Barely Worth A Tweet

If there's one thing at which the media excels, it's examining itself after some perceived failure.  And then after some generalized introspection and expressions of regret -- never a specific assertion of journalistic negligence or wrongdoing against a media figure or organization or a specific promise to improve its practices, its back to business as usual.  

Now The New York Times is wondering how, or if, news organizations should cover Donald Trump's tweets as important breaking news.  Of course they should -- it's what he wants, it's easy, and it's utterly meaningless.  What could be better for an American public that can't tell the different between reality and a reality show?

But if the Times is serious, and if it can get some general agreement among other media organizations, it really should give those tweets just as much coverage as they deserve:  A tweet in return.

It should be clear by now that Donald Trump's words mean nothing.  They don't serve to convey real information or real understanding of the President-elect.  They serve only to manipulate a voracious media and a gullible public.  

Everyone is concerned about fake news spreading over the internet and pushing out real news.  What's more fake than the Donald's tweets.  

Let's face it:  His word is not his bond.  It's not even his word.  

It's not clear that Trump takes his words seriously.  We only know that he enjoys -- or needs -- the effect they create.  

The media created Donald Trump, and he feeds on it.  Granted, the media feeds on him, too.  

Which is why he's so dangerous, a corrupting influence on the media, and indeed to the continued vitality of the first amendment.

Why should anyone, much less real journalists, take his words more seriously than he does?

Let Fox treat his tweets as news.  Serious news organizations should do know more than answer his tweets with tweets, or with a daily column devoted just to his tweets.  That would put them in their proper, diminutive, perspective.