I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
I simply don't see that. As far as I can see, all the media except for the manifestly Republican biased (Fox, Breitbart et al) treated Trump as an insane clown and laughed at him. Clinton was treated much as any other candidate ever. Trump wasn't howling mad at the media for no reason. They mocked him, and they were right to do so. The big problem with Clinton from the media's point of view is that she was boring. She was efficient, slick, competent. Not much to write about. So they didn't. All the attention was Trump's. Now, since it was all *negative* attention, it should have ruined his chances. But apparently the more attention a candidate gets (even laughter) the more the people take him to heart.
Trump was treated as a clown, yes. And Clinton was treated as a candidate with trust issues because she had a private email server.
It was the voters who took Trump's lunatic statements to heart, and regarded Clinton's small issues as huge.
I think the media were as confused as anyone. They realised they'd been dogpiling Trump for a while (for good reason, he's nuts) and wanted to do something on the other side, for "balance" because Republican readers were starting to complain about "bias." Problem was, 999 negative articles on Trump failed to stick and 1 negative thing on Clinton stuck like glue. This doesn't make sense and the media could not have predicted it. It's just plain crazy and I still don't understand it.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
I simply don't see that. As far as I can see, all the media except for the manifestly Republican biased (Fox, Breitbart et al) treated Trump as an insane clown and laughed at him. Clinton was treated much as any other candidate ever. Trump wasn't howling mad at the media for no reason. They mocked him, and they were right to do so. The big problem with Clinton from the media's point of view is that she was boring. She was efficient, slick, competent. Not much to write about. So they didn't. All the attention was Trump's. Now, since it was all *negative* attention, it should have ruined his chances. But apparently the more attention a candidate gets (even laughter) the more the people take him to heart.
Trump was treated as a clown, yes. And Clinton was treated as a candidate with trust issues because she had a private email server.
It was the voters who took Trump's lunatic statements to heart, and regarded Clinton's small issues as huge.
I think the media were as confused as anyone. They realised they'd been dogpiling Trump for a while (for good reason, he's nuts) and wanted to do something on the other side, for "balance" because Republican readers were starting to complain about "bias." Problem was, 999 negative articles on Trump failed to stick and 1 negative thing on Clinton stuck like glue. This doesn't make sense and the media could not have predicted it. It's just plain crazy and I still don't understand it.
Reporting on utter bullshit a week before the election happened
Sorry all the other stuff aside Comey threw the election and the media helped him
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
I simply don't see that. As far as I can see, all the media except for the manifestly Republican biased (Fox, Breitbart et al) treated Trump as an insane clown and laughed at him. Clinton was treated much as any other candidate ever. Trump wasn't howling mad at the media for no reason. They mocked him, and they were right to do so. The big problem with Clinton from the media's point of view is that she was boring. She was efficient, slick, competent. Not much to write about. So they didn't. All the attention was Trump's. Now, since it was all *negative* attention, it should have ruined his chances. But apparently the more attention a candidate gets (even laughter) the more the people take him to heart.
Trump was treated as a clown, yes. And Clinton was treated as a candidate with trust issues because she had a private email server.
It was the voters who took Trump's lunatic statements to heart, and regarded Clinton's small issues as huge.
I think the media were as confused as anyone. They realised they'd been dogpiling Trump for a while (for good reason, he's nuts) and wanted to do something on the other side, for "balance" because Republican readers were starting to complain about "bias." Problem was, 999 negative articles on Trump failed to stick and 1 negative thing on Clinton stuck like glue. This doesn't make sense and the media could not have predicted it. It's just plain crazy and I still don't understand it.
Reporting on utter bullshit a week before the election happened
Sorry all the other stuff aside Comey threw the election and the media helped him
If the New York Times had buried the story it would have made no difference. The right-wing media machine would have got the word out fine. Blame Comey, not the media.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
I simply don't see that. As far as I can see, all the media except for the manifestly Republican biased (Fox, Breitbart et al) treated Trump as an insane clown and laughed at him. Clinton was treated much as any other candidate ever. Trump wasn't howling mad at the media for no reason. They mocked him, and they were right to do so. The big problem with Clinton from the media's point of view is that she was boring. She was efficient, slick, competent. Not much to write about. So they didn't. All the attention was Trump's. Now, since it was all *negative* attention, it should have ruined his chances. But apparently the more attention a candidate gets (even laughter) the more the people take him to heart.
Trump was treated as a clown, yes. And Clinton was treated as a candidate with trust issues because she had a private email server.
It was the voters who took Trump's lunatic statements to heart, and regarded Clinton's small issues as huge.
I think the media were as confused as anyone. They realised they'd been dogpiling Trump for a while (for good reason, he's nuts) and wanted to do something on the other side, for "balance" because Republican readers were starting to complain about "bias." Problem was, 999 negative articles on Trump failed to stick and 1 negative thing on Clinton stuck like glue. This doesn't make sense and the media could not have predicted it. It's just plain crazy and I still don't understand it.
I know, right? It's completely unfathomable how this became the largest talking point of the campaign.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
I simply don't see that. As far as I can see, all the media except for the manifestly Republican biased (Fox, Breitbart et al) treated Trump as an insane clown and laughed at him. Clinton was treated much as any other candidate ever. Trump wasn't howling mad at the media for no reason. They mocked him, and they were right to do so. The big problem with Clinton from the media's point of view is that she was boring. She was efficient, slick, competent. Not much to write about. So they didn't. All the attention was Trump's. Now, since it was all *negative* attention, it should have ruined his chances. But apparently the more attention a candidate gets (even laughter) the more the people take him to heart.
Trump was treated as a clown, yes. And Clinton was treated as a candidate with trust issues because she had a private email server.
It was the voters who took Trump's lunatic statements to heart, and regarded Clinton's small issues as huge.
I think the media were as confused as anyone. They realised they'd been dogpiling Trump for a while (for good reason, he's nuts) and wanted to do something on the other side, for "balance" because Republican readers were starting to complain about "bias." Problem was, 999 negative articles on Trump failed to stick and 1 negative thing on Clinton stuck like glue. This doesn't make sense and the media could not have predicted it. It's just plain crazy and I still don't understand it.
I know, right? It's completely unfathomable how this became the largest talking point of the campaign.
Yes, it's unfathomable that no-one gave a crap about all the negative things the NYT printed about Trump. His followers thought it was a hatchet-job at the time.
You are posting that one cover of the NYT as if they bashed Clinton non-stop. They clearly loved her to bits. Their audience (middle-class and up New Yorkers) loved her to bits, and if they'd been as shitty to her as you say, her audience would *not* have been happy.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I think it's critical to ask the next thing, after assigning "blame" (I think it's more useful to assign causal significance rather than any word loaded with moral meaning, though).
The media sucks, and is unfair. Ok. If that's true, what do we do? We can't just complain that they're unfair, we have to find a way of controlling the message at that level. Figuring out what to do to maintain positive coverage of democratic politicians while maintaining negative coverage of republicans. I don't think complaining that the media is unfair, even if that's true, is going to be enough. I want to know what will advance this goal.
(or, rather than attempting to control the message through higher level stuff like newspapers, figure out how people can grassroots begin to control spaces in which political speech happens, rather than letting rural bubbles dominate themselves)
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
I simply don't see that. As far as I can see, all the media except for the manifestly Republican biased (Fox, Breitbart et al) treated Trump as an insane clown and laughed at him. Clinton was treated much as any other candidate ever. Trump wasn't howling mad at the media for no reason. They mocked him, and they were right to do so. The big problem with Clinton from the media's point of view is that she was boring. She was efficient, slick, competent. Not much to write about. So they didn't. All the attention was Trump's. Now, since it was all *negative* attention, it should have ruined his chances. But apparently the more attention a candidate gets (even laughter) the more the people take him to heart.
Trump was treated as a clown, yes. And Clinton was treated as a candidate with trust issues because she had a private email server.
It was the voters who took Trump's lunatic statements to heart, and regarded Clinton's small issues as huge.
I think the media were as confused as anyone. They realised they'd been dogpiling Trump for a while (for good reason, he's nuts) and wanted to do something on the other side, for "balance" because Republican readers were starting to complain about "bias." Problem was, 999 negative articles on Trump failed to stick and 1 negative thing on Clinton stuck like glue. This doesn't make sense and the media could not have predicted it. It's just plain crazy and I still don't understand it.
It was the media that reminded voters about Clinton's e-mails every single day along with Trump's various issues. That one "issue" didn't stick for any other reason than that.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
I simply don't see that. As far as I can see, all the media except for the manifestly Republican biased (Fox, Breitbart et al) treated Trump as an insane clown and laughed at him. Clinton was treated much as any other candidate ever. Trump wasn't howling mad at the media for no reason. They mocked him, and they were right to do so. The big problem with Clinton from the media's point of view is that she was boring. She was efficient, slick, competent. Not much to write about. So they didn't. All the attention was Trump's. Now, since it was all *negative* attention, it should have ruined his chances. But apparently the more attention a candidate gets (even laughter) the more the people take him to heart.
Trump was treated as a clown, yes. And Clinton was treated as a candidate with trust issues because she had a private email server.
It was the voters who took Trump's lunatic statements to heart, and regarded Clinton's small issues as huge.
I think the media were as confused as anyone. They realised they'd been dogpiling Trump for a while (for good reason, he's nuts) and wanted to do something on the other side, for "balance" because Republican readers were starting to complain about "bias." Problem was, 999 negative articles on Trump failed to stick and 1 negative thing on Clinton stuck like glue. This doesn't make sense and the media could not have predicted it. It's just plain crazy and I still don't understand it.
I know, right? It's completely unfathomable how this became the largest talking point of the campaign.
Yes, it's unfathomable that no-one gave a crap about all the negative things the NYT printed about Trump. His followers thought it was a hatchet-job at the time.
You are posting that one cover of the NYT as if they bashed Clinton non-stop. They clearly loved her to bits. Their audience (middle-class and up New Yorkers) loved her to bits, and if they'd been as shitty to her as you say, her audience would *not* have been happy.
the NYT is not a "New York" paper man. It's a national paper that happens to be published in NY
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
I simply don't see that. As far as I can see, all the media except for the manifestly Republican biased (Fox, Breitbart et al) treated Trump as an insane clown and laughed at him. Clinton was treated much as any other candidate ever. Trump wasn't howling mad at the media for no reason. They mocked him, and they were right to do so. The big problem with Clinton from the media's point of view is that she was boring. She was efficient, slick, competent. Not much to write about. So they didn't. All the attention was Trump's. Now, since it was all *negative* attention, it should have ruined his chances. But apparently the more attention a candidate gets (even laughter) the more the people take him to heart.
Trump was treated as a clown, yes. And Clinton was treated as a candidate with trust issues because she had a private email server.
It was the voters who took Trump's lunatic statements to heart, and regarded Clinton's small issues as huge.
I think the media were as confused as anyone. They realised they'd been dogpiling Trump for a while (for good reason, he's nuts) and wanted to do something on the other side, for "balance" because Republican readers were starting to complain about "bias." Problem was, 999 negative articles on Trump failed to stick and 1 negative thing on Clinton stuck like glue. This doesn't make sense and the media could not have predicted it. It's just plain crazy and I still don't understand it.
Reporting on utter bullshit a week before the election happened
Sorry all the other stuff aside Comey threw the election and the media helped him
If the New York Times had buried the story it would have made no difference. The right-wing media machine would have got the word out fine. Blame Comey, not the media.
I hold the bulk of the American news media to a higher standard than Fox News personally.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
I simply don't see that. As far as I can see, all the media except for the manifestly Republican biased (Fox, Breitbart et al) treated Trump as an insane clown and laughed at him. Clinton was treated much as any other candidate ever. Trump wasn't howling mad at the media for no reason. They mocked him, and they were right to do so. The big problem with Clinton from the media's point of view is that she was boring. She was efficient, slick, competent. Not much to write about. So they didn't. All the attention was Trump's. Now, since it was all *negative* attention, it should have ruined his chances. But apparently the more attention a candidate gets (even laughter) the more the people take him to heart.
Trump was treated as a clown, yes. And Clinton was treated as a candidate with trust issues because she had a private email server.
It was the voters who took Trump's lunatic statements to heart, and regarded Clinton's small issues as huge.
I think the media were as confused as anyone. They realised they'd been dogpiling Trump for a while (for good reason, he's nuts) and wanted to do something on the other side, for "balance" because Republican readers were starting to complain about "bias." Problem was, 999 negative articles on Trump failed to stick and 1 negative thing on Clinton stuck like glue. This doesn't make sense and the media could not have predicted it. It's just plain crazy and I still don't understand it.
I know, right? It's completely unfathomable how this became the largest talking point of the campaign.
Yes, it's unfathomable that no-one gave a crap about all the negative things the NYT printed about Trump. His followers thought it was a hatchet-job at the time.
You are posting that one cover of the NYT as if they bashed Clinton non-stop. They clearly loved her to bits. Their audience (middle-class and up New Yorkers) loved her to bits, and if they'd been as shitty to her as you say, her audience would *not* have been happy.
the NYT is not a "New York" paper man. It's a national paper that happens to be published in NY
Exactly. You cannot draw a functional equivalence between the NYT and a traditional NYC rag like the Daily News.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
I simply don't see that. As far as I can see, all the media except for the manifestly Republican biased (Fox, Breitbart et al) treated Trump as an insane clown and laughed at him. Clinton was treated much as any other candidate ever. Trump wasn't howling mad at the media for no reason. They mocked him, and they were right to do so. The big problem with Clinton from the media's point of view is that she was boring. She was efficient, slick, competent. Not much to write about. So they didn't. All the attention was Trump's. Now, since it was all *negative* attention, it should have ruined his chances. But apparently the more attention a candidate gets (even laughter) the more the people take him to heart.
Trump was treated as a clown, yes. And Clinton was treated as a candidate with trust issues because she had a private email server.
It was the voters who took Trump's lunatic statements to heart, and regarded Clinton's small issues as huge.
I think the media were as confused as anyone. They realised they'd been dogpiling Trump for a while (for good reason, he's nuts) and wanted to do something on the other side, for "balance" because Republican readers were starting to complain about "bias." Problem was, 999 negative articles on Trump failed to stick and 1 negative thing on Clinton stuck like glue. This doesn't make sense and the media could not have predicted it. It's just plain crazy and I still don't understand it.
I know, right? It's completely unfathomable how this became the largest talking point of the campaign.
Yes, it's unfathomable that no-one gave a crap about all the negative things the NYT printed about Trump. His followers thought it was a hatchet-job at the time.
You are posting that one cover of the NYT as if they bashed Clinton non-stop. They clearly loved her to bits. Their audience (middle-class and up New Yorkers) loved her to bits, and if they'd been as shitty to her as you say, her audience would *not* have been happy.
the NYT is not a "New York" paper man. It's a national paper that happens to be published in NY
Is it much read outside the "coastal elite" sort of areas? It seems to have a lot of stuff in it of little interest outside NYC, like reviews of Broadway plays, features on local real estate and the like.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
I simply don't see that. As far as I can see, all the media except for the manifestly Republican biased (Fox, Breitbart et al) treated Trump as an insane clown and laughed at him. Clinton was treated much as any other candidate ever. Trump wasn't howling mad at the media for no reason. They mocked him, and they were right to do so. The big problem with Clinton from the media's point of view is that she was boring. She was efficient, slick, competent. Not much to write about. So they didn't. All the attention was Trump's. Now, since it was all *negative* attention, it should have ruined his chances. But apparently the more attention a candidate gets (even laughter) the more the people take him to heart.
Trump was treated as a clown, yes. And Clinton was treated as a candidate with trust issues because she had a private email server.
It was the voters who took Trump's lunatic statements to heart, and regarded Clinton's small issues as huge.
I think the media were as confused as anyone. They realised they'd been dogpiling Trump for a while (for good reason, he's nuts) and wanted to do something on the other side, for "balance" because Republican readers were starting to complain about "bias." Problem was, 999 negative articles on Trump failed to stick and 1 negative thing on Clinton stuck like glue. This doesn't make sense and the media could not have predicted it. It's just plain crazy and I still don't understand it.
I know, right? It's completely unfathomable how this became the largest talking point of the campaign.
Yes, it's unfathomable that no-one gave a crap about all the negative things the NYT printed about Trump. His followers thought it was a hatchet-job at the time.
You are posting that one cover of the NYT as if they bashed Clinton non-stop. They clearly loved her to bits. Their audience (middle-class and up New Yorkers) loved her to bits, and if they'd been as shitty to her as you say, her audience would *not* have been happy.
the NYT is not a "New York" paper man. It's a national paper that happens to be published in NY
Is it much read outside the "coastal elite" sort of areas? It seems to have a lot of stuff in it of little interest outside NYC, like reviews of Broadway plays, features on local real estate and the like.
It's the second most circulated paper in the country.
I doubt you'd be able to find a single journalist, businessperson or politician out there who wouldn't rank the New York Times as one of, if not the, the most important news outfits in the world.
Well I guess I stand corrected! I thought it was mostly a NE USA paper. I read it a lot and it's stuffed with NYC things, but if there's another edition for the rest of the country, that makes perfect sense.
Here's a brief recap of how Al Gore was treated in 2000, again led by the Times
The entire pre-Iraq debacle. Where Cheney would leak a false story to get in the paper, then cite the "widely respected New York Times" on TV.
Shitty coverage of the health care debate led to widespread misunderstanding of the ACA/Obamacare.
There's what people heard about the candidates in the campaign. For everyone saying if Clinton had talked about policy the election would be different, they're wrong, because that's not what people heard. They only heard about the emails, and a little bit about the Clinton Foundation, all of the reporting on which was skewed to create the impression it was a slush fund to increase the Clintons personal wealth and give access to her as Secretary of State.
This shit is why Comey could swing the election and why the Russian hacking even had a chance to work. With a media that was interested in the actual effects of government and not the gossipy bullshit that dominates the game of politics inside of DC and the DC suburbs, things would have been different.
For a lengthy and detailed analysis of exactly what creates this media atmosphere, here's a book for you. Alternately, read Game Change, the sort of definitive media conventional wisdom bullshit account of 2008 and count how many times the Iraq War is mentioned in the sections about the Democratic primary. It's approximately once. When it was the defining issue that won the primary for Obama.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm getting the feeling that if the headline after Trump's election is "Trump has editors of the New York Times, Washington Post, arrested for molesting children in Pizza restaurant" left-wing people on the internet will be all "Good! They deserved it for supporting him! We'll be better without them."
Yes, clearly saying people are bad at their jobs means we support their political prosecution. Those are the same things.
What I am saying is that you should read TPM instead. And local papers are still reasonably good at local coverage. It's the national press that doesn't have a fucking clue and is obsessed with gossipy bullshit (see: the entire Clinton Presidency too, while I think about it).
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm getting the feeling that if the headline after Trump's election is "Trump has editors of the New York Times, Washington Post, arrested for molesting children in Pizza restaurant" left-wing people on the internet will be all "Good! They deserved it for supporting him! We'll be better without them."
No, I wouldn't. And it's a silly goose thing to say.
If you want to have a discussion I'm all for it but this is just insulting.
Yes, clearly saying people are bad at their jobs means we support their political prosecution.
I'm thinking that the right is setting up the left to despise the "liberal media" as much as they do, so when they come for them, people shrug rather than getting incensed. No-one really gave a crap when Gawker was shut down for basically being scurrilous and annoying the far right. I'm beginning to think that we might have heard about this Russian/Piss thing a bit faster if we'd still had Gawker and their distinct lack of journalistic ethics.
Yes, clearly saying people are bad at their jobs means we support their political prosecution.
I'm thinking that the right is setting up the left to despise the "liberal media" as much as they do, so when they come for them, people shrug rather than getting incensed. No-one really gave a crap when Gawker was shut down for basically being scurrilous and annoying the far right. I'm beginning to think that we might have heard about this Russian/Piss thing a bit faster if we'd still had Gawker and their distinct lack of journalistic ethics.
No, many of us just hold the media to a higher standard than your "They report what people are talking about."
I don't want stenographers I want journalists.
Also bullshit no one gave a crap about Gawker there was debate all over on this forum and outside of it.
More bullshit. "The press" in general are the villains? You do realise that there are a lot of journalists out there, right? Like tens of thousands? And a lot of them answer to no publisher, blogging directly on the web? And in fact, Trump himself communicates to the world via Twitter, no media needed?
This isn't the 1940s any more. The media can't control all information. FDR couldn't walk, guys.
However Comey *can* control what information is revealed. He's the director of the FBI. He had two things in his possession of vital import to the election. He chose to release one of them. This is on his head.
I'm really suspicious of the fact that so many "well meaning" people seem eager to blame the free press for everything. Very funny indeed, just as Putin has been meddling with the free press. Yes, very interesting. I feel that if I unblocked all those left-wing facebook spams of dubious source I might have a better idea of just why everyone has suddenly settled on the freedom of the press as the villain behind the election of Donald Trump.
Several points:
1) We are not suddenly doing shit. Left wing media criticism has been intense since at least the mid 90s. The Daily Show and Colbert Report were mostly satires of the political media. Krugman wrote a column about the concern that Hillary would be "Gored" which is to say lied about in the press while a buffoon candidate was treated with kid gloves. This was also my main concern, that 2016 would look exactly like 2000. I posted about this all the fucking time.
2) We are not calling for censorship or for them to be shut down. We are asking them (rudely) to do their jobs better. End the practice of false equivalence and the like. This is a classic strawman you're using and it's offensive.
3) Yeah, today's media would report on FDR being wheel chair bound. Not really relevant to the actual issue which is how FDR would govern. The three network news broadcasts spent 32 minutes on all policy issues combined this year. And that was mostly terrorism. If the media's job is to inform the public, they are doing a terrible job at it.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The media sucks, and is unfair. Ok. If that's true, what do we do? We can't just complain that they're unfair, we have to find a way of controlling the message at that level. Figuring out what to do to maintain positive coverage of democratic politicians while maintaining negative coverage of republicans. I don't think complaining that the media is unfair, even if that's true, is going to be enough. I want to know what will advance this goal.
What exactly about "maintaining positive coverage of democratic politicians while maintaining negative coverage of republicans" would result in fairness?
You're just advocating for the creation of reverse Breitbart.
The media sucks, and is unfair. Ok. If that's true, what do we do? We can't just complain that they're unfair, we have to find a way of controlling the message at that level. Figuring out what to do to maintain positive coverage of democratic politicians while maintaining negative coverage of republicans. I don't think complaining that the media is unfair, even if that's true, is going to be enough. I want to know what will advance this goal.
What exactly about "maintaining positive coverage of democratic politicians while maintaining negative coverage of republicans" would result in fairness?
You're just advocating for the creation of reverse Breitbart.
Not if it's accurate.
If one candidate is demonstrably more negative than the other it should reported as such. Currently the press keeps trying to "balance" negative and positive coverage which is not at all fair or in accordance with reporting the truth.
The media sucks, and is unfair. Ok. If that's true, what do we do? We can't just complain that they're unfair, we have to find a way of controlling the message at that level. Figuring out what to do to maintain positive coverage of democratic politicians while maintaining negative coverage of republicans. I don't think complaining that the media is unfair, even if that's true, is going to be enough. I want to know what will advance this goal.
What exactly about "maintaining positive coverage of democratic politicians while maintaining negative coverage of republicans" would result in fairness?
You're just advocating for the creation of reverse Breitbart.
Not if it's accurate.
If one candidate is demonstrably more negative than the other it should reported as such. Currently the press keeps trying to "balance" negative and positive coverage which is not at all fair or in accordance with reporting the truth.
You can see this in action with the white supremacy movement that powered Trump. They're all hip and stylish and the alt right is totally different than those groups before! And then you read their views and no, it turns out Richard Spencer is exactly what he seems to be: a fucking Nazi.
In this case, a large part of the problem is a lack of racial minorities and women in the editorial ranks.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
More bullshit. "The press" in general are the villains? You do realise that there are a lot of journalists out there, right? Like tens of thousands? And a lot of them answer to no publisher, blogging directly on the web? And in fact, Trump himself communicates to the world via Twitter, no media needed?
This isn't the 1940s any more. The media can't control all information. FDR couldn't walk, guys.
However Comey *can* control what information is revealed. He's the director of the FBI. He had two things in his possession of vital import to the election. He chose to release one of them. This is on his head.
I'm really suspicious of the fact that so many "well meaning" people seem eager to blame the free press for everything. Very funny indeed, just as Putin has been meddling with the free press. Yes, very interesting. I feel that if I unblocked all those left-wing facebook spams of dubious source I might have a better idea of just why everyone has suddenly settled on the freedom of the press as the villain behind the election of Donald Trump.
The three network news broadcasts spent 32 minutes on all policy issues combined this year. And that was mostly terrorism. If the media's job is to inform the public, they are doing a terrible job at it.
This is a consumer choice issue. Honestly I got more info from Wikipedia and Google on the actual policy issues.
"If every Republican Congressman signed a bill declaring that the earth is flat, the headline the next morning would read 'Democrats, Republicans disagree on shape of earth'"?
More bullshit. "The press" in general are the villains? You do realise that there are a lot of journalists out there, right? Like tens of thousands? And a lot of them answer to no publisher, blogging directly on the web? And in fact, Trump himself communicates to the world via Twitter, no media needed?
This isn't the 1940s any more. The media can't control all information. FDR couldn't walk, guys.
However Comey *can* control what information is revealed. He's the director of the FBI. He had two things in his possession of vital import to the election. He chose to release one of them. This is on his head.
I'm really suspicious of the fact that so many "well meaning" people seem eager to blame the free press for everything. Very funny indeed, just as Putin has been meddling with the free press. Yes, very interesting. I feel that if I unblocked all those left-wing facebook spams of dubious source I might have a better idea of just why everyone has suddenly settled on the freedom of the press as the villain behind the election of Donald Trump.
The three network news broadcasts spent 32 minutes on all policy issues combined this year. And that was mostly terrorism. If the media's job is to inform the public, they are doing a terrible job at it.
This is a consumer choice issue. Honestly I got more info from Wikipedia and Google on the actual policy issues.
No, it's not. The major news outlets (the three network news broadcasts, the AP, the NYT, the WSJ, and the Washington Post, primarily but also the cable networks) have a vast agenda setting power. What they cover gets covered everywhere. So what those outlets cover and how they choose to cover it is how information is conveyed to the vast majority of the electorate. Therefore it is not a consumer choice issue because there's not that much choice.
On a related matter: most media operations are owned by one of five or so enormous conglomerates, again limiting choice.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I think the default belief is if you cover republicans fairly it will be fairly negative coverage because they are a party of regressive awful ideas.
An opinion that may be in preponderance here, but is hardly representative of how the country at large feels.
You might want to take a look at what the party split is like for local/municipal governance. It isn't pretty for progressives.
People literally do not believe you if you tell them what Republicans stand for. Like dismantling Medicare, the stated goal of the Speaker of the House.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
More bullshit. "The press" in general are the villains? You do realise that there are a lot of journalists out there, right? Like tens of thousands? And a lot of them answer to no publisher, blogging directly on the web? And in fact, Trump himself communicates to the world via Twitter, no media needed?
This isn't the 1940s any more. The media can't control all information. FDR couldn't walk, guys.
However Comey *can* control what information is revealed. He's the director of the FBI. He had two things in his possession of vital import to the election. He chose to release one of them. This is on his head.
I'm really suspicious of the fact that so many "well meaning" people seem eager to blame the free press for everything. Very funny indeed, just as Putin has been meddling with the free press. Yes, very interesting. I feel that if I unblocked all those left-wing facebook spams of dubious source I might have a better idea of just why everyone has suddenly settled on the freedom of the press as the villain behind the election of Donald Trump.
The three network news broadcasts spent 32 minutes on all policy issues combined this year. And that was mostly terrorism. If the media's job is to inform the public, they are doing a terrible job at it.
This is a consumer choice issue. Honestly I got more info from Wikipedia and Google on the actual policy issues.
Here's the thing - news is not supposed to be product. The issues with the media, both here and in the UK, can all be traced to making news into another entertainment product.
More bullshit. "The press" in general are the villains? You do realise that there are a lot of journalists out there, right? Like tens of thousands? And a lot of them answer to no publisher, blogging directly on the web? And in fact, Trump himself communicates to the world via Twitter, no media needed?
This isn't the 1940s any more. The media can't control all information. FDR couldn't walk, guys.
However Comey *can* control what information is revealed. He's the director of the FBI. He had two things in his possession of vital import to the election. He chose to release one of them. This is on his head.
I'm really suspicious of the fact that so many "well meaning" people seem eager to blame the free press for everything. Very funny indeed, just as Putin has been meddling with the free press. Yes, very interesting. I feel that if I unblocked all those left-wing facebook spams of dubious source I might have a better idea of just why everyone has suddenly settled on the freedom of the press as the villain behind the election of Donald Trump.
The three network news broadcasts spent 32 minutes on all policy issues combined this year. And that was mostly terrorism. If the media's job is to inform the public, they are doing a terrible job at it.
This is a consumer choice issue. Honestly I got more info from Wikipedia and Google on the actual policy issues.
Here's the thing - news is not supposed to be product. The issues with the media, both here and in the UK, can all be traced to making news into another entertainment product.
This too. It's explicitly why we gave the airwaves to people for free, in fact. You get to use whatever frequency and in exchange you inform the public.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
More bullshit. "The press" in general are the villains? You do realise that there are a lot of journalists out there, right? Like tens of thousands? And a lot of them answer to no publisher, blogging directly on the web? And in fact, Trump himself communicates to the world via Twitter, no media needed?
This isn't the 1940s any more. The media can't control all information. FDR couldn't walk, guys.
However Comey *can* control what information is revealed. He's the director of the FBI. He had two things in his possession of vital import to the election. He chose to release one of them. This is on his head.
I'm really suspicious of the fact that so many "well meaning" people seem eager to blame the free press for everything. Very funny indeed, just as Putin has been meddling with the free press. Yes, very interesting. I feel that if I unblocked all those left-wing facebook spams of dubious source I might have a better idea of just why everyone has suddenly settled on the freedom of the press as the villain behind the election of Donald Trump.
The three network news broadcasts spent 32 minutes on all policy issues combined this year. And that was mostly terrorism. If the media's job is to inform the public, they are doing a terrible job at it.
This is a consumer choice issue. Honestly I got more info from Wikipedia and Google on the actual policy issues.
Here's the thing - news is not supposed to be product. The issues with the media, both here and in the UK, can all be traced to making news into another entertainment product.
It's always been entertainment, apart from occasional dry state broadcasts. There was always a lot of shitty media in the past, right since the invention of the press. Pamphlets about the exploits of recently hanged highwaymen were super popular in the 19th century. Vital news, right? Ah, rose-tinted spectacles.
I was a very nerdy child and loved to read newspapers in the late '80s and I can't say that they seem notably different these days. Still flawed, still useful, still sensationalistic.
What we have got differently these days is the instant response. A news story can be written, published, and spread to millions, all within an hour. Journalists are still struggling with this.
+1
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Posts
It was the voters who took Trump's lunatic statements to heart, and regarded Clinton's small issues as huge.
I think the media were as confused as anyone. They realised they'd been dogpiling Trump for a while (for good reason, he's nuts) and wanted to do something on the other side, for "balance" because Republican readers were starting to complain about "bias." Problem was, 999 negative articles on Trump failed to stick and 1 negative thing on Clinton stuck like glue. This doesn't make sense and the media could not have predicted it. It's just plain crazy and I still don't understand it.
Reporting on utter bullshit a week before the election happened
Sorry all the other stuff aside Comey threw the election and the media helped him
If the New York Times had buried the story it would have made no difference. The right-wing media machine would have got the word out fine. Blame Comey, not the media.
I know, right? It's completely unfathomable how this became the largest talking point of the campaign.
Steam: adamjnet
Yes, it's unfathomable that no-one gave a crap about all the negative things the NYT printed about Trump. His followers thought it was a hatchet-job at the time.
You are posting that one cover of the NYT as if they bashed Clinton non-stop. They clearly loved her to bits. Their audience (middle-class and up New Yorkers) loved her to bits, and if they'd been as shitty to her as you say, her audience would *not* have been happy.
The media sucks, and is unfair. Ok. If that's true, what do we do? We can't just complain that they're unfair, we have to find a way of controlling the message at that level. Figuring out what to do to maintain positive coverage of democratic politicians while maintaining negative coverage of republicans. I don't think complaining that the media is unfair, even if that's true, is going to be enough. I want to know what will advance this goal.
(or, rather than attempting to control the message through higher level stuff like newspapers, figure out how people can grassroots begin to control spaces in which political speech happens, rather than letting rural bubbles dominate themselves)
It was the media that reminded voters about Clinton's e-mails every single day along with Trump's various issues. That one "issue" didn't stick for any other reason than that.
the NYT is not a "New York" paper man. It's a national paper that happens to be published in NY
I hold the bulk of the American news media to a higher standard than Fox News personally.
Exactly. You cannot draw a functional equivalence between the NYT and a traditional NYC rag like the Daily News.
Is it much read outside the "coastal elite" sort of areas? It seems to have a lot of stuff in it of little interest outside NYC, like reviews of Broadway plays, features on local real estate and the like.
Yeah its why dick cheney planted a story there to make the iraq nuclear weapons thing seem like a real story.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The New York Times is basically America's newspaper. it's called the paper of record for a reason.
The New York city specific stuff is in the Metro section mostly. and that's not even included in the DC or national versions of the paper.
It's the second most circulated paper in the country.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I doubt you'd be able to find a single journalist, businessperson or politician out there who wouldn't rank the New York Times as one of, if not the, the most important news outfits in the world.
Here's a brief recap of how Al Gore was treated in 2000, again led by the Times
The entire pre-Iraq debacle. Where Cheney would leak a false story to get in the paper, then cite the "widely respected New York Times" on TV.
Shitty coverage of the health care debate led to widespread misunderstanding of the ACA/Obamacare.
There's what people heard about the candidates in the campaign. For everyone saying if Clinton had talked about policy the election would be different, they're wrong, because that's not what people heard. They only heard about the emails, and a little bit about the Clinton Foundation, all of the reporting on which was skewed to create the impression it was a slush fund to increase the Clintons personal wealth and give access to her as Secretary of State.
This shit is why Comey could swing the election and why the Russian hacking even had a chance to work. With a media that was interested in the actual effects of government and not the gossipy bullshit that dominates the game of politics inside of DC and the DC suburbs, things would have been different.
For a lengthy and detailed analysis of exactly what creates this media atmosphere, here's a book for you. Alternately, read Game Change, the sort of definitive media conventional wisdom bullshit account of 2008 and count how many times the Iraq War is mentioned in the sections about the Democratic primary. It's approximately once. When it was the defining issue that won the primary for Obama.
What I am saying is that you should read TPM instead. And local papers are still reasonably good at local coverage. It's the national press that doesn't have a fucking clue and is obsessed with gossipy bullshit (see: the entire Clinton Presidency too, while I think about it).
No, I wouldn't. And it's a silly goose thing to say.
If you want to have a discussion I'm all for it but this is just insulting.
I'm thinking that the right is setting up the left to despise the "liberal media" as much as they do, so when they come for them, people shrug rather than getting incensed. No-one really gave a crap when Gawker was shut down for basically being scurrilous and annoying the far right. I'm beginning to think that we might have heard about this Russian/Piss thing a bit faster if we'd still had Gawker and their distinct lack of journalistic ethics.
No, many of us just hold the media to a higher standard than your "They report what people are talking about."
I don't want stenographers I want journalists.
Also bullshit no one gave a crap about Gawker there was debate all over on this forum and outside of it.
Several points:
1) We are not suddenly doing shit. Left wing media criticism has been intense since at least the mid 90s. The Daily Show and Colbert Report were mostly satires of the political media. Krugman wrote a column about the concern that Hillary would be "Gored" which is to say lied about in the press while a buffoon candidate was treated with kid gloves. This was also my main concern, that 2016 would look exactly like 2000. I posted about this all the fucking time.
2) We are not calling for censorship or for them to be shut down. We are asking them (rudely) to do their jobs better. End the practice of false equivalence and the like. This is a classic strawman you're using and it's offensive.
3) Yeah, today's media would report on FDR being wheel chair bound. Not really relevant to the actual issue which is how FDR would govern. The three network news broadcasts spent 32 minutes on all policy issues combined this year. And that was mostly terrorism. If the media's job is to inform the public, they are doing a terrible job at it.
You're just advocating for the creation of reverse Breitbart.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Not if it's accurate.
If one candidate is demonstrably more negative than the other it should reported as such. Currently the press keeps trying to "balance" negative and positive coverage which is not at all fair or in accordance with reporting the truth.
You can see this in action with the white supremacy movement that powered Trump. They're all hip and stylish and the alt right is totally different than those groups before! And then you read their views and no, it turns out Richard Spencer is exactly what he seems to be: a fucking Nazi.
In this case, a large part of the problem is a lack of racial minorities and women in the editorial ranks.
This is a consumer choice issue. Honestly I got more info from Wikipedia and Google on the actual policy issues.
"If every Republican Congressman signed a bill declaring that the earth is flat, the headline the next morning would read 'Democrats, Republicans disagree on shape of earth'"?
You might want to take a look at what the party split is like for local/municipal governance. It isn't pretty for progressives.
No, it's not. The major news outlets (the three network news broadcasts, the AP, the NYT, the WSJ, and the Washington Post, primarily but also the cable networks) have a vast agenda setting power. What they cover gets covered everywhere. So what those outlets cover and how they choose to cover it is how information is conveyed to the vast majority of the electorate. Therefore it is not a consumer choice issue because there's not that much choice.
On a related matter: most media operations are owned by one of five or so enormous conglomerates, again limiting choice.
People literally do not believe you if you tell them what Republicans stand for. Like dismantling Medicare, the stated goal of the Speaker of the House.
Here's the thing - news is not supposed to be product. The issues with the media, both here and in the UK, can all be traced to making news into another entertainment product.
This too. It's explicitly why we gave the airwaves to people for free, in fact. You get to use whatever frequency and in exchange you inform the public.
It's always been entertainment, apart from occasional dry state broadcasts. There was always a lot of shitty media in the past, right since the invention of the press. Pamphlets about the exploits of recently hanged highwaymen were super popular in the 19th century. Vital news, right? Ah, rose-tinted spectacles.
I was a very nerdy child and loved to read newspapers in the late '80s and I can't say that they seem notably different these days. Still flawed, still useful, still sensationalistic.
What we have got differently these days is the instant response. A news story can be written, published, and spread to millions, all within an hour. Journalists are still struggling with this.
*shrug* then those people will hear about republicans doing exactly the things they want them to
there's no victim here