The biased Media vs Trump!

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

In fact it very specifically says they have been independent thus far.

Consider this... Had The New York Times actually been independent and fair to both candidates it wouldn’t need to rededicate itself to honest reporting, now would it?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Consider this... Had The New York Times actually been independent and fair to both candidates it wouldn’t need to rededicate itself to honest reporting, now would it?

Why do people renew their wedding vows?

Why does an incumbent president still have a 2nd inauguration?

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Consider this... Had The New York Times actually been independent and fair to both candidates it wouldn’t need to rededicate itself to honest reporting, now would it?

It is a thank you to their readers and a promise to keep up the same standard of work. Honestly you deserve a prize in creative reading to pull that as an admission of bias.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Consider this... Had The New York Times actually been independent and fair to both candidates it wouldn’t need to rededicate itself to honest reporting, now would it?

It can rededicate itself whenever it likes. It implies nothing other than restating their values - which they clearly indicate, they've already been applying.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

It is a thank you to their readers and a promise to keep up the same standard of work. Honestly you deserve a prize in creative reading to pull that as an admission of bias.

Nice try, but no dice. I just doesn’t compute after The New York Times announced that it was breaking it rules of coverage because Trump didn’t deserve fairness.

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html?_r=0

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Nice try, but no dice. I just doesn’t compute after The New York Times announced that it was breaking it rules of coverage because Trump didn’t deserve fairness.

Good thing they did no such thing then, eh?

It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

"It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable."

I think history judgement will determine that the 2016 election coverage was skewed by journalistic bias against Trump.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

I think history judgement will determine that the 2016 election coverage was skewed by journalistic bias against Trump.

You're more than entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to pretend a newspaper concedes they're biased because of your personal opinion though.

Hank Scorpio

According to wikileaks, didn't NY Times reporter Nick Confessore purposely bury references to HRC's Hillary's Victory fund, in order to promote her over Sanders in the primaries. Ouch.

20Cent

Megan Kelly says Trump offered her flights, hotel rooms and gifts. She says other fox "journalists " were also offered similar.

vetinari

Ultimately Trump's biggest trick was convincing people that the media was unfairly biased against him. In reality they were not nearly biased enough. The likes of CNN spent months normalizing a racist misogynist candidate. In way you have to say fair play to Trump. I never thought you could pull that off in 2016. I underestimated how much the media would pander to Trump for ratings.

KingBrian2

vetinari wrote: »

Ultimately Trump's biggest trick was convincing people that the media was unfairly biased against him. In reality they were not nearly biased enough. The likes of CNN spent months normalizing a racist misogynist candidate. In way you have to say fair play to Trump. I never thought you could pull that off in 2016. I underestimated how much the media would pander to Trump for ratings.

Yes the media were very reasonable towards Clinton letting her get away with receiving donations for Saudi Arabia committing war crimes in Yemen and spreading Wahhabism.

Mr Joe

vetinari wrote: »

Ultimately Trump's biggest trick was convincing people that the media was unfairly biased against him. In reality they were not nearly biased enough. The likes of CNN spent months normalizing a racist misogynist candidate. In way you have to say fair play to Trump. I never thought you could pull that off in 2016. I underestimated how much the media would pander to Trump for ratings.

:eek:

Hank Scorpio

In fairness he has a point, the media pounded on Trump so much it backfired and made the public more self aware about their agenda and willingness to propel a corrupt puppet into office. That and social media have proven it is the future.

Like a comedic sketch.

KingBrian2

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

In fairness he has a point, the media pounded on Trump so much it backfired and made the public more self aware about their agenda and willingness to propel a corrupt puppet into office. That and social media has proven it is the future.

Also a low turnout. http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-elections-voter-turnout-at-20-year-low-in-2016-1624553

The media sold the wrong story. Encourage people to vote indeed Trump was urging his supporters to vote and they did. They engaged in Democracy more than Hillary's followers did.

Amerika

vetinari wrote: »

Ultimately Trump's biggest trick was convincing people that the media was unfairly biased against him. In reality they were not nearly biased enough. The likes of CNN spent months normalizing a racist misogynist candidate. In way you have to say fair play to Trump. I never thought you could pull that off in 2016. I underestimated how much the media would pander to Trump for ratings.

"Pander?" Funny way of saying "condemn 24/7."

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Also a low turnout. http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-elections-voter-turnout-at-20-year-low-in-2016-1624553

The media sold the wrong story. Encourage people to vote indeed Trump was urging his supporters to vote and they did. They engaged in Democracy more than Hillary's followers did.

Once again - more people voted for Hillary. Both of the candidates were urging people to vote, and one of them was the more successful of the two - it wasn't Trump.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

"Pander?" Funny way of saying "condemn 24/7."

A theory not actually supported by any facts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-media-biased-toward-clinton-or-trump-heres-some-actual-hard-data/

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

A theory not actually supported by any facts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-media-biased-toward-clinton-or-trump-heres-some-actual-hard-data/

The sites you keep linking to were the worst offenders. It doesn't prove any point.

Mr Joe

alastair wrote: »

A theory not actually supported by any facts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-media-biased-toward-clinton-or-trump-heres-some-actual-hard-data/

You talk about "facts" then link to strongly anti Trump media publication claiming there is no bias....:pac:

May aswell just link Salon, the Guardian and the Irish Times while were at it.

alastair

Mr Joe wrote: »

You talk about "facts" then link to strongly anti Trump media publication claiming there is no bias....:pac:

May aswell just link Salon, the Guardian and the Irish Times while were at it.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The sites you keep linking to were the worst offenders. It doesn't prove any point.

Feel free to stick your heads in the sand. You won't learn much there though. The study wasn't undertaken by the NYT, Salon, the Guardian, or the Irish Times.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

Feel free to stick your head in the sand. You won't learn much there though. The study wasn't undertaken by the NYT, Salon, the Guardian, or the Irish Times.

The polls all had it spot on as well. Never doubt the media folks.

Mr Joe

alastair wrote: »

Feel free to stick your head in the sand. You won't learn much there though. The study wasn't undertaken by the NYT, Salon, the Guardian, or the Irish Times.

Think it's you with your head in the sand if you think the media was not biased against Trump. I think the issue is you are against him to so can't admit it. There wouldn't be 90 pages in this thread if there was no bias.

No whether the bias helped him or not is another question, it probably did. Nobody likes being told what to think, especially by sneering metropolitan liberals. People want to hear both points of view and decide for themselves. The mainstream media became Clinton cheerleaders, just like Brexit, out of touch with reality. It's why mainstream media is dying off, and alternative/online media is taking over.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The polls all had it spot on as well. Never doubt the media folks.

Let's break this down, as it seems to pose some difficulty. The researchers collated a range of media reports on both candidates, after the fact, measured the data. No polling, no real room for guesswork, or people misrepresenting their future intentions. It's not even a media source, it's a bunch of data nerds, doing it off their own back.

But feel free to miss the point, once again.

alastair

Mr Joe wrote: »

Think it's you with your head in the sand if you think the media was not biased against Trump. I think the issue is you are against him to so can't admit it. There wouldn't be 90 pages in this thread if there was no bias.

There are far more than 90 pages covering even greater nonsense on boards. It really isn't proof of anything.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

Let me break down my point of view for you, I don't believe what media outlets like the Washington Post decide what is and what is not fact regardless of what median they claim to have used.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Let me break down my point of view for you, I don't believe what media outlets like the Washington Post decide what is and what is not fact regardless of what median they claim to have used.

Nope, you're still not getting it. I'll try something simpler; the WP are claiming nothing. It's not their research.

ancapailldorcha

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The sites you keep linking to were the worst offenders. It doesn't prove any point.

Disregarding a source simply because you don't like it is against the charter. If you have something to refute the source then post it.

Exeggcute

vetinari wrote: »

Ultimately Trump's biggest trick was convincing people that the media was unfairly biased against him. In reality they were not nearly biased enough. The likes of CNN spent months normalizing a racist misogynist candidate. In way you have to say fair play to Trump. I never thought you could pull that off in 2016. I underestimated how much the media would pander to Trump for ratings.

Lamenting that they weren't biased enough kind of makes the entirety of your post hard to take seriously to be honest.

Hank Scorpio

Point I'm trying to make is one report even if it's "outsourced" doesn't automatically give it any credibility.

"In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC)."

http://www.mrc.org/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/study-91-percent-of-trump-coverage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Point I'm trying to make is one report even if it's "outsourced" doesn't automatically give it any credibility.

Nope, you're still not getting it. It's not 'outsourced' research. It's credibility comes from the objectively measurable nature of the data.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

"In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC)."

http://www.mrc.org/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/study-91-percent-of-trump-coverage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297

Hmm, I wonder what were topical issues relating to Donald J Trump in the period August to November? I wonder what the Conservative MRC failed to take into account in that context? Pretty hard to put a positive spin on a self admission of sexual assault.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

Nope, you're still not getting it. It's not 'outsourced' research. It's credibility comes from the objectively measurable nature of the data.


Hmm, I wonder what were topical issues relating to Donald J Trump in the period August to November? I wonder what the Conservative MRC failed to take into account in that context? Pretty hard to put a positive spin on a self admission of sexual assault.

We need some media polls to get a better idea of what actually happened. In all seriousness, I don't trust the media, I judge from what I see and make my own mind up.

marienbad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

We need some media polls to get a better idea of what actually happened. In all seriousness, I don't trust the media, I judge from what I see and make my own mind up.

and where do you see the stuff you judge ?

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

We need some media polls to get a better idea of what actually happened. In all seriousness, I don't trust the media, I judge from what I see and make my own mind up.

Polls have nothing to do with it.

The objective data gathering gives us the actual picture, but you've opted to ignore it.

You instead choose to post up information from a known politically conservative group, who seem surprised that a candidate who mistakenly revealed he engaged in sexual assault might garner negative coverage in that media cycle.

I think your 'mind making' process is clear enough.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

I think your 'mind making' process is clear enough.

Thank you, I'm quite proud of it.

Hank Scorpio

marienbad wrote: »

and where do you see the stuff you judge ?

Combination of things, internet and social media mostly.

oscarBravo

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Combination of things, internet and social media mostly.

Those bastions of fact-based, unbiased journalism.

Hank Scorpio

oscarBravo wrote: »

Those bastions of fact-based, unbiased journalism.

Can't be any worse than CNN journos getting full sheets of questions from the DNC for Trump interviews.

marienbad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Combination of things, internet and social media mostly.

so the media in other words ?

Hank Scorpio

marienbad wrote: »

so the media in other words ?

Yes, just not the MSM who have strong agendas for financial gain and political allegiances etc.

marienbad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Yes, just not the MSM who have strong agendas for financial reasons etc.

And the others don't ?

Hank Scorpio

marienbad wrote: »

And the others don't ?

It's not on the same level, the amount of money involved, the direct connections to powerful political figures, the strategic discussions between the MSM and the campaign managers themselves ( Podesta ) in how to propagate viewpoints.

Another big point is the discussion factor. By simply watching a certain news network you sit there and are forced to indulge the information. By using message boards, twitter etc you can have open discussions and in many cases find the stories propagated to be actually untrue or mislead.

A late example would be the media not mentioning in the photo taken with HRC in the woods post election is that the Women knew each other. The Woman has since removed photos from her facebook of her previous meetings with Hillary. Another example would be the guy on CNN freaking out over the popular vote, but it was never mentioned he was an employee of CNN.

Maybe they're all coincidences though, either way it's an option to open your viewpoint and gain outside factors which the MSM will never disclose to discredit such "stories".

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Another big point is the discussion factor. By simply watching a certain news network you sit there and are forced to indulge the information. By using message boards, twitter etc you can have open discussions and in many cases find the stories propagated to be actually untrue or mislead.

A late example would be the media not mentioning in the photo taken with HRC in the woods post election is that the Women knew each other. The Woman has since removed photos from her facebook of her previous meetings with Hillary.

How many ways is this simply incorrect?

The source of this wasn't traditional media, it was your preferred source; social media, Facebook specifically.

The woman doesn't know Hillary, any more than millions of other Hillary supporters do. That would be the reason the media didn't mention it.

The woman, had a single photo on her Facebook, taken at a senatorial Hillary fundraiser 15 years ago. She hasn't removed any photos of previous meetings from her Facebook - she's pulled her entire account contents because of the sort of idiots who get stirred up by the sort of slipshod social media misinformation that this post typifies.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

How many ways is this simply incorrect?

The source of this wasn't traditional media, it was your preferred source; social media, Facebook specifically.

The woman doesn't know Hillary, any more than millions of other Hillary supporters do. That would be the reason the media didn't mention it.

The woman, had a single photo on her Facebook, taken at a senatorial Hillary fundraiser 15 years ago. She hasn't removed any photos of previous meetings from her Facebook - she's pulled her entire account contents because of the sort of idiots who get stirred up by the sort of slipshod social media misinformation that this post typifies.

In fairness it wouldn't be the first time she lied about a photograph. :pac:

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/791263939015376902

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

In fairness it wouldn't be the first time she lied about a photograph. :pac:

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/791263939015376902

Given that she didn't post that, I'm not quite sure what your point is?

marienbad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It's not on the same level, the amount of money involved, the direct connections to powerful political figures, the strategic discussions between the MSM and the campaign managers themselves ( Podesta ) in how to propagate viewpoints.

Another big point is the discussion factor. By simply watching a certain news network you sit there and are forced to indulge the information. By using message boards, twitter etc you can have open discussions and in many cases find the stories propagated to be actually untrue or mislead.

A late example would be the media not mentioning in the photo taken with HRC in the woods post election is that the Women knew each other. The Woman has since removed photos from her facebook of her previous meetings with Hillary. Another example would be the guy on CNN freaking out over the popular vote, but it was never mentioned he was an employee of CNN.

Maybe they're all coincidences though, either way it's an option to open your viewpoint and gain outside factors which the MSM will never disclose to discredit such "stories".

Well if you are that naïve I will leave you to it .

Mr.H

alastair wrote: »

Polls have nothing to do with it.

The objective data gathering gives us the actual picture, but you've opted to ignore it.

You instead choose to post up information from a known politically conservative group, who seem surprised that a candidate who mistakenly revealed he engaged in sexual assault might garner negative coverage in that media cycle.

I think your 'mind making' process is clear enough.

Sexual assault??

He did allude to women let you do anything when you are famous. That means consent is given when "they let you"

That is not assault.

Its not cool and its no way to talk but its not assault

Christy42

Mr.H wrote: »

Sexual assault??

He did allude to women let you do anything when you are famous. That means consent is given when "they let you"

That is not assault.

Its not cool and its no way to talk but its not assault

They let you indicating they don't stop you. That is sexual assault. Going up and grabbing people in sensitive areas is sexual assault irregarsless of whether or not they attempt to stop you.

Overheal

Christy42 wrote: »

They let you indicating they don't stop you. That is sexual assault. Going up and grabbing people in sensitive areas is sexual assault irregarsless of whether or not they attempt to stop you.

"Shot this guy right in the back of the head. Didn't object. Must have been consensual."

oscarBravo

Mr.H wrote: »

Sexual assault??

He did allude to women let you do anything when you are famous. That means consent is given when "they let you"

That is not assault.

Its not cool and its no way to talk but its not assault

And this, boys and girls, is why we so desperately need to teach young people what consent actually means.