> "mainstream media" (I am generally wary of people who use that term tbh).
It's just a shorter phrase than "ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, all late night comedy shows, SNL, and nearly all newspapers." It becomes a bit of a mouthful. It's the most neutral form of phrasing all of this media that seems to lean toward the same political party, though I'll accept recommendations if you have a better term.
> It's bizarre to simultaneously criticize them while also blaming them for setting your incorrect expectations. Should have listened to and read Lawfare.
It wasn't just my expectations, and I absolutely do expect news media saturation of a story to correlate with its actual relevance. Instead, they over-hyped and sold outrage day after day until the rubber hit the road. And then they just moved on. The idea that one should have simply ignored all the supposed journalists and reporting to read one guy's legal blog (???) seems bizarre to me. This is a very revisionist view of those 2+ years.
> It's also simply morally blameworthy to excuse the relevant behavior on the part of Trump and his associates, whether they were indicted or not.
I'm not excusing anything. I'm saying the media hyped this up as "Watergate times a thousand" over a two year stretch, and it ended up being nothing near that.
Lawfare is not an obscure legal blog, it's a highly regarded legal publication featuring a lot of expert analysis. The fact you dismissed it as "one guy's legal blog" is a good indication you're not very adept at assessing and processing information about any of this, including the full import and seriousness of the actions at issue.
I think you're completely right. There are, in fact, numerous topics for which I don't have the resources or expertise to fully comprehend and make judgments about. That's why I, like most people, ultimately depend on news media to keep me informed.
...and that's why it's a big problem when they spend 2+ years building up hype around a story whose ramifications are far less than we were led to believe.
It's just a shorter phrase than "ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, all late night comedy shows, SNL, and nearly all newspapers." It becomes a bit of a mouthful. It's the most neutral form of phrasing all of this media that seems to lean toward the same political party, though I'll accept recommendations if you have a better term.
> It's bizarre to simultaneously criticize them while also blaming them for setting your incorrect expectations. Should have listened to and read Lawfare.
It wasn't just my expectations, and I absolutely do expect news media saturation of a story to correlate with its actual relevance. Instead, they over-hyped and sold outrage day after day until the rubber hit the road. And then they just moved on. The idea that one should have simply ignored all the supposed journalists and reporting to read one guy's legal blog (???) seems bizarre to me. This is a very revisionist view of those 2+ years.
> It's also simply morally blameworthy to excuse the relevant behavior on the part of Trump and his associates, whether they were indicted or not.
I'm not excusing anything. I'm saying the media hyped this up as "Watergate times a thousand" over a two year stretch, and it ended up being nothing near that.