Terrible News Reporting - Treating Trump Like A Reasonable Candidate; "Worst Day Since . . ."

I'm going to comment on how two articles in Saturday's LA Times distort the moment by how they word things.  

1. Comparing North Korea Policy - Ignores the Overwhelming Difference Between the Candidates

While US North Korean policy is important, this headline reminded me of other articles that skip over the part about Trump being the worst, most horrible person to every be nominated to be president.  The candidate who would discard the constitution, set up internment camps for immigrants and his 'enemies' and who knows who else.  The candidate who would turn the US Democracy into a dictatorship.  See Project 2025 to see what he and his Heritage Society Friends are planning.  That link is Wikipedia's entry.  You can look at Project 2024's own site as well.  Is Trump smart enough to do that?  Probably not, but he's got some nasty folks behind the scenes and Project 2025 outlines what they plan to do with his next presidency.  

So seriously asking questions like whether Trump or Biden would have a better North Korean policy is sort of like asking which candidate has biggest ears.  It's beside the point  [I looked this up to see if it should be beside or besides]  Electing Trump would be an unmitigated disaster for all. Even the multi-billionaires who hope to have their taxes and regulations cut will find that Trump, like Putin, would go after any of them is there is any sign their total obeisance is slipping.  The word defenestration has come back into use for a reason.

This sort of article makes it seem that this is a normal election and it simply isn't.  All these sorts of comparisons help legitimize Trump as a candidate.  

It also assumes that Trump has policy or is capable of carrying out policy that is more than his personal, at that moment whim.  That his policy is more than feeding his ego.  

2.  Worst day since April

[I'm leaving the ad in, because somehow I suspect monetizing online newspapers like this plays a role in why we get silly headlines like this.  Media these days seem to always add a negative to any positive that might reflect on Biden.  It used to be that newspapers and blogs had pictures that illustrate the story.  But now they have clickbait pictures like this.  They are either disgusting, irrelevant to the story, or misleading because readers think the picture is related to the story. ] 

My key point here is that much of the media seem to feel that "strong economic reports" has to always be balanced with a negative like 'S&P has worst day since April."   Is the S&P's one bad day equal in importance to the 'strong economy report'?  Or is it a minor blip, but they felt they had to 'both sides' the headline?  

And "since April"?  Really?  This is just May.  I'm waiting for the headline that says, "Worst day since yesterday."  

Let's look at the S&P 500 for the last year:

Source

S&P 500 has trended up over the year and it's higher now than any time in April.  What are they really trying to tell us with "worst day since April"?  What does one bad day mean when the trend is a steady long term climb?  And why is that mentioned in the headline?

3.  Why are the media taking shots at Biden when his administration has such a strong record on many things, while at the same time treating Trump like a viable presidential candidate when he's so demonstrably terrible and dangerous?

I don't know.  People have suggested a number of reasons, none of which I can show proof of.  The proof is their performance, but why?  Some possible explanation.

• The main media are owned by very rich people and their interests are aligned with the wealthy
• Media need sensational headlines to get eyeballs.  As a blogger, I can see how such headlines get more readers.  I don't do lurid headlines, but if I can post a funny or dramatic headline because it fits the story, I'll usually do it.
• Media want people to follow the presidential (and other) election because that sells news.  So keeping the presidential race close, they believe, will get them eyeballs and advertisers.
• Media make money through advertising.  Political ads are a great source of income. 
•  "Traditional ad spending will grow 7.9% (over 2020) to $8.86 billion. TV makes up nearly all of that, with $7.06 billion in spend, up 7.5% over 2020. Print, radio, and other traditional media make up the rest." (From eMarketer)

Those are four plausible reasons for media to forgo journalism ethics in the name of profit (and for many newspapers survival.)

All I can say is that people should read these kinds of headlines - and articles - critically.  Even better, write letters to the editors challenging the assumptions.