The US Election 2016, Part V

[Guard Dog]

Interesting perspective: http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

[BruceVC]

Interesting perspective: http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

I see he doesnt mention CNN, he specifically says CBS, NBC and ABC 

 

We dont get any of those in SA so I have no idea if they are bias. I just know Trump makes the media scrutinze him....with his new campaign advisors hopefully this should change 

[HoonDing]

D1ck Advocaat:

 

 

Steve Bannon:

 

[Chippy]

All this stuff about Hillary Clinton's corruption and the way they make their money... amazing the way people just gloss over it, and that just seems like the tip of the iceberg.  If I was an American, I'd vote for Trump.

[Guard Dog]

 

Interesting perspective: http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

I see he doesnt mention CNN, he specifically says CBS, NBC and ABC 

 

We dont get any of those in SA so I have no idea if they are bias. I just know Trump makes the media scrutinze him....with his new campaign advisors hopefully this should change 

 

Bruce, along with the six or seven specific examples of CNN's pro-Hillary bias I've already linked for you in this thread and it's predecessors, let me say, anecdotally, it's not for nothing we call it the "Clinton News Network" in these parts. 

[Leferd]

 

Interesting perspective: http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

I see he doesnt mention CNN, he specifically says CBS, NBC and ABC 

 

We dont get any of those in SA so I have no idea if they are bias. I just know Trump makes the media scrutinze him....with his new campaign advisors hopefully this should change 

 

 

Or, maybe, just maybe...if Trump isn't such a bald faced liar, or such a crummy candidate, he wouldn't be getting called out so frequently. Mainstream media is doing its job.

 

Edited August 21, 2016 by Leferd

[BruceVC]

 

 

Interesting perspective: http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

I see he doesnt mention CNN, he specifically says CBS, NBC and ABC 

 

We dont get any of those in SA so I have no idea if they are bias. I just know Trump makes the media scrutinze him....with his new campaign advisors hopefully this should change 

 

Bruce, along with the six or seven specific examples of CNN's pro-Hillary bias I've already linked for you in this thread and it's predecessors, let me say, anecdotally, it's not for nothing we call it the "Clinton News Network" in these parts. 

 

Yes, many people on this forum who dont watch CNN think its biased but its not as biased as people believe

 

Another example is that Corey Lewandowski is a  regular commentator for the Trump campaign on CNN, he is much better than I thought. He knows a lot and does a good job for Trump despite how Trump offends people 

[Leferd]

Clinton is not getting a pass from CNN or the major news outlets. It's just when you compare her to Trump's demagoguery, of course Trump is going dominate the airwaves. And not positively.

[Volourn]

Oh please. CNN goes on about how Clinton is a feminist and she lvoes women (being one herself, etc.) yet fail to mention this is a person who LAUGHS at female rape victims.That is sick, twisted, evil, and bias.

[BruceVC]

Oh please. CNN goes on about how Clinton is a feminist and she lvoes women (being one herself, etc.) yet fail to mention this is a person who LAUGHS at female rape victims.That is sick, twisted, evil, and bias.

Again can you produce links that discuss how she laughed at rape victims?

[HoonDing]

They're all bleeding from their whereevers.

[Elerond]

About that media bias

 

Here is study about media coverage during primaries.

http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/

[Guard Dog]

 

 

Interesting perspective: http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

I see he doesnt mention CNN, he specifically says CBS, NBC and ABC 

 

We dont get any of those in SA so I have no idea if they are bias. I just know Trump makes the media scrutinze him....with his new campaign advisors hopefully this should change 

 

 

Or, maybe, just maybe...if Trump isn't such a bald faced liar, or such a crummy candidate, he wouldn't be getting called out so frequently. Mainstream media is doing its job.

 

 

Oh don't EVEN post from Politifact. They have 0 credibility and are as far from independent as Hillary Clinton is from honest. 

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2016/06/29/the-liberal-tilt-at-politifact-n2185076

https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/39fbov/is_politifact_truly_neutral/

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/l-brent-bozell-iii/liberal-tilt-politifact

http://www.weeklystandard.com/liberal-pundits-shocked-to-discover-politifact-not-always-factual/article/614522

[Leferd]

And of course, you cite sources from such objectively neutral sites like The Weekly Standard, Townhall.com, and CNS News. Right. I mean, literally...RIGHT.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Leferd

[HoonDing]

https://www.reddit.com/r/genderneutral/

 

don't trust anything reddit related containing the word 'neutral'

[Zoraptor]

All this stuff about Hillary Clinton's corruption and the way they make their money... amazing the way people just gloss over it, and that just seems like the tip of the iceberg.  If I was an American, I'd vote for Trump.

 

Like Ukraine. Clinton Foundation, ~10 million dollars from Pinchuk, nary a peep. Indeed, despite there being some comments about countries like Saudi contributing Ukraine has been the CF's biggest donor over the last few years, that same Ukraine which is ~bankrupt and whose oligarchs are meant to be being cleaned up. And the 'link' with Trump isn't even Trump, it's Manafort who so far as anyone knows just did lobbying. Plus of course there was barely any mention of Clinton staying in the 2008 primaries because 'Bobbie Kennedy got assassinated' when there was the coverage of Trump's ' assassination' speech.

 

Clinton is not getting a pass from CNN or the major news outlets. It's just when you compare her to Trump's demagoguery, of course Trump is going dominate the airwaves. And not positively.

 

Oh please. CNN is abjectly pro Clinton, and to pretty much the same extent as Breitbart is abjectly pro Trump. I don't even see how it could be argued otherwise, except in degree. And I say that as someone who would never vote for either, even if I could. Certainly Trump does dominate the airwaves and Clinton has an absolute strategy to avoid anything that could blow up in her face but when was the last time CNN seriously challenged her- 2nd most disliked candidate of all time, of all time!- on anything? No press conferences for 8 months, flip flopping issues, CF donors, emails etc etc. Almost complete silence on all of them from CNN, certainly no negative coverage.

 

As for Politifact, they're kings of the technically accurate summary so far as Clinton is concerned. I may have joked about it before but I do seriously suspect that they'd rate her saying she was a banana as mostly true because humans and bananas share a majority of their DNA.

[Leferd]

Well...let's see now.

 

News media has something called an editorial board. This editorial board will give their collective editorial opinion concerning matters of the public good. Between Trump and Clinton, it's not a stretch to see where most objective editorial boards will swing.

 

That being said, Clinton is getting called out for the Clinton Foundation donations. She was getting called out on Benghazi. Emails. Her lack of press conferences and interviews with news media. But unlike Trump, her campaign team knows how to answer their questions and move on. In contrast, Trump tends to double down on his controversies and exacerbate the issue.

[Guard Dog]

And of course, you cite sources from such objectively neutral sites like The Weekly Standard, Townhall.com, and CNS News. Right. I mean, literally...RIGHT.

This is why our country is in trouble my friend. It one thing to disagree on policy, role of government, what to do next, etc. But Americans can't even agree on what the facts are now. There is no longer a consensus on what is true and what isn't. The media is not what we needed it to be. An impartial source of information. Years ago people like Cronkite & Murrow were trusted. If they said "this is so" then you felt you could believe them. Now, no one is trusted. If Fox runs a story that is negative for Clinton it is dismissed as Fox being Fox. Even if it is a true story. Ditto for CNN/MSNBC/insert name here. That the story might be factual no longer matters because we don't trust the source. 

 

The media can only blame itself. It has ruined it's own credibility. And that is a real problem for us. I seriously believe is Americans were better informed Hillary & Trump would not be the nominees of the two major parties right now. Real news is out there, but you have to go find it. Most folks won't do that. They eat what is spoon fed and if that turns out to be poison, oh well. 

[Zoraptor]

Well...let's see now.

 

News media has something called an editorial board. This editorial board will give their collective editorial opinion concerning matters of the public good. Between Trump and Clinton, it's not a stretch to see where most objective editorial boards will swing.

 

That being said, Clinton is getting called out for the Clinton Foundation donations. She was getting called out on Benghazi. Emails. Her lack of press conferences and interviews with news media. But unlike Trump, her campaign team knows how to answer their questions and move on. In contrast, Trump tends to double down on his controversies and exacerbate the issue.

 

Editorial boards are at very bias agnostic. They just set the tone for what they think their readers/ watchers want- and it's pretty clear CNN think their viewers want Hillary and don't want Trump. That is bias. It's business sense as well, or kind of, given CNN's viewer numbers have been in decline for decades. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with 'public good', that's endearingly naive.

 

Clinton isn't being called out, really. There was barely any coverage of her most recent 'misspeaking' about the emails controversy, and CNN deflected everything on the emails/ DNC to it being the Russians' fault and how that meant that Trump was obviously a Russian stooge. Whereas, of course, the ledger implicating Manafort turning up was unimpeachable evidence and the direct donations of Pinchuk et alia to the CF- more than Manafort was supposed to have distributed, alone- were unmentioned and irrelevant. So, ledger turns up implicating Trump aide at a very convenient time from a government/ oligarchy that has been the heaviest donator to the CF; coincidence, absolute coincidence so much so that we'll not even mention it as it's absolutely not interference in the election cycle; however unsupported (and they are unsupported, in regards to Russian government involvement specifically since the two hackings groups didn't even know the other was there) accusations that Russia was leaking DNC/ Hillary emails shows obvious collusion and is worthy of ad nauseum repetition. Obvious deflection to try and get people to talk about another story rather than the inconvenient one.

 

They aren't talking even a quarter as much about the actual big Russian hacking story, them hacking the NSA and stealing their tools. Something which is basically confirmed at this point and is actually and confirmedly a national security issue.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Zoraptor

[Leferd]

 

And of course, you cite sources from such objectively neutral sites like The Weekly Standard, Townhall.com, and CNS News. Right. I mean, literally...RIGHT.

 

This is why our country is in trouble my friend. It one thing to disagree on policy, role of government, what to do next, etc. But Americans can't even agree on what the facts are now. There is no longer a consensus on what is true and what isn't. The media is not what we needed it to be. An impartial source of information. Years ago people like Cronkite & Murrow were trusted. If they said "this is so" then you felt you could believe them. Now, no one is trusted. If Fox runs a story that is negative for Clinton it is dismissed as Fox being Fox. Even if it is a true story. Ditto for CNN/MSNBC/insert name here. That the story might be factual no longer matters because we don't trust the source. 

 

The media can only blame itself. It has ruined it's own credibility. And that is a real problem for us. I seriously believe is Americans were better informed Hillary & Trump would not be the nominees of the two major parties right now. Real news is out there, but you have to go find it. Most folks won't do that. They eat what is spoon fed and if that turns out to be poison, oh well.

I can agree to an extent. Like I stated in your news source thread, there are plenty of good, diligent reporters and journalists out there. Journalists are allowed to have opinions, but the good ones will report the news as objectively as they can. But remember, being objective is not mutually exclusive with being balanced. Sometimes...many times, things are black and white and a good reporter will call out the BS as conscience and editors will allow.

 

Look, I share some of the misgivings regarding media, but the the bigger problem is with the news CONSUMERS. These days, many are the product of consuming their own echo chambers---reinforcing their own biases. People read and watch things that they already agree with, and if they consume things that may not necessarily gel with their world view....well of course this person is crooked and stupid media are complete shills.

[Gromnir]

pic

we got boarder collies, and they is smart... for dogs. even so, we might balk at voting for either o' our canines.  the smarter o' our two borders eats p00p and is terrified o' the sounds that hot air balloons make. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Raithe]

[Wrath of Dagon]

Politilie as as objective as the rest of the lying media that claims to be objective. Their job is to elect Hilzilla.

[Oerwinde]

And of course, you cite sources from such objectively neutral sites like The Weekly Standard, Townhall.com, and CNS News. Right. I mean, literally...RIGHT.

To be fair, I doubt a lot of left leaning sources are going to roast Politifact for being biased in favour of them.

[Leferd]

 

And of course, you cite sources from such objectively neutral sites like The Weekly Standard, Townhall.com, and CNS News. Right. I mean, literally...RIGHT.

To be fair, I doubt a lot of left leaning sources are going to roast Politifact for being biased in favour of them.

 

 

And why should they be doubted just because their findings don't jive with a particular candidate? Whether they are biased or not, they have a methodology and are open and transparent with each of their "fact checks." They explain and source why they come to a particular judgment. 

 

Yes, Republicans are on top of their liars list, and Democrats are on the bottom. But, there are truthful Republicans that do very well. It just so happens that the pants on fire Republicans tend to be the demagogues --Trump, Bachmann, Cruz, Gingrich, and Palin.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/principles-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/

Edited August 22, 2016 by Leferd