The biased Media vs Trump!

FA Hayek

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a fascinating little rant. I'm not sure why it quoted me, because there's nothing in there that could usefully be construed as relevant to the post of mine that it referenced.

Perhaps it has something to do with your condescending 'Oh I yearn for the days...' remark.

If racism on boards.ie is overt, well report the posts and let the moderators will deal with it, like every other user on boards does.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It's not saying it's false. If he did something bad, which I'm agreeing with you he did, I can just go and quote the story about Clinton laughing about the girl who was raped at 12 years old because the guy got off. We could go back and fourth all day. I never claimed Trump to be perfect, but I sure as hell wouldn't claim Clinton to be either.

Wait. Why did you argue with my link if you accept it is right then? Also the point was about whether or not Trump is a racist which you are now conceding?

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I can just go and quote the story about Clinton laughing about the girl who was raped at 12 years old because the guy got off.

That story is completely bogus. I remember somebody else bringing this up and I listened to the interview. It's a while ago now, but the laughing was nothing to do with the girl or her plight but about some inherent irony in the case itself.

She didn't even want to take the case but was obliged to because she was a public defender at the time.

The people who portrayed her in that way were really stretching. Liars wouldn't be a strong enough word,.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

Oh, I know that but her rant on newstalk was epic, epic in the way that it was pathetic and sad.

Have a listen, not sure if the link will work.

http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/High_Noon/Highlights_from_High_Noon/165662/Trumps_victory_is_naked_sexism__Brenda_Power#.WCa2L53fxE8.google_plusone_share

If you know she's not a liberal, why frame your point about liberals with someone who isn't a liberal?

alastair

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That story is completely bogus. I remember somebody else bringing this up and I listened to the interview. It's a while ago now, but the laughing was nothing to do with the girl or her plight but about some inherent irony in the case itself.

She didn't even want to take the case but was obliged to because she was a public defender at the time.

The people who portrayed her in that way were really stretching. Liars wouldn't be a strong enough word,.

She was laughing about the fallibility of the lie detector test, which caused her to lose faith in it's value in the justice system. She was laughing at her own naivity as a young defence lawyer. Nothing to do with 12 year old rape victims alright. Just another empty accusation amongst many.

Amerika

The New York Times publisher has now vowed to rededicate the newspaper to reporting honestly.

I think the question of if the mainstream media has been biased against Trump has been answered.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

The New York Times publisher has now vowed to rededicate the newspaper to reporting honestly.

I think the question of if the mainstream media has been biased against Trump has been answered.

Really? You think there's any manner of admission of journalistic bias or dishonest reporting from the NYT in any of this?:

When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.

After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome? Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?

As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our readers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.

Sincerely,

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher

Dean Baquet, executive editor

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

Really? You think there's any manner of admission of journalistic bias or dishonest reporting from the NYT in any of this?:

Yup. 'Agility and creativity?' Another way of saying the reason the paper miscalculated so badly was because they were too busy being critical and unfair to Trump to even notice what was really happening with the American voters.

Christy42

alastair wrote: »

Really? You think there's any manner of admission of journalistic bias or dishonest reporting from the NYT in any of this?:

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

Chips Lovell

I think if you believe the New York Times reported on the election dishonestly, then you should probably stop reading it.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Yup. 'Agility and creativity?' Another way of saying the reason the paper miscalculated so badly was because they were too busy being critical and unfair to Trump to even notice what was really happening with the American voters.

Nope. They say no such thing. And they make a point of saying they will continue in the same vein as up till now.

You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

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.