As for footage making presidents seem healthier than they are, isn't that pretty common? I was under the impression that it's pretty standard, and that the media normally cooperate with the White House in maintaining that image.
It has happened historically, but nowadays we as a society prioritize transparency and the right to know what's going on a lot more than "decorum," as Roundy put it. Besides, there are constitutional reasons why the health of the president is of public concern, especially if there's the possibility of him being incapacitated. There's a line of succession that needs to be followed in that case, and public scrutiny helps ensure that it will be. We can't always trust the people closest to the president to admit when he can't do his job, and I certainly don't trust the people closest to
this president. It's a drastic example, admittedly (and also from a hundred years ago), but Woodrow Wilson's wife Edith unofficially
took over his job when he had a stroke. Interesting story, but not something we want to encourage in modern times.
Why would they show Trump signing papers we, the public, should not see?
We can see his hand written notes on a speech while he's walking. Lets not invite something worse, eh?
Are you really interpreting my criticism of the poor staging of Trump scribbling on blank papers to mean that they should have shown Trump signing actual official documents? I don't think they should be showing Trump signing anything, really. Signing documents doesn't exactly visually convey strenuous effort, which is part of the reason why the numerous pictures of Trump sternly holding a Sharpie over a document with a look of determination on his face look so silly. If I were in charge of his photo ops, I'd probably show pictures of him talking with his staff or shaking hands with visitors to the Oval Office. Regarding this specific situation, with Trump being in the hospital, I don't think it was necessary to try and convince Americans that Trump was "still working" at all. Nobody really expects him to be working when he's in the hospital.
Regarding the likelihood of Trump winning, junker made the point about the closeness of the 2016 election better than I would have. It's just being willfully ignorant to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "304-227! 304-227!" as if the situation couldn't possibly have been more nuanced than that. Trump might win, but if he does, it'll be narrow. He's not popular enough to win by any kind of substantial margin, let alone a landslide, and as odd as it sounds, he would be better off if he didn't win by too much. Trump just isn't the kind of president who can unite the nation the way Obama and Bush could. He flourishes in the midst of controversy, furiously triggering and trolling his numerous opponents to the delight of his fans. He needs villains, and the more the better. General popularity would just leave him floundering.