A failed attempt at googling highlights an issue with "media" today

First, let me say that if anyone can do better googling then me, please shoot it my way.

I wanted to actually read the full, unedited response to the events in VA that Trump made today. I didn't want to read some "reporters" take on it, or some analysts opinion, or some bloggers condemnations. I wanted to actually read the unedited, uncommented on, raw comments by Trump to be able to do the crazy thing called thinking for myself.

Now to me, the President of the United States responding to an event getting national coverage would be "NEWS"; I.E. something to actually report on, not just opine on. I would figure some news organization would put forth a transcript without commentary or attempts to question Trumps response.

Yet despite what I would imagine to be a relatively reasonable and normal assumption for "reporting", I can't seem to find it.

I've found analysis on it, I've found hot takes, I've found stories about public figures slamming Trump for it, and some indicating excerpts from Trumps response interspersed with other thoughts and coments; but no transcript. It seemed hot takes were far more preferred than just getting raw information into peoples hands. (but then again, how else does one get page clicks I guess)

Does anyone have an actual written transcript that they've seen of the response?

I searched "trump Virginia protest comments" on Google.ca and pretty much most of the major news sites come up and the first result, a CNN article seems to include in full what he said and a video of him saying it. If I am wrong and that is not all of it let me know.

Zyphlin said:

First, let me say that if anyone can do better googling then me, please shoot it my way.

I wanted to actually read the full, unedited response to the events in VA that Trump made today. I didn't want to read some "reporters" take on it, or some analysts opinion, or some bloggers condemnations. I wanted to actually read the unedited, uncommented on, raw comments by Trump to be able to do the crazy thing called thinking for myself.

Now to me, the President of the United States responding to an event getting national coverage would be "NEWS"; I.E. something to actually report on, not just opine on. I would figure some news organization would put forth a transcript without commentary or attempts to question Trumps response.

Yet despite what I would imagine to be a relatively reasonable and normal assumption for "reporting", I can't seem to find it.

I've found analysis on it, I've found hot takes, I've found stories about public figures slamming Trump for it, and some indicating excerpts from Trumps response interspersed with other thoughts and coments; but no transcript. It seemed hot takes were far more preferred than just getting raw information into peoples hands. (but then again, how else does one get page clicks I guess)

Does anyone have an actual written transcript that they've seen of the response?

Click to expand...

Not up yet at Whitehouse.gov.

Did find this:

It is usually easier to find videos than transcripts nowadays.

Redress said:

Not up yet at Whitehouse.gov.

Did find this:

Click to expand...

Been on Trumps twitter for over 4hrs

I am not real happy to see headlines leading the impression that a bad guy has killed 3......very likely an overt attempt to leave fairness in order to drive an agenda.

Skeptic Bob said:

It is usually easier to find videos than transcripts nowadays.

Click to expand...

And it pisses me off...

Hawkeye10 said:

Been on Trumps twitter for over 4hrs

I am not real happy to see headlines leading the impression that a bad guy has killed 3......very likely an overt attempt to leave fairness in order to drive an agenda.

Click to expand...

The entire event was to "drive an agenda", an agenda of hate. You reap what you sow.

Skeptic Bob said:

It is usually easier to find videos than transcripts nowadays.

Click to expand...

I know, which I absolutely hate. From SOTU to speechs to press conferences to interviews to even Debates....I'd much prefer a written transcript than trying to sit through a video. Lets me kind of read it at my own speed, actually easily take in and comprehend the words, and it also helps with someone like Trump who's voice, cadance, and mannerisms just tend to make me want either zone out or grit my teeth

Zyphlin said:

First, let me say that if anyone can do better googling then me, please shoot it my way.

I wanted to actually read the full, unedited response to the events in VA that Trump made today. I didn't want to read some "reporters" take on it, or some analysts opinion, or some bloggers condemnations. I wanted to actually read the unedited, uncommented on, raw comments by Trump to be able to do the crazy thing called thinking for myself.

Now to me, the President of the United States responding to an event getting national coverage would be "NEWS"; I.E. something to actually report on, not just opine on. I would figure some news organization would put forth a transcript without commentary or attempts to question Trumps response.

Yet despite what I would imagine to be a relatively reasonable and normal assumption for "reporting", I can't seem to find it.

I've found analysis on it, I've found hot takes, I've found stories about public figures slamming Trump for it, and some indicating excerpts from Trumps response interspersed with other thoughts and coments; but no transcript. It seemed hot takes were far more preferred than just getting raw information into peoples hands. (but then again, how else does one get page clicks I guess)

Does anyone have an actual written transcript that they've seen of the response?

Click to expand...

Here ya go. Result #3 when I searched "trump charlottesville transcript."

https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/16138...-violence-on-many-sides-charlottesville-rally

May I just say, though, that journalism is not simply a transcription service for the government's official messages. It's their job to, ya know... analyze it, show the larger social context and reaction to it, etc. It has never been common practice for journalists to publish an entire transcript of anything more than a few sentences long, because that would leave precious little space for the actual analytical writing that is the main point of their job. You're confusing the fourth estate for the White House's press release department.

Redress said:

And it pisses me off...

Click to expand...

Sites are putting up a lot of video, VOX for instance just hired a lot of people trying to get away from the text on the internet modality.


Me I have no interest.....for the same reason that while I was a cable news junky for a couple of decades I gave up TV News years ago......completely......it takes way way too long to get information. I expect text....so that I can look over maybe skim maybe read part of it maybe read all of it depending upon how good it is. I dont have time to waste on junk, and lets be very clear, most of what the so-called journalists produce is junk.

Zyphlin said:

I know, which I absolutely hate. From SOTU to speechs to press conferences to interviews to even Debates....I'd much prefer a written transcript than trying to sit through a video. Lets me kind of read it at my own speed, actually easily take in and comprehend the words, and it also helps with someone like Trump who's voice, cadance, and mannerisms just tend to make me want either zone out or grit my teeth

Click to expand...

For future reference if you don't already have it bookmarked: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-and-remarks

iguanaman said:

The entire event was to "drive an agenda", an agenda of hate. You reap what you sow.

Click to expand...

Real journalists dont drive personal agendas...nor should they be driving upper class agendas.....journalism was supposed to be for democracy...for all of us....not for the bosses.

Carjosse said:

I searched "trump Virginia protest comments" on Google.ca and pretty much most of the major news sites come up and the first result, a CNN article seems to include in full what he said and a video of him saying it. If I am wrong and that is not all of it let me know.

Click to expand...

Yeah I watched it live on CNN. The talking heads bashed him after, but they showed the full statement aside from the VA guy beforehand.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Here ya go. Result #3 when I searched "trump charlottesville transcript."

https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/16138...-violence-on-many-sides-charlottesville-rally

May I just say, though, that journalism is not simply a transcription service for the government's official messages. It's their job to, ya know... analyze it, show the larger social context and reaction to it, etc. It has never been common practice for journalists to publish an entire transcript of anything more than a few sentences long, because that would leave precious little space for the actual analytical writing that is the main point of their job. You're confusing the fourth estate for the White House's press release department.

Click to expand...

Exactly. For instance, my blog below is about spinoffs, franchises, shared universes in hollywood and the business of media. If I just announced such and such show is getting a spinoff. That wouldn't make for very interesting content. I do however, analyze what it means for the parent-show, the franchise, or the latest merger/development in TV and Hollywood. It unfortunately has to be done that way, otherwise the news would be very boring. Click-bait is dangerous, yes, but it's very easy to avoid. Maybe if these people don't like watching the news, they should just read the newspaper.

Hawkeye10 said:

Real journalists dont drive personal agendas...nor should they be driving upper class agendas.....journalism was supposed to be for democracy...for all of us....not for the bosses.

Click to expand...

Sorry hawk. That's capitalism at work.

Zyphlin said:

First, let me say that if anyone can do better googling then me, please shoot it my way.

I wanted to actually read the full, unedited response to the events in VA that Trump made today. I didn't want to read some "reporters" take on it, or some analysts opinion, or some bloggers condemnations. I wanted to actually read the unedited, uncommented on, raw comments by Trump to be able to do the crazy thing called thinking for myself.

Now to me, the President of the United States responding to an event getting national coverage would be "NEWS"; I.E. something to actually report on, not just opine on. I would figure some news organization would put forth a transcript without commentary or attempts to question Trumps response.

Yet despite what I would imagine to be a relatively reasonable and normal assumption for "reporting", I can't seem to find it.

I've found analysis on it, I've found hot takes, I've found stories about public figures slamming Trump for it, and some indicating excerpts from Trumps response interspersed with other thoughts and coments; but no transcript. It seemed hot takes were far more preferred than just getting raw information into peoples hands. (but then again, how else does one get page clicks I guess)

Does anyone have an actual written transcript that they've seen of the response?

Click to expand...

Do you read the newspaper? that might be more to your liking.

Redress said:

For future reference if you don't already have it bookmarked: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-and-remarks

Click to expand...

His comments still aren't up there though.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Here ya go. Result #3 when I searched "trump charlottesville transcript."

https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/16138...-violence-on-many-sides-charlottesville-rally

May I just say, though, that journalism is not simply a transcription service for the government's official messages. It's their job to, ya know... analyze it, show the larger social context and reaction to it, etc. It has never been common practice for journalists to publish an entire transcript of anything more than a few sentences long, because that would leave precious little space for the actual analytical writing that is the main point of their job. You're confusing the fourth estate for the White House's press release department.

Click to expand...

No. The job of the news is to report the news and let the consumers decide for themselves. Leave the opinionating and analysis to the opinion shows. If the news can't even be bothered to report the facts accurately then they're not actually a news organization, they're and entertainment organization like CNN or MSNBC.

ModerateGOP said:

Sorry hawk. That's capitalism at work.

Click to expand...

No, it is stupidity at least and I argue immorality as well.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Here ya go. Result #3 when I searched "trump charlottesville transcript."

Click to expand...

Awesome! Thank you! I guess I shouldn't have put "response" in my search. I was going "trump charlottesville response transcript" into google and wasn't having much luck.

It's their job to, ya know... analyze it

Click to expand...

See, I don't agree there.

That is part of their job. But I'd suggest the primary job of the NEWS is to REPORT the news. Not comment, analyze, or opine on it; but to simply provide it. Provide information to the public to make them aware and informed, allowing the PUBLIC to form opinions on it.

Yes, to some degree, an extension of their job...which is sadly seemingly becoming the main part of their job in the race for ratings, ad revenue, clicks, etc...but to me that is not, nor should be, the primary duty of the news.

Now I don't disagree with you. Providing a broader picture in terms of various reactions to a particular story, other relevant facts to the story, etc is absolutely part of that news REPORTING. But giving the writers opinion/analysis of a situation is not, and never has been, my impression of the purpose of the news.

Zyphlin said:

First, let me say that if anyone can do better googling then me, please shoot it my way.

I wanted to actually read the full, unedited response to the events in VA that Trump made today. I didn't want to read some "reporters" take on it, or some analysts opinion, or some bloggers condemnations. I wanted to actually read the unedited, uncommented on, raw comments by Trump to be able to do the crazy thing called thinking for myself.

Now to me, the President of the United States responding to an event getting national coverage would be "NEWS"; I.E. something to actually report on, not just opine on. I would figure some news organization would put forth a transcript without commentary or attempts to question Trumps response.

Yet despite what I would imagine to be a relatively reasonable and normal assumption for "reporting", I can't seem to find it.

I've found analysis on it, I've found hot takes, I've found stories about public figures slamming Trump for it, and some indicating excerpts from Trumps response interspersed with other thoughts and coments; but no transcript. It seemed hot takes were far more preferred than just getting raw information into peoples hands. (but then again, how else does one get page clicks I guess)

Does anyone have an actual written transcript that they've seen of the response?

Click to expand...

C-Span

https://www.c-span.org/video/?432523-1/president-trump-condemns-violence-charlottesville-va

I agree. Trying to find unedited content of many statements can be a PITA.

reinoe said:

No. The job of the news is to report the news and let the consumers decide for themselves. Leave the opinionating and analysis to the opinion shows. If the news can't even be bothered to report the facts accurately then they're not actually a news organization, they're and entertainment organization like CNN or MSNBC.

Click to expand...

Analysis is literally the entire point of journalism. There is no such thing as non-analytic journalism, and there never has been at any point in history. So, sorry, you're wrong. Like I said, if you just want the transcript their secretary made, that's why they have a press department.

Zyphlin said:

Awesome! Thank you! I guess I shouldn't have put "response" in my search. I was going "trump charlottesville response transcript" into google and wasn't having much luck.



See, I don't agree there.

That is part of their job. But I'd suggest the primary job of the NEWS is to REPORT the news. Not comment, analyze, or opine on it; but to simply provide it. Provide information to the public to make them aware and informed, allowing the PUBLIC to form opinions on it.

Yes, to some degree, an extension of their job...which is sadly seemingly becoming the main part of their job in the race for ratings, ad revenue, clicks, etc...but to me that is not, nor should be, the primary duty of the news.

Now I don't disagree with you. Providing a broader picture in terms of various reactions to a particular story, other relevant facts to the story, etc is absolutely part of that news REPORTING. But giving the writers opinion/analysis of a situation is not, and never has been, my impression of the purpose of the news.

Click to expand...

As these creeps have gotten more fanatical about driving their agenda they sure do a lot more of it. Like some of the Anti-Trump stuff these last months are "The Onion" bad....EXACTLY like sitting in church and getting a lecture from a Bible Thumper on what I have to believe and on how I have to behave.

We are in a new Dark Age says me.

Zyphlin said:

Awesome! Thank you! I guess I shouldn't have put "response" in my search. I was going "trump charlottesville response transcript" into google and wasn't having much luck.



See, I don't agree there.

That is part of their job. But I'd suggest the primary job of the NEWS is to REPORT the news. Not comment, analyze, or opine on it; but to simply provide it. Provide information to the public to make them aware and informed, allowing the PUBLIC to form opinions on it.

Yes, to some degree, an extension of their job...which is sadly seemingly becoming the main part of their job in the race for ratings, ad revenue, clicks, etc...but to me that is not, nor should be, the primary duty of the news.

Now I don't disagree with you. Providing a broader picture in terms of various reactions to a particular story, other relevant facts to the story, etc is absolutely part of that news REPORTING. But giving the writers opinion/analysis of a situation is not, and never has been, my impression of the purpose of the news.

Click to expand...

That is the only point of journalism. That is the only thing journalism has ever been, for all of time. And actually, I find it sort of funny that people complain about how biased the media is "these days," because for most of history, journalism has been much more outrightly opinionated than it is now. Most papers even had an official lean right on their front page. Journalism today is practically staid by comparison.

I mean... have you ever actually looked at a historical paper? Have you ever watched Edward R. Murrow, one of the most revered journalists of the entire 20th century? It was basically 50% opinion.

People have such weird ideas of what journalism is, and was historically.

Analysis is involved in every part of journalism, including DECIDING what to report on, since they can't do it all. There is no way to remove analysis, because that is the heart of journalism. Reporting IS analysis. The whole point of even writing an article is because they think it's an important thing to understand, and in the course of writing it, they also have to decide what specifically is important about it, and why. That's a judgment call that can't be separated from the process of reporting. Without that, there is nothing to say. You're asking for something that doesn't make sense.

Like I said, there'd be no reason for journalism to exist if it was nothing but a secretary for the government with the occasional joining sentence for the sake of brevity. The government already releases that, so what's the point of making the press re-do it? That's what dictatorships have, not free presses.

If you don't like their choices, then try a different paper. It's not like there's only one game in town. But you might find it less frustrating if you took the time to understand that journalism is PART of the national conversation, not just a bystander, and it always has been. Journalists are meant to be accessible people -- interactive and part of the community.

If all you want is the government's official line, then you can look up the government's press statements. Everyone has always had access to that. It is released to the public, after all. It's not like journalists are hiding anything from you that you can't find yourself, if that's all you're looking for.

But the point of journalism is to give people more than just the government's official line. And they have to decide what the "more" is to do that.

Hawkeye10 said:

No, it is stupidity at least and I argue immorality as well.

Click to expand...

It obviously is a business model that works. Otherwise news media wouldn't be doing as well as it is, yes even including the New York Times.