But it doesn't matter...that is for the low information voter to illicit a sympathetic response. It's not for people that know that is not an excuse.

Further supports the narrative that he is/was/will be unfit to hold the high office of POTUS. Honestly he is unfit to qualify as a human.

. . . could be considered "good" or not. But what I do know is that the televised "press" isn't in the business of journalism.

What one sees on television (and, for that matter, hears on radio) is a show. Just a show. Like "Little House on the Prairie" or "Star Trek." A show. They look to put on what they think people will watch, that's all.

That there are people who still don't understand that surprises me.

The viewers are the product that the media sells. The advertisers are the customers. Some viewers just don't get that they aren't the customer.

The main option to change the media content is not view it and let the ratings modify the media's behavior through pressure from the advertisers. If a certain demographic tunes in and is the target of enough advertisers the program matters not at all. For example, young Americans boycotting a station makes no difference to advertisers selling retirement homes. Of course direct pressure on the advertiser will also have an effect.

That's perfectly put, to my mind. That viewers are the "product" and that the advertisers are the true "customers" of all for-profit television and radio captures it very well.

As to this, Rupert Murdoch originally created Fox News to exploit what he (correctly) perceived to be a "neglected" niche in "news" broadcasting. There was nothing fundamentally "conservative" in his thinking here.

Murdoch would have happily televised late-term abortions if he thought he could make money off of it.

Just has to sustain the status quo.

better for ratings and dollars than a continuous political pissing contest.

As much as I like some of the people over at MSNBC, a lot of what is in the press every day about trump's character and his very questionable and illegal business dealings was knowable and actionable BEFORE the election but the press played both sides and kissed trump's ass all through the election.

As always, I refer to a full screen shot of an empty podium that trump would eventually stand at for almost 30 minutes without cutting away. An empty podium that trump eventually stood at got almost as much coverage that day than either Clinton or Sanders.

They paved the way to the white house for him all along by normalizing his poo throwing apelike antics and looking the other way at his Russian connections.

And breathless stories of doom about Hillary's emails....

The mainstream media RAKES in cash if they keep him in the news cycle.
Not to mention they benefit from the ton of GOP initiatives - Dod Frank repeal, etc.

Don't forget it's a BIGGER war than just the orange idiot. There are plenty of people perfectly willing to ride the wave of chaos/destruction and fuck us all for a few bucks.

there is a major newspaper war on in Trump scandal coverage, like nothing ever seen before.

The only real question at this point, Why did the media fawn over trump sop much before. Probably, because they were paid huge lumps of laundered Russian mob cash under the table.

They spoke about trump/Russia for 5-7 mins and Clinton for 5 minutes!!

She is not running for office or in office and it's not relevant to Russia hacking us and the things trump and his people did is possible collusion with Russia.