Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Calina

The Filter Bubble by Eli Pariser is worth reading for those of you interested in adaptive personalisation of web searches.

FTR, Bing has been personalising search since 2011. The outcome may differ to your google searches if your activity has, or has been less or more.

mcmoustache

2 Scoops wrote: »

From my experience it isn't true at all. 95% of what I see on google after searching Trump are negative stories from liberal outlets and that's what that article reflects, sites which I avoid. There needs to be a proper study done by a reputable and neutral thinktank.

Trump's presidency is a car crash and that's just going to be reflected in the reports about the actions that he takes. Google isn't going to bump the daily caller, gateway pundit, truepundit and infowars to the top just to provide "balance". I didn't include FOX here because they're regularly at the top but maybe their news division is also too liberal since they report on things that Trump said or did?

jobbridge4life

2 Scoops wrote: »

From my experience it isn't true at all. 95% of what I see on google after searching Trump are negative stories from liberal outlets and that's what that article reflects, sites which I avoid. There needs to be a proper study done by a reputable and neutral thinktank.



Microsoft owned search engine bing.com doesn't skew the search prompts or results like google's does.

You are right. It is a pity we don't have more news outlets who report Trump's actions in a positive light.

'You'll never guess what these kids learned while forcibly separated from their parents!'

'You've heard what this dangerous chemical will do to children's brains... but you won't believe what it does for these shareholders bank balances!'

'Five formerly frozen wastelands... discover the best beaches Antarctica has!'

'IF you LOVED Obama's drone killings you will die for these Trump improvements!'

Leroy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

There needs to be a proper study done by a reputable and neutral thinktank.

So you are accepting the Trump has simply made this up. What is his basis for assertion, calling into question the very operation of a hugely successful US company. Isn't it as usual, Trump simply makes something up and then people like you try to find some way to find some sort of justification for it?

2 Scoops wrote: »

Microsoft owned search engine bing.com doesn't skew the search prompts or results like google's does.

How so? On what metric you determined that? Does Bing give better news stories to do with Trump, or simply less negative?

2 Scoops

mcmoustache wrote: »

Trump's presidency is a car crash and that's just going to be reflected in the reports about the actions that he takes. Google isn't going to bump the daily caller, gateway pundit, truepundit and infowars to the top just to provide "balance". I didn't include FOX here because they're regularly at the top but maybe their news division is also too liberal since they report on things that Trump said or did?

Not all conservative leaning, slightly left leaning or what I'd consider fairly neutral outlets are infowars or the gateway pundit. WSJ, Forbes, Bloomberg, The Hill, National review, Reuters, The Washington Times, AP, USA today among others are all reputable imo and don't carry the sensationalist tabloid nonsense the likes that CNN, NBC and others do where there's 10 people on a panel every night screaming at how much of a bastard Trump is. According to that PJ media article CNN articles made up almost 30% of search results.

The others outlets quoted, the mask came off in the 2016 election, the NYT's ( which hasn't endorsed a Republican candidate since the 70's ) had to literally publish an editorial piece apologizing for their coverage of the election. To the best of my knowledge WaPo hasn't endorsed a Republican candidate since the 70's either. NBC's chief Washington correspondent John Harwood was shown to be a Podesta stooge while the other big outlets were lapping it up drinking cocktails at private parties with the Clinton campaign. There are studies from reputable sources like Harvard University showing that the tone of coverage was over 90% negative among the likes of NBC, CBS and CNN.

Back to the original point, do I think Trump and his administration deserve tonnes of criticism, absolutely. But I also believe the hysteria from day 1 has been hugely disproportionate and that certain outlets which were once seen as reputable have been prioritizing that hysteria for nothing more than click-bait and revenue. I believe there is a strong liberal agenda at google and their use of the word algorithms is a fancy way of masking that. If you hop over to bing.com you'll see there is a huge difference in search results.

Quin_Dub

2 Scoops wrote: »

From my experience it isn't true at all. 95% of what I see on google after searching Trump are negative stories from liberal outlets and that's what that article reflects, sites which I avoid. There needs to be a proper study done by a reputable and neutral thinktank.



Microsoft owned search engine bing.com doesn't skew the search prompts or results like google's does.

mcmoustache wrote: »

Google isn't going to bump the daily caller, gateway pundit, truepundit and infowars to the top just to provide "balance". I didn't include FOX here because they're regularly at the top but maybe their news division is also too liberal since they report on things that Trump said or did?

Looking at that article from PJMedia , with the exception of Fox and the Daily Mail all the other "right wing" media outlets were all tiny in terms of traffic and foot-print compared to sites like CNN etc.

As a comparison - CNN has had 493M web visits in the last 6 months , compared to for example The Daily Caller with 12M or Breitbart with 65M

So of course a site like CNN is going to feature more highly than Breitbart or Infowars etc. that's just how the Internet works.

The more traffic you get the greater your search ranking , the higher up the list your results appear.

As an aside - This is the PJMedia view of Left vs. Right


Assuming that the relative position on the chart is an indicator of left or rightness - For example the Daily Kos is far to the left of the graphic , which kinda makes sense, but on that basis , can anyone explain how Infowars ends up as a "medium right wing" outlet , less extreme right than ZeroHedge or OAN ??

2 Scoops

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Assuming that the relative position on the chart is an indicator of left or rightness - For example the Daily Kos is far to the left of the graphic , which kinda makes sense, but on that basis , can anyone explain how Infowars ends up as a "medium right wing" outlet , less extreme right than ZeroHedge or OAN ??

That's Sharyl Attkisson's assessment and I don't believe it's in anyway accurate either. She used to be an investigative reporter for CBS where she claimed corporations were blocking CBS from publishing negative stories and then went on to claim her computer was hacked by Obama's administration for writing negative stories on them. I think she has a few screws loose.

batgoat

2 Scoops wrote: »

That's Sharyl Attkisson's assessment and I don't believe it's in anyway accurate either. She used to be an investigative reporter for CBS where she claimed corporations were blocking CBS from publishing negative stories and then went on to claim her computer was hacked by Obama's administration for writing negative stories on them. I think she has a few screws loose.

If you're using Inforwars as a news outlet, that very much so means that you want a slant and I'd not really classify it as a real news outlet since a large proportion of their content is outright conspiracies....

Leroy42

Is Inforwars not the outlet for Alex Jones?

A man that stated, under oath in a court of law, that it is all merely an act!

Are people really still paying any attention to this guy? I thought the likes of Trump hated actors etc telling what is what?

Itssoeasy

Lads I've seen those Q signs in the trump rallies and I happened to come across a video on YouTube(a video on YouTube whatever next) and it was Jim Jeffries talking to four people involved with this Qanon carry on. All I can say is I hope it was a skit to mock this stuff, because if by some chance those people(young people btw) were remotely serious than America has got problems.

BabyCheeses

Now when I google "Trump news" I ended up with a bunch of stories of his whining.

Is this an improvement? To me it looks negative because he looks like an idiot, especially after the whole net neutrality thing but to a supporter now all the search results are brave Trump Christ yadda yadda yadda whatever they think he's doing now which is of course the greatest.

Leroy42

If Trump really wants to get the media story on his side, then maybe he should stop acting like an idiot most of the time.

Stop the constant tweets with lies and half-truths. Stop the constant belittling of people he doesn't like. Stop complaining that that those that he hired (Sessions etc) are terrible at their jobs. Stop pushing conspiracy theories.

The main problem is really himself. What were people talking about this weekend? His petty attempts to ignore the death of a US senator took away any hint of god news about jobs, poll numbers. His attempt to portray the Mexico deal as something more that it was is just another example.

He uses Twitter to get his message across yet that is always going to leave him open to criticism when he fails to send a message. That some example the recent murder of the woman in Florida by a Mexican. Compare that to his silence over the most recent gun violence.

So before Trump stops trying to blame others, he needs to look at himself. He, as POTUS and even when he was a feldging candidate, has benefited from media exposure. And like any celebrity, there is always a price to pay. Seems childish for the most powerful person in the world to be complaining that the internet is not being fair to him.

Dohnjoe

Leroy42 wrote: »

If Trump really wants to get the media story on his side, then maybe he should stop acting like an idiot most of the time.

The endless and blatant dishonesty is a big one

Believe some sites are tracking his lies, falsehoods and "alternative facts", they're up to what now, 2,000? 3,000? more?

Some guy was live-tweeting while Trump was giving a speech, correcting all his false stats and 'facts'

He may have been elected, but the man is a pathological liar, I am not sure why anyone objective would place any faith in him? unless they share that same set of principles

PopePalpatine

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Lads I've seen those Q signs in the trump rallies and I happened to come across a video on YouTube(a video on YouTube whatever next) and it was Jim Jeffries talking to four people involved with this Qanon carry on. All I can say is I hope it was a skit to mock this stuff, because if by some chance those people(young people btw) were remotely serious than America has got problems.

Meh, it's a country of 310 million people, if there's some of them willing to carry Tiki torches to protect some oversized participation trophies, willing to buy "red pills" off InfoWars, or believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old, it's not so outlandish that Qanon would gain some traction.

For Forks Sake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The endless and blatant dishonesty is a big one

Believe some sites are tracking his lies, falsehoods and "alternative facts", they're up to what now, 2,000? 3,000? more?

Some guy was live-tweeting while Trump was giving a speech, correcting all his false stats and 'facts'

He may have been elected, but the man is a pathological liar, I am not sure why anyone objective would place any faith in him? unless they share that same set of principles

4229 as of the start of August, and I'm sure he's added to that plenty this month.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/01/president-trump-has-made-4229-false-or-misleading-claims-in-558-days/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b5f3d6fa1cc5

Itssoeasy

And even with evangelical leaders Trump has to not tell the truth. According to NBC news, during a closed door meeting Trump is alledged to have said he has scrapped a law which he hasn't. He also warned of violence if the GOP loses the midterm elections.

Also, to 2scoops and your opinions of the news media in America that you think is magazine tabloid. The big three news networks of NBC,CBS,and ABC have produced some of the finest news people to ever grace a tv screen. Now is it as it once was ? No it isn't but in no way can you call those networks tabloid is ridiculous. I mean no journalist today will have the gravitas of Cronkite, Brokaw, and Jennings. But just because they post for the most part accurate reporting(and when they get it wrong they issue corrections like they are meant to do) on the car crash of a presidency of Donald Trump is what they should be doing. Isn't the president meant to be held to account ?

26000 Elephants

batgoat wrote: »

If you're using Inforwars as a news outlet, that very much so means that you want a slant and I'd not really classify it as a real news outlet since a large proportion of their content is outright conspiracies....

Once you get past the Bone Broth (chocolate flavor) ads and get into the news, its pretty good. Like this:

US-Mexico Trade Deal May Be Bad News For China

Now that U.S. President Donald Trump has bagged a political victory in the form of a trade deal with Mexico,....

erm, oh dear.

Manic Moran

What would possess anyone to bring Pearl Harbor up in conversation anyway?

Interesting result in Arizona. Both D and R selected the moderate candidates available to them in their primaries for the Senate seat. Compare with the result in the primaries for Governor in Florida, where both parties selected far less moderate candidates.

Christy42

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/28/donald-trump-midterms-private-meeting-church-antifa

To be fair the man knows how to play to his audience. He is going so far over the top. I am not sure who antifa will go after if the dems wins but he seems convinced of it by them and others (unspecified). The neo Nazis that support are not included as likely causers of violence for some reason.

He is also back on the merry christmas wagon, I guess harking back to when a large proportion of the right got horrendously offended by a red cup.

He also seems fairly convinced that Republicans can't win an election without him. That seems to be a personal thing he needs to believe for assurance. Never mind that most losses will be because of him given he is historically unpopular. Still I think he needs to believe it for his state of mind.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

What would possess anyone to bring Pearl Harbor up in conversation anyway?

Interesting result in Arizona. Both D and R selected the moderate candidates available to them in their primaries for the Senate seat. Compare with the result in the primaries for Governor in Florida, where both parties selected far less moderate candidates.

Kelli Ward out of the running?

Igotadose

aloyisious wrote: »

Kelli Ward out of the running?

Yep. Felon Sheriff Joe, too.

Rumor has it Ward'll be back in 2020 for McCain's seat.

pixelburp

Christy42 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/28/donald-trump-midterms-private-meeting-church-antifa

To be fair the man knows how to play to his audience. He is going so far over the top. I am not sure who antifa will go after if the dems wins but he seems convinced of it by them and others (unspecified). The neo Nazis that support are not included as likely causers of violence for some reason.

This is a wild tangent, but I remember reading one of Terry Pratchett's books, where its antagonists could mind control folks. As it turned out, it was those with the most hardened, idealistic & stubborn mindsets that were the easiest to turn, because a single mental focus was easier to derail than (say) someone wracked with doubt or constant self-examination.

Every time I read about the Evangelical support for Trump, I think of that Pratchett book, of that demographic being so easily played by this showman, who simply derails their blinkered determination of their values with keywords over abortion, or christmas & so on.

Sorry, I get it's a bit of a random one.

Back on topic though: why would ANTIFA incite violence over a Democratic victory? Even by Trumps own standards that logic doesn't track.

Zubeneschamali

RTÉ reporting this morning that Trump has blamed China for hacking Hillary Clinton's emails. Could he parrot his Russian handler any more obviously?

Yes, I see it on Reuters, too, says it was just a Tweet.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034654816046329856

pixelburp

And I look forward to media outlets, intelligence agencies, and political leaders rigorously questioning Trump on where he got this sudden & revelatory information, what his sources were ... or at least I would do if I had any faith this limping excuse for a democracy had any stones to live up to its own ideological hype anymore.

Just one. Only one journalist needs to ask the question: "Where is this coming from?"

Leroy42

It has nothing to do with logic, it is simply creating fear in a group so they ignore what should be important to focus on this unknown fear.

'Hey, don't worry that the very morals of the US are being thrown away far quicker by the POTUS that any of those other groups you have been complaining about or years. That even the most rabid atheist would have not used so many lies, slept with so many porn-stars, had so many affairs, treated other humans with such disrespect etc, there is a big bad evil coming that only I can save you from.'

That is the logic and these evangelicals, or fundamentalists as they should be known if they were not christians, will lap it up.

The guy goes against the very 1st commandment, "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me.” The man only thinks of money, that is his only religion.

jooksavage

Leroy42 wrote: »

It has nothing to do with logic, it is simply creating fear in a group so they ignore what should be important to focus on this unknown fear.

'Hey, don't worry that the very morals of the US are being thrown away far quicker by the POTUS that any of those other groups you have been complaining about or years. That even the most rabid atheist would have not used so many lies, slept with so many porn-stars, had so many affairs, treated other humans with such disrespect etc, there is a big bad evil coming that only I can save you from.'

That is the logic and these evangelicals, or fundamentalists as they should be known if they were not christians, will lap it up.

The guy goes against the very 1st commandment, "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me.” The man only thinks of money, that is his only religion.

Trump is literally the type of person their savior was talking about when he said "It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".


Some of these guys already know this and have taken to likening him Cyrus the Great, who, although a heathen himself, was something of a champion to his Jewish subjects. Somewhere in the folds of the space-time continuum, Emperor Cyrus is feeling inexplicably queasy.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, Cohen's lawyer has walked back the claims he made. If Cohen was Trump's "fixer" and is willing to reveal anything to keep himself out of jail, this just sows further doubt in my mind that there was some grand conspiracy. It's strike 6 or 7 now and with everyone of these so called bombshells, the stories have turned out to be untrue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/attorney-for-michael-cohen-backs-away-from-confidence-that-cohen-has-information-about-trumps-knowledge-on-russian-efforts/2018/08/26/09d7f26e-a876-11e8-97ce-cc9042272f07_story.html

He was asked the following by Anderson Cooper on CNN.

“So Michael Cohen does not have information that President Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians beforehand or even after?” CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Davis.

“No, he does not,” Davis said.

An interesting revisit to this story.

A contributor and Defence attorney on Ari Melber's show believes that Cohen plead guilty to one charge, but has made a deal "under seal".

He says the reason why Davis walked back his statement is not because its untrue, its because Mueller doesn't like anyone talking about what they know and what they are going to say. That's the way Mueller or any prudent prosecutor would operate.

The theory goes that Mueller has told Davis not to get out ahead of his skis and wind it back, or else there will be no deal.

So, it isn't mainstream media at fault here. Its an overzealous Defence attorney, in a move to drive up his Client's defence fund by making people more sympathetic to him and moreover cheer on his role in taking on Trump.

Trent Houseboat

I don't think Scoops was blaming the media. I assumed if anything s/he was praising the Washington Post and CNN for putting the screws to Davis and reporting on his lies.

Quin_Dub

jooksavage wrote: »

Trump is literally the type of person their savior was talking about when he said "It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".


Some of these guys already know this and have taken to likening him Cyrus the Great, who, although a heathen himself, was something of a champion to his Jewish subjects. Somewhere in the folds of the space-time continuum, Emperor Cyrus is feeling inexplicably queasy.

This is one of the theories behind the willingness of Evangelicals to support Trump - He's paving the way for the true "holy man" , Mike Pence.

Many conservative Christians believe that God is merely using Trump to prepare the way for a so-called true man of faith. Pence's rise to power would affirm the "Cyrus prophecy," which became a popular notion among Christian right circles when Pence joined the 2016 ticket.
Cyrus was a Persian king whom the Old Testament credits with returning the Jews to Jerusalem. He was a pagan who nevertheless served God. Right-wing evangelists such as Lance Wallnau cited that tale in 2016 when they declared that Trump -- a profane and sinful man -- could nevertheless do God's work and was thus worthy of conservative Christian votes.

Hard to know where to start when that's the kind of "logic" you're dealing with..

Hurrache

SNIP

Do not dump tweets here please.