Chat GPT defended the media a bit by saying that there could be studio pressures to frame the speech a certain way or maybe that the journalists have it in their mind that Trump is already dangerous so are more inclined to interpret things he says in a certain way
Probably both but the latter is the more important part to understand. For what it’s worth, I think the bloodbath example is a complete loser and I wish Democratic politicians would stop using it, there is no shortage of very real and clear examples they could use instead. It was clear that Trump was talking about an economic blood bath so all this does is give fodder for people claiming democrats and the media are lying, then they get use it as an excuse to hand waive away everything that follows which is inconvenient to them.
But with all that said, it’s not like there isn’t something very wrong with this. You talk about putting the quote in context, I agree. The context is that Trump has said things like that many times before and these kinds of buzzwords are a signal to a lot of people out there. If Trump actually cared about not giving people the impression that he supports political violence he would have adjusted his behavior and choice of words a long time ago, but he won’t because he knows what he’s doing. That’s what more people in the media should be explaining. The sentiment is justified, the details being asserted are problematic.
You stated that I framed it as the media lying which is true.
As I just explained, it’s more complicated than that.
After this I got into a conversation and we discussed how the media harms its own case by sensationalism and spin.
True to a certain extent, but again, when you have an audience that is combing through every word you say looking for anything they can use to discredit you... and by 'you' we’re talking about an entire industry with different networks, different shows, multiple hosts sometimes on each show, and multiple guests per show… of course you’re going to find the examples you’re looking for.
This is where I wanted to drill more down into media motivations because although I do buy into some of the reasons for the spin, I also feel like a lot of the media is knowingly being dishonest so I pressed it and asked what would motivate rational actors if they know they are spinning an event a certain way.
And this is largely where we depart. By this point you've discarded all of the points I've reiterated above and moved on as if they are just false. There's no common ground from here by which a conversation can be had.
I am not attempting to conflate all of media, but trying to understand a specific slice of media and I think when most people say "media" they really do mean fox news, CNN and MSNBC and HLN.
The fact that you're narrowing it down to three or four networks doesn't really change the underlying point. There's still a large apparatus at play, and there are still numerous actors all with their own views, opinions, and motivations which you are all lumping together.
On its own there's nothing wrong with this, there's clearly value in analyzing a phenomenon like this at a 30k foot view. The problem is what many do, and I'm sure I've seen you do many times before, which is that you use this as an excuse to dismiss stories and arguments that are inconvenient to you on the basis that it comes from an untrustworthy source (by which you mean the entire apparatus). That's not how it works, any report stands on its own merit.
I'll "concede" that this is fine in some senses - if we're talking about a default position for example. When someone tells me something I've never heard and then links to a Fox News article or the NY Post I can already say with a good deal of confidence in most cases that it's nonsense, but again, that's just a default. I don't get to pretend the argument hasn't been offered and I'm not justified in continuing to argue my position without a real tangible reason to dismiss it unless I've looked at the report specifically and can say why it should be ignored.
