Throughout the campaign Trump has owned the ‘Medias’ ass and in doing so undermined it in ways in that I think undermine democracy. You can’t trust the media but you can trust my media.
What does this even mean? You have a media figure - Trump - skillfully manipulate a media that was hostile to him on one side, and on the other you have a party that actively colluded behind the scenes with the media to direct favorable coverage, and you think the former is the more dangerous?
Isn't that kind of like saying that Dennis Rodman and Kim Kardasshian's ability to influence media through sensationalism is more dangerous than Roger Ailes ability to directly influence the media?
You can't trust the media period. They gave up on even trying to be impartial, they gave up on reporting in favor of influencing. Why do you think "fact checking" became a thing in the first place, isn't that literally what the media should have been doing all along? And now every media outlet uses "fact checking" as a buzz word to cover the same biased reporting they were doing before.
Trump is able to use nasty language however if the media reports on the nasty language is it they we are being mean so biased against him.
This is a straw man argument. No one legitimately argues that the use of nasty language is the premise on which you determine the media's bias.
Trump and his followers can revel in not being politically correct but when address Trump and his followers you must use politically correct language and not offend them. They are not being nasty you are
What evidence of this do you have? That anyone has been chastised or required not to "offend" Trump or his followers. The left has correctly been criticized for lying and exaggerating when describing Trump's followers. For labeling anyone with whom they disagree as a racist, sexist, anti-Semite, etc. That has nothing to do with your fake issue of being offended by a failure to use politically correct language, and everything to do with lies being asserted as true.
The word bias now means any reporting/facts that does not support the ‘facts’ I already ‘know’ is biased.
Bull. The word bias means having a side and selecting how you will cover a situation to favor that side. It means reporting one "story" versus another "story" based on who they help rather than merit. It means having days of coverage on a fake story (like say that Trump paid no taxes - which is literally a made up assertion) versus declaring something old news. All kinds of researchers actually measure the amount of news coverage (by time on air) that stories get, you can actually look at the results if you bother to do so.
I will say this in soft support of your point, a lot of people can not distinguish between facts and opinions with which they happen to agree. That certainly leads to them believing a story is objective when it contains no real facts, and another story with just as little in the way of fact as being a complete lie. Obamacare has failed, Obamacare is a great success, neither of those is a fact.
How do you dialog with a man and hold him accountable when he gets to say whatever he wants, in any manner he wants while you must still play by ‘rules’ soon to be his rules. Why are so many people ok with this?
For one, you've created a false premise. Your assumptions are not true. Therefore the question of why they are "okay" with it doesn't really come into play.
I've pointed it out several times, but if you look at what Trump says, you'll see he doesn't say anything and everything at random. He says outrageous things within a fairly narrow range. Specifically, he limits what he says to things for which there is almost no chance there could be a libel charge. He hurls personal insults frequently, but not ones that could lead to defamation, he doesn't make many accusations either. He plays out to me as a very bombastic individual who's been heavily coached by a legal team on what he can say.
Is this a legitimate danger?
There is absolutely no danger that the media is going to roll over and play nice with Trump. There is no danger that press freedoms will be limited in any material way. The only real danger to free speech in the last decade has come from the left, with their insistence on safe spaces and attempts to oppress speech they find offensive or just "wrong."
