It's not fair, but there's a kernel of truth to the fact that Trump's fascism isn't considered news because it's not new. That's one of the most basic aspects to newsworthiness taught in Journalism 101. Something by definition needs to be new to be considered news. That's why it's called that.
and the reporter might try to push it as news based on sheer shock value, but in the end the editor might nix it saying that, after the past several years, nobody will be shocked by it anymore!
I think when Trump survived "Grab 'em by the pussy," he crossed a threshold that blew a lot of journalists' minds. Ever since, his antics could be covered basically as entertainment, but journalism about him, in the sense of informing the public, seemed pointless.
Everything happening now is new in that it is not the same as what has happened before. Everything happening now is old in that it is similar to what has happened before.
Have there been any new developments on that front in the past week? Seems like the Supreme Court greenlighting presidential impunity probably merits some consideration and further scrutiny.
New expressions and consequences of the fascism keep showing up.
Journalists need to be responsible.
It’s not fair to the average citizen that the press has actively promoted Donald Trump for paychecks, views and clicks.
Also Biden declining isnt really new. It just got to where they can no longer cover it up. So the pretenders now look stupid if they keep on trying.
Today is July 6. The debate was June 27. What's the shelf life on this theory?
I realize Biden, like all of us, gets older each day. Trump gets older and espouses more vile ideas each day. Both are running for the presidency.
Both aren't news?
They definitely could and should be covering it much more aggressively, including new developments and finding new angles. But generally true that the news isn't what's important, it's what's new.