Why was Trump's run in 2016 treated seriously by the media, even from when he announced?

[Obama24]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like from the moment Trump went down that escalator in June 2015, the media began almost obsessively focusing on him. Every bizarre, crude or crazy thing he said was given massive amounts of airtime, right off the bat.

My question is, looking back, why was he given such a platform by the media - why was his face plastered all over the news long before he was the nominee or even close to being so?

Why wasn't he treated akin to Jill Stein or such - as a fringe figure?

I'm not talking about now, but back in 2015-2016. At the time he was nothing more than a television guy with some failed businesses.

[SnowLabrador]

Because he was (and is) a gold mine for the media. He gets them clicks, so why wouldn't they cover him?

[Meclazine for Israel]

He gets the clicks.

The boss at CNN worked with him at the Apprentice.

Trump is marketing heaven for news websites.

[Obama24]

Because he was (and is) a gold mine for the media. He gets them clicks, so why wouldn't they cover him?

Because journalists should have the best interest of the country in mind. They have a responsibility.

[Obama24]

He gets the clicks.

The boss at CNN worked with him at the Apprentice.

Trump is marketing heaven for news websites.

One day, I hope some President goes after let's call it "Big news" or "Big journalism." I'm not sure how one could do so without brushing up against the first amendment, but the idea isn't to restrict their freedom, it's to remind them of their responsibility to the country. They have and had a massive hand in Trump gaining, and still being, any sort of relevant. That shouldn't be forgotten as time goes by.

[Mr. Smith]

He wasn't seriously treated initially, with only taking down JEB! as a game-changer. He was entertainment.

Some might argue none of it was all that serious until he actually won.

[Sir Mohamed]

He wasn't seriously treated initially, with only taking down JEB! as a game-changer. He was entertainment.

Some might argue none of it was all that serious until he actually won.

Yup, pretty much this.

There was even plently of talk whether he's a Dem plant working to assure HRC's win. This seemed to be somewhat of a credible claim given he once was closer to the Clintons and invited them to his marriage in 2005.

Generally, Trump was largely seen as a joke in public prior to his election.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Lol 2016 was Pre Pandemic the situation was totally different than now. Income inequality was totally different, voters wanted tax cuts, voters want more stimulus checks and reparations. Stop comparing 24 to pre Pandemic world situation is different

[Mr. Reactionary]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html

[darklordoftech]

Because he was (and is) a gold mine for the media. He gets them clicks, so why wouldn't they cover him?

Because journalists should have the best interest of the country in mind. They have a responsibility.

They didn't think that their coverage of him was helping him. They thought people would react to their coverage of him with shock and horror and vote against him.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Because he was (and is) a gold mine for the media. He gets them clicks, so why wouldn't they cover him?

Because journalists should have the best interest of the country in mind. They have a responsibility.

They didn't think that their coverage of him was helping him. They thought people would react to their coverage of him with shock and horror and vote against him.

I disagree. They knew their coverage was getting them eyeballs (and money), and didn't care about anything else.

[President Johnson]

It actually wasn't for the most part? At least his campaign was always predicted to implode, when voting starts at latest. Then he was given no real shot of winning and even taking down downballot Republicans with him.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It actually wasn't for the most part? At least his campaign was always predicted to implode, when voting starts at latest. Then he was given no real shot of winning and even taking down downballot Republicans with him.

Fundamentally I think the media really completely drops the ball. You can easily predict trends by looking at the West as a whole as even before Trump you saw:

- UKIP winning the 2014 EU elections in the UK

-  Le Pen was polling in the upper 20s and even 30s in much of 2014 and 2015

- Tony Abbott won a landslide in 2013 and implemented very strict immigration policies

- Spanish elections in 2015 saw two new parties rise out of no where


It was obvious populism was on the rise by 2015 but the press really is unable to look at other nations for examples . Even now if you look at polls in other nations, the incumbent party is usually getting obliterated so this election really should be won by Trump in a walk but Trump's flaws are why its a tossup

[emailking]

He really wasn't treated seriously. But if you're wondering why he got coverage that's because he was leading in the polls. He was in 2012 as well before he announced he wouldn't run.

[Badger]

Because he was winning in the polls. He shouldn't have been treated as a serious candidate by Republican voters, but once he was almost from the get-go the media had little choice but to follow him.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Firstly, the press had been taking Donald Trump seriously as a potential Presidential candidate since 2000.  They took him seriously as a possible Reform Party nominee.  They took him seriously in 2012.  

In 2015-16, Trump positioned himself in a unique niche; he was a candidate who took a number of regular GOP positions, but some other positions that challenged orthodoxy, particularly the orthodoxy of Free Trade and perpetual involvement in foreign wars that (A) were viewed as wrongheaded by many and (B) seemed to be conducted with no clear objective in mind and no vision of what victory would be.  These were policies that the Bushes, Dick Cheney, and a slew of other Republicans (Romney, Huntsman, Ryan, and the Congressional GOP Establishment) were vested in.

In doing so, Trump mobilized a force in the GOP that had been somewhat shoved to the side; the Ross Perot voters.  These voters had been long written off, but they were a traditional Republican constituency, and they were joined with voters who were once Democrats whose jobs were being eliminated by the Democratic Party's new "Green" orientation.  Indeed, Trump's entry into the race engineered a real political realignment that is still sorting itself out today.

The press is supposed to take such events seriously.  The press's job is not to manipulate the public to support the choice of the Democratic Party; it is to present the issues before the people.  The idea that Donald Trump should not be treated seriously as a Presidential candidate is laughable, whether you agree with his agenda or not.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Because it was "entertaining."