The Media versus the Apprentice

Alberto A. Martinez

Donald Trump at Trump Tower on September 3, 2015. Photo Credit: Michael Vadon

 

This website features draft chapters of a new book titled, The Media Versus the Apprentice: The Devil Mr. Trump, which is now available.  Any feedback is welcome, helpful, and appreciated. You may please post it in the comments under each section, or contact the author directly.

The author is Alberto A. Martínez, a professor of History at the University of Texas at Austin. He’s from San Juan, Puerto Rico. He is the author of four books published by Princeton University Press, Johns Hopkins University Press, and the University of Pittsburgh Press. Also, Reaktion Books published his fifth academic book, which is about the Inquisition trials of Giordano Bruno and Galileo. Martínez can be contacted through his email address here.

 

The Media Versus the Apprentice

Alberto A. Martínez

 

Draft Chapters: (the final versions are only available in the published book, which includes additional material)

  1.  INTRO: How the media portrays the Devil
  2.  How they scared us about Hillary and Donald
  3.  How the media used Trump to insult Mexicans
  4.  Trump praised Mexicans a hundred times
  5.  “Hero because he was captured”
  6.  The ugly words of Megyn, Donald, and Rosie
  7.  Attack dogs at the Huffington Post?
  8.  “The Face of a Dog!” No, not really.
  9.  “There was blood coming out of her eyes…”
  10.  Who would vote for that face?
  11.  The myth of the Muslim database
  12.  How many people celebrated in New Jersey on 9/11?
  13.  No, Trump didn’t mock that disability
  14.  Trump’s pledge to kill innocent people
  15.  The Muslim ban
  16.  “she got schlonged, she lost…”
  17.  Romney calls Trump “a phony, a fraud”
  18.  Did Trump not rent to black people?
  19.  Fred Trump and the KKK
  20.  The Donald and “the Blacks”
  21.  The myth of Trump and the KKK
  22.  The “Mexican” judge
  23.  “When you’re a star they let you do it.”
  24.   Analysis and Conclusion

 

Martínez discussed his book on the media on the TV news program Full Measure; in an interview titled “The Media and Trump.”

Five-time Emmy Award winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson interviews Prof. Alberto A. Martinez about his book on the political news media.

 

 

 

19 Comments on The Media versus the Apprentice

  1. he’s been in office for 5 months now, has the media gotten any better? Or maybe he’s gotten worse than during the campaign.
    it’s really a love/hate relationship between them. I’m sure he still sits in bed in the morning reading news clippings about himself like he used to. And he won in getting the media people to do they same thing, they just can’t ignore him now and they feed off of him.

  2. where’s your take on Curiel? what about when the Muslim father called him out at the DNC convention? And also the time when the NYT had a front page story about women that he harassed but then the women said it wasn’t like that.

  3. and the deplorables won– was it because of the media? did Megan Kelly and Don Lemon give Trump the white house?

    i think they tried to stop him but tried to hard and it’s interesting that he won without help from big name Republicans but with a lot of help from small sections of the media: Fox, Bannon’s Breitbart and Kushner’s Observer. I’d bet they despite their disrepute in washington and academia became more powerful in the US than something like cbs news or cnn. It’s no surprise that they now turn to try censorship like monitor or label fake news or silence so-called hate-speech just to stop the onslaught online, the loss of viewers. Nobody hates and fears youtube and the alternative media more than the Big Corporations because now people can become stars or influential by their own merits and personalities, not because some square group of rich white executives just put that person on a pedestal.

    • No, Trump did mock him. Trump did not mock his disability. Trump is an equal opportunity mocker. You get no protection from your race, your gender, or your physical condition. If you get in the ring with him, Trump will have a go.

    • Looks good! While it seems like your primary focus is on the campaign period, it could be worthwhile to at least include a chapter on “The Charlottesville Hoax” aka “The ‘Fine People’ Hoax,” as this media-orchestrated aggressively unethical propaganda claim has become the GO-TO accusation favored by many who strongly oppose Trump. Some of these hoax-spreaders are, like the media, disingenuous and conniving; however, many others just saw bad reporting and bought into those lies. I’m referring specifically to the widespread lie that Trump called Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville “fine people,” specifically referring to “fine people on both sides” to form an abhorrent false equivalency between anti-confederate-statue protestors and literal (Neo) Nazis. This never happened (duh). Not only that, but to falsely make it seem like this did happen, news outlets overwhelmingly played edited clips that cut off just before Trump said “I’m not talking about the Neo-Nazis or the white supremacists, who should be condemned totally.” It doesn’t get much clearer than that. Upon hearing this (and usually having to watch the video or read a transcript to believe it) many ask incredulously just who Trump meant by “fine people” in that case. Of course, Trump meant both the anti-confederate-statue protestors AND protestors on the other side, who wanted to keep the statues up, but who were not Nazis or white supremacists, were fine people who had simply exercised their right to protest. During the same speech, Trump also referred to “bad people on both sides,” so he referred to “fine people” (both groups of opposing lawful, non-racist protestors) and “bad people”… who were the “bad people,” then? Obviously the Neo-Nazis were one group of bad people he referred to in that context. Objections at this point tend to consist of the anti-Trump people arguing that anyone there to oppose Neo-Nazis shouldn’t have been called “bad,” since opposing Nazis is always a good deed. That may sound like a reasonable take at first glance, since Nazis are, of course, truly horrible people. Yet, when you consider that Antifa, a radical anarcho-communist group that states publicly it believes in using violence to silence those with opposing views, had attended the rally for the express purpose of brawling with the Nazis… well, now that statement about “bad people on both sides” makes sense. And if anyone isn’t sold yet on that description, consider that Antifa members brought with them balloons filled with their own frozen urine and feces to throw at not only Nazis but also cops as part of their planned violence & chaos for that day. So we have good lawful non-Nazi protestors on both sides and bad lawless Nazi and Antifa scum on both sides. In this case, “sides” = the two sides of the statue issue. This is where Trump haters often say, “Well, if you marched with Nazis, aren’t you a Nazi… who the hell marches with Nazis?” That’s a strawman. It was a big park. All sorts of people showed up. Aside from the groups already mentioned, there were free speech activists, rubberneckers, reporters (old guard pros, “new media,” & enterprising amateurs alike) and even locals just checking out what the hell was happening over there. It was geographically possible to be in the park itself and yet not even be able to see or be seen by the really bad, dangerous groups. There is plenty of day-of uncut recording at Charlottesville that’s easy to find online and confirms this about the park size & layout. Also, some people would leave the moment they saw Nazis there but others would hunker down and refuse to let scumbags make them abandon a protest they cared about for other, non-racist reasons. Had I gone to that park to support an (obviously good, non-racist) cause that I cared about, I would have resisted against being pushed out of the park because Nazis were also there. Half my ancestry is Jewish & I have relatives who died in Nazi concentration camps; I don’t like the idea of letting the presence of Nazis make me abandon MY right to public assembly. I’m sure many other people, whatever their ancestry, think in a similar manner about whether they should leave the park because of Nazis being there. Anyway, there’s more to debunk about this hoax than I’ve mentioned in this already overlong comment, so this is a topic that struck me as being well suited to a full chapter worth of research and explanation. My observation when this debate was raging online was that the most notable champion of truth and fairness about Cville was Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays on Twitter & Periscope). Adams did/does an exceptional job of debunking this hoax and has a thorough but very easy to follow/grasp list of claims and debunks, along with the real transcript, easy-to-read content proving his points and so on. If you do include a chapter on the “Fine People Hoax,” From what I’ve seen in terms of Scott’s interactions on Twitter, I think he’ll almost surely be happy to talk about the hoa & his debunking efforts & to send you or point you to these resources he created. I should also note that Steve Cortes and Joel Pollak were key players, as well, in debunking this hoax. It used to show up online in hoax form constantly and get lots of harmful exposure via mainstream media sources. Now that most of the media knows how thoroughly this hoax has been debunked (even if most won’t come right out and say so) and they’re aware re: Scott creating something like a virtual quick-debunk resource kit that’s formatted so people can easily copy/paste his ready made debunk info in Twitter or other social media replies, I rarely see mainstream media types or “blue check” Twitter celebs spreading this lie nowadays… however, many “regular people” who dislike Trump still don’t know any better or they just don’t care about the truth, so, by that metric, the hoax is not close to 100% debunked yet (which is why I think it would make for an important chapter in your book, as it’s proven so “sticky” for many Americans and it suggests something horrible & blatantly false about the US President, which millions of people in the US (and millions more abroad) currently still buy hook, line & sinker.

  4. Not only do the media freely interpret remarks made by the president, but they also spin tales of White House confusion, disloyalty, and inefficiency again and again. President Trump is not responsible for the devastation in Puerto Rico; the hurricane is and no magic can fix things in a few weeks. For instance. The long term consequences of this media blitz of our elected officials and the president weakens the global image of America and all its citizenry. I hope your book will have a real effect in changing this media bias, so evident everywhere. I supported Bernie Sanders.

    • Barbara, no one os saying Trump is responsible for the devastation. He is responsible for the RESPONSE to it.
      FEMA was asking people with no electricity to ask for help online.
      The roofs had no covers for months. In contrast, 20 years before, during Hurican Georges, there were tarps in the roofs very quickly.

      • There were navel vessels heading to Puerto Rico before the storm hit. The medical transport took longer because it takes longer to fully equip for the trip.
        It has turned out that even when the resources arrived the local government mishandled distribution.

  5. So many more than just these. When Trump says “Fake news” this is what I interpret him to mean – making news stories out of convolution of facts to fit a story they want to report. I rarely follow politics because it makes my stomach churn. However, two stories I did hear that infuriated me because of BLATANT misrepresentation: #1 – Trump called Condoleeza Rice a “bitch” – stories came out in October 2016 about a speech made in 2006 – when what he ACTUALLY said was: “I wish she was a bitch. I don’t care if she’s a lovely woman. I want somebody that can go and make deals. She goes to countries, nothing ever happens. Except sound bytes.” And #2 – Trump implied Franklin Douglass was alive story in Feb 2017: “Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who has done an amazing job and [whose impact] is being recognized more and more, I notice.” How hard is that to understand??? I added in the [whose impact] part but to me it WAS OBVIOUS what was meant. Look, the guy is not a polished politician and says stupid things. He should not use Twitter. I do not like his style and am a Libertarian who supports some of his platform but not all. I am someone who wants FACTS without emotion clouding them so I can make my own decisions and when the media does this twisting, they lose credibility with me and make it hard for me to know where to go for valid data. I look forward to your book!

    • It is striking that you had to interpret and add to Trump’s words. If he is being critizised for what he said, and he said it, why not won it?
      The list just goes on and on…He said…but he meant. Well, if he can’t say what he means, he should shut up or take the heat for his words.

      • Seriously. I debated whether to respond to your comment(s) because they make no sense to me. This has nothing to do with “he said but he meant”. This is what the MEDIA is *interpreting* for the public that he meant. He NEVER said that Frederick Douglass was not dead or was still alive and yet the media said that is what he meant, really!? I only added in the bracketed words for fluidity. They did not add or change the meaning in any way. And on the Condoleeza quote – yes there is a difference (and you know it too). As I said, I do not like his style and he should take heat for his words – when they ARE his words and what was clearly his meaning. Twisting EVERYTHING waters down the legitimate stories and diminishes the public trust.

    • He jas all the editors in the world to check what he writes BBEFORE publishing. You can not say “it’s obvious” for one thing and the turn and say “he didn’t said that” even if it is obvious he did. Like in the case of Condolleza, he didn’t said she was, he said he wished her to be. Is there a difference? If he said he wished her to be a prostitute, is that ok because he did not said she was?

  6. One thing I meant to put in my comment before that blew my mind. Because of the mainstream twisting of words, Trump is being called a misogynist, racist, etc. and people believe that. He may be but I have not seen anything that supports any of those statements 100% as your articles show. One of the “examples” a relatively intelligent person I know, brought up last December was that “Trump said the ‘dirtiest’ and ‘thieve-ist’ Mexicans come from Puerto Rico.” – which was not true and was reported in a satirical story from “The Farce Report”… but was believed by this person because it fit into what she heard from the media. I did not know better to refute this at the time so I researched it. I was shocked when I found out it was satire that she *believed* and when I sent her the information she still would not believe that Trump was not a racist…

  7. Well said Shelli. We expect facts not misleading messages. In my family, twisted messages or partial truth are considered lies and deceits.

  8. Near the end of the Bush admin, I noticed changes in media reporting. I decided to record all 3 major news outlets and watch portions of each equally. I was surprised at what I was witnessing. I call it free range reporting (encouraging independence, without supervision or fact checking.) As I watch a story on one network, I would find that same story on the other 2 networks and what I found was this:
    1) All 3 networks state their opinions, not the facts.
    2) All 3 edit audio and video clips to twist the story in a direction that fits their agenda.
    3) To influence the public: Fox reports all stories but employs a positive or negative spin. MSNBC and CNN don’t even bother to report stories if they can’t figure out how to spin it in their direction.
    4) CNN & MSNBC, respectively, use the most hate speech.
    5) Fox wins the award for interviewing the most people of color on racial stories – “If an African American is saying this, all AF’s must have the same opinion.”

Leave a Reply to Shelli Godfrey Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.


*