave! Happy birthday, Laura! In addition to being talented and a genuinely nice person, you’re a good sport!
She IS a good sport, Cheryl. But I checked with her before writing it. I'm smarter than I look.
I did give you enough credit to assume that you checked with her first!
Your story's ending about Laura meeting important people was heartwarming.
The rest of your story, not so much. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Reading the comments now. Scary times when truth has little to no value for a political party.
I continue to be amazed at the duplicity of Trump and his minions, including J.D. Vance, who is being projected as some kind of war hero for his service as a "combat journalist." Don't get me wrong, I'm a Vietnam and 1st Gulf War Vet and respect the service of all military members who deploy, even if they are not engaged in direct combat operations. Nonetheless, compare the reception his story is getting to that of another Combat Journalist. Seemingly a "convenient truth" to forget about how Al Gore's time in Vietnam in the same capacity was characterized by the Repubs back in the day--not to mention Trump's bone spurs and more recent characterization of vets as losers for serving their country. I won't even get into the John Kerry lynching.
David, the swift boating of John Kerry is one of the most disgraceful episodes in modern political history. A precursor to the attack politics we have today. I don’t think attacking Walz’s military service record is a winning strategy for Trump or Vance. Nor is attacking his response to the race riots in MSP considering Trump’s sitting in his hands on January 6th.
And it doesn’t make sense calling Harris an antisemite because she passed over Josh Shapiro when Harris is married to a Jew.
They’re really struggling to find their footing but I’m confident, sadly, that Trump will find a schoolyard insult to use describing VP Harris. It seems to be one of his few skills.
Such a good point! Truth Social is such a oxymoron. Or maybe it says something about the storyteller.
I hope Laura had a wonderful birthday. Your Brian Williams and Carole Simpson stories were a gift to us all.
Regarding Trump's latest lies, you make a lot of sense, as usual -- but I'm still stuck on your suggestion, supported by others whom I also respect, that "journalists should never put Trump on live TV."
Indulge me: Let's say you were still running the newsroom at KCCI and had a live crew covering a Trump arrival or departure. I'm not talking about a rally where he keeps journalists penned up at the back of the room until he directs the crowd to turn and hurl insults at them. Imagine instead that one of his trials occurred in Des Moines. Your reporter is live on air as Trump appears and pauses to make a statement -- maybe even to take a question or two. (Sounds unlikely, but crazier things have happened on live TV.)
Would you cut out of the live shot rather than take Trump live under those circumstances?
Scott, under that scenario - I would likely not cut out of the live shot. If it was brief, and he was responding to something in that day's news, I would probably take it.
To support my argument, suppose as a reporter I did a story relying on information from a source. If that information later was determined to be a lie, would I EVER rely on that source again? I would not and you would not.
I get it that Trump is a newsmaker and by definition makes news when he talks. But the post-2016 analysis by nearly all legitimate news media was that Trump was over-covered because he said such outrageous things. He got way more free media than Clinton did. The news media, by its very coverage, gave Trump too much credibility.
You likely saw Lawrence O'Donnell's segment late last week saying the media are making the same mistakes as they did in 2016. Carrying Trump's entire Thursday news conference live, as CNN and MSNBC did (and, I presume, Fox) is my primary objection. We're journalists. We're supposed to tell the TRUTH as best we know it. And allowing anyone to continue to spew falsehoods, when we know better, is wrong. Doing a fact-check afterwards cannot make up for the live coverage of a tsunami of lies.
As always, thank you for your thought-provoking questions.
Good points, Dave. I actually don't share the widely held belief that too much news coverage was responsible, at least in part, for Trump's 2016 victory. It's easier for me to accept that too much of that coverage was uncritical, in that it allowed untruths including outright lies to go unchallenged.
But I don't buy the argument, which came up again in the context of Trump's NABJ appearance, that he shouldn't be "platformed" by journalists because of his chronic dishonesty. As one NABJ member said (sorry I don't trust my memory on who it was), NABJ didn't "platform" Trump did; the Republican party and tens of millions of voters did. Journalists ask good questions and hold the powerful accountable for answers, which is what NABJ did.
As for the comparison with a reporter's source: I agree, no source who lies should ever be trusted again. But that is not the same as saying that source should ever be covered live again, especially if he is an important public figure. Live coverage and trust are two very different things.
Keep raising those good questions of your own. You make the rest of us think harder, and we need to.
Appreciate the discussion, as always. I’ll close with this link from NPR, which did an exhaustive fact-check of Thursday’s Trump news conference and found an average of two lies, exaggerations or misstatements per minute. A total of 162.
This is great work but how many will see it compared to watching Trump live?
After 43 years of covering presidential candidates in Iowa, I can say this is so far out of the norm. Never seen anything like it. And because it’s so unusual, journalists have to cover him in ways they’ve never contemplated before.
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/11/nx-s1-5070566/trump-news-conference
Agreed, Dave: Trump is far out of the norm. No debate there. If anything, that makes him even more newsworthy -- but the execution of that coverage is a far more complicated question. Maybe I'm naive, but I think reporting like the MPR link you shared can reach far more people, through social media and other forms of digital distribution, than might be in the audience of a live event.
I'll close with another undisputed truth: I could certainly be wrong.