It is such a bizarre time from a reporting standpoint.
At best, the orange buffoon communicates via word salad even when he isn’t dropping slurs and infantile insults. The print and online media get placed in this position to report on his comments, but if they just print the text of his comments, it is so unjustifiably disjointed and confusing that the reporters themselves would seem irresponsible to not “clean it up” or paraphrase it, but the number of [bracket quotes] and interjections of (sic) would be so aggressive that any reader would be lead to believe the reporter could be taking liberties with the meaning of the original quote. So, reporters tend to summarize his statements and use only very brief quotes, but I think this gives Trump more intellectual credit than he deserves—the message actually reads as cogent, with direct quotes of the most inflammatory bits seeming intact. The reporter takes on the role of Trump’s publicist, in a manner, by writing a professionally polished article on the words of demented degenerate.
And all of that is before the sensibilities of online and print news sources force editorialized reporting of his slurs. It is completely insane that we feel-the-need-to and actually-do sanitize the hate speech which comes from the US President. I genuinely question if it is better to censor the slurs in the interest of decency, or if it is better to print the slurs as directly attributed quotes, also in the interests of decency—but more in the context of highlighting what we, as a people, are permitting from our President.
I don’t know, it feels wrong to me to censor his slurs in the same way it seems wrong to censor the ugly parts of our history we are not proud of, but need to be honest about learning from.
Thanks for sharing.
It is such a bizarre time from a reporting standpoint.
At best, the orange buffoon communicates via word salad even when he isn’t dropping slurs and infantile insults. The print and online media get placed in this position to report on his comments, but if they just print the text of his comments, it is so unjustifiably disjointed and confusing that the reporters themselves would seem irresponsible to not “clean it up” or paraphrase it, but the number of [bracket quotes] and interjections of (sic) would be so aggressive that any reader would be lead to believe the reporter could be taking liberties with the meaning of the original quote. So, reporters tend to summarize his statements and use only very brief quotes, but I think this gives Trump more intellectual credit than he deserves—the message actually reads as cogent, with direct quotes of the most inflammatory bits seeming intact. The reporter takes on the role of Trump’s publicist, in a manner, by writing a professionally polished article on the words of demented degenerate.
And all of that is before the sensibilities of online and print news sources force editorialized reporting of his slurs. It is completely insane that we feel-the-need-to and actually-do sanitize the hate speech which comes from the US President. I genuinely question if it is better to censor the slurs in the interest of decency, or if it is better to print the slurs as directly attributed quotes, also in the interests of decency—but more in the context of highlighting what we, as a people, are permitting from our President.
I don’t know, it feels wrong to me to censor his slurs in the same way it seems wrong to censor the ugly parts of our history we are not proud of, but need to be honest about learning from.
This timeline straight up sucks to suck.