If I recall correctly, they started being hostile towards him long before he started any of his childish retaliations. They were already jeering at him minutes after he announced he was going to enter the race, and haven't really stopped since.

Whereas I don't agree with his petty retaliations, I think the phrase "what goes around come around" can equally be applied to them.

No source quoted

Edit - Trump announced his presidential bid in June 2015
Source

He was attacking the media long before

Looking forward to the next time Trump blames the dems for being obstructionists.

You don't think that just maybe the "mainstream media" (representing everybody, not just some slavering extremity of Trump's core fan base) saw way in advance what a disaster Trump would be as president, and applied that foresight to their reporting?

Sounds sensible - please leave this thread immediately. You're spoiling our fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDBz8nReNYY

Best headline of the week, USAtoday
Source

I added the source but there are only a few words.

The press are supposed to be held to higher standards.

So even if someone mocks the press and spits in their face, you would expect a serious press to stick to the facts and not act in petty retaliation.

By sinking to his level they have shown they are no better than he is.

You know, thousands of people are being mocked all the time for all sorts of reasons. The press just ums and ers and says, this is interesting and you have to remain neutral and understand the cirumstances, and they probably deserved it anyway.

But the moment somebody mocks them, it's all out war.

If those who should now better rise to the bait I have no sympathy.

FTFY
So in terms of honesty and reliability Trump started out somewhere clearly lower than the press. Which obviusly isn't not what's expected from the POTUS to begin with. Plus you directly contradict your own claim in #9081.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

If you are implying that if somebody acts (or appears to act) childishly then its OK for the press to be dishonest about him, then I disagree.

I am quite confident that he will keep promise 9.

You were saying earlier the press were hostile much before Trump voiced his childish retaliations. In that later post you say the press lowered themselves down to his level thus Trump was down on that level first. That's a contradiction.

I do agree that the press should act, let's say reputably (honesty can be disambiguous). But the same demand applies to the POTUS. You're implying it's Ok for him to be a disgrace for the office but not for the others.

Please note: I don't think "fake news" is generally justified WRT MSM.

Yes and no.

But essentially the pot is calling the kettle black. Two wrongs don't make a right.

It's regrettable that Trump doesn't raise his tone.

But the press doing the same, and excusing themselves by saying "he did it too" is an awful blemish on their professionalism.

One day Trump will be history. But the press will be left with this difficult patch in their history that they threw objectivity out the window. How much work will it take to rebuild that trust and reputation.

Did they act like this when, for example, Nixon was telling lie after lie, or did they stick to the facts?

Trump has been quiet lately. Have the press found better things to report, or did hurricane Irma blow his phone out of his hand?

No, he's just draft dodging again.

Which major outlets did, got some (many) links? I'd be particularly interested in statements by what he calls "fake news", e.g. CNN.

"or did they stick to the facts" Do you have sources that show they did not stick to the facts when reporting on Trump? Of course they have made a few errors which they corrected and apologised for.

The fun starts at 00:47

4:10, must be why he invited Xi to Mar-a-Lago: Because it's a shithole even below McD standards.