181–190 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're saying is anedoctal. Ultimately, Fox News were the few news organizations that knew that Trump was going to win by a landslide. Every other news organization were all singing that Hillary had a 99% chance of a victory (I'm not being hyperbolic with the 99%).
ONE news organization had 99%. More reasonable and measured ones had 60%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. It's not about whether CNN and other outlets are "objective". It's about scapegoating an enemy. Beating on the "liberal media" has been a cartoon villain from the GOP ever since the rise of FOX News and right-wing talk radio two decades ago, but this is a new level. They can discourage even believing in facts, and focus supporters on "alt" media that isn't impeded by inconveniences like having to report t…
"CNN may be kinda dumb, but at least they have a bedrock of journalistic integrity." You seem to have missed the email leaks. They cooperate exclusively behind the scenes with the Democratic party to ensure the defeat of Republicans. They have the journalistic integrity of cold war era "Pravda".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Bannon isn't tossing Wolf Blitzer in jail for saying something bad about the administration. Lesser journalists aren't just disappeared off the streets and never seen again. Amateur, by standards of suppressing the media.
As much as that's true today, I have no idea what tomorrow brings. They've already terminated a high-level judge for obstructing the administration. What if they "detain" a reporter for "leaking classified information"? What if Manning-like detention becomes the norm for those that speak out? I'm extremely concerned that in the next few weeks the President will appear with generals flanking him at some big military e…
So Reuter's position is that the media environment in the US is rapidly becoming like illiberal democracies in Egypt, Russia and Iran, and so its time to use skills applicable when operating within typically third world authoritarian regimes. What heart warming times we live in.
Another way to look at it is their reporters on US press have been caught flat-footed on daily news gathering. They don't have the same skills as their non-US counterparts and are rattled. This is a call to arms. We are facing darkness now, and I believe this will have a lasting impact in what reporters are capable of and willing to do to offer free press.
Not only did they push the Hillary Clinton agenda, but it was obvious to anyone with a brain that the liberal news networks didn't mind that they were helping Trump win the republican nominee, because they thought he would easily loose, and be a great figure head to point at next time someone tries to claim not all white men are racist.
Their plan back fired though and now this is what we have.
The left kept saying the right was going to destroy our rights and every day it gets worse and worse. They act as if we're in the end times. What's going to happen when Trump actually does something insane? No one will take the media seriously then (most have already lost faith). It's like the boy who cried wolf, but the media who cried fascism.
Part of me wonders if maybe the media is trying to destroy the American empire, they seem to be spiraling out of control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I listed several examples in my comment. CNN for sure did not cover these issues proportionately to their gravity. These were serious issues that were skirted by them. Had they been responsibly covered, public sentiment would be more favorable towards Trump... since he's really been rapping on this MSM corruption for a while. If anything, Trump is at least an iconoclast and whether you like his policies it would at l…
>CNN for sure did not cover these issues proportionately to their gravity. This is a very reasonable statement, but ultimately does not encapsulate the rhetoric that has been levied against the media by Trump specifically, nor his more ardent supporters. Not covering proportional to gravity is not: Anything similar to lies, fabrications, false news, misconstruing the news, or presenting the topic with a completely fa…
Humans are not "rational" and pretending they are doesn't give you a moral high-ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as that's true today, I have no idea what tomorrow brings. They've already terminated a high-level judge for obstructing the administration. What if they "detain" a reporter for "leaking classified information"? What if Manning-like detention becomes the norm for those that speak out? I'm extremely concerned that in the next few weeks the President will appear with generals flanking him at some big military e…
What are you talking about? This type of incoherent rambling gives normal liberals a bad name.
If Glen Beck and Newt Gingrich are raising concerns this is not a "liberal" problem. Get a grip.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I note what you picked (newspapers and news magazines, plus talk radio and Fox). But you left out MSNBC, CNN, and even the New York Times for some reason... That is: Yes, there are center-right or right-wing press organizations. Despite that, it is still true that the bulk of the "mainstream" press is no longer center - they have become biased, and sometimes even actively helping Democratic campaigns . That's not wha…
The United States traditionally has enjoyed a wide variety of opinions in its various regional daily newspapers, and some studies in the past have shown very little bias overall ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.... ). Obviously there was individual bias, but not in the meta. Maybe something has happened of late (would love to see data, aside from cable news which I think has obtained stro…
"Mainstream" used to be NBC, CBS, and ABC, plus AP and UPI. Of those, UPI's gone; NBC, CBS, and ABC have more-or-less abandoned their role. Fox and CNN are new-ish (at least to a person of my age). So to claim that "the mainstream media" all abandoned the center means "almost all the original ones did" - not counting Fox (or even CNN) in the reckoning. Never the less, CNN and Fox are far more mainstream than Breitbart, which is a marginal fringe player.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No disagreement about Fox. But is the feud really because those media outlets aren't advancing his agenda? The tone from the press started with mockery during the primaries and advanced to hostility once Trump became the forerunner. Look at the election night coverage from most of the networks: it looked like a funeral , which is rather surprising given the supposed objectivity of these organizations. IMO the feud is…
"Last week, New York magazine reported that Trump’s feud with CNN has roots in his relationship with CNN President Jeff Zucker, a former NBC president who brought Trump's television show “The Apprentice” to the network. Trump, the magazine reported, has told White House staffers that he feels personally betrayed by Zucker and that Zucker should tilt CNN programming more favorably toward him because of their long rela…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No disagreement about Fox. But is the feud really because those media outlets aren't advancing his agenda? The tone from the press started with mockery during the primaries and advanced to hostility once Trump became the forerunner. Look at the election night coverage from most of the networks: it looked like a funeral , which is rather surprising given the supposed objectivity of these organizations. IMO the feud is…
Their words, not mine: "We’re sending surrogates to places where we think it makes sense to promote our agenda."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>some interesting new phenomenon There's a case to be made that much of today's politics are interesting new phenomenons.
HN being an unobjective far left echo chamber is not new, making the stories kind of tiresome propaganda.