Election 2016

[Strat]

For every foxnews, there is a cnn, msnbc, NBC, ABC, CBS, comedy central, HBO most other cable networks, 90% of Hollywood and lots more. All undeniably biased and pro-democrat. To say it evens out is a complete joke. And it's not just against Trump, though he's brought out the worst in the media's bias. It's anyone who is not a Democrat, particularly establishment Democrat. It's been that way for years. The only reason fox news is as big as it is is because it's the only game in town. It has no real competition.

If you're treating "media" as synonymous with "all entertainment and news television, including Comedy Central and actors as individuals," then who gives a shit if there's an overall bias? Oh no, HBO is liberal! Injustice!

If you speak only of news organizations (and seemingly only about television news), then I would be curious to know what more "balanced" coverage of this election would look like in your mind. To me, it has been insufficient in its coverage of absolutely unprecedented misinformation events and social media-based deception efforts in the Trump campaign, because it has been pulled into the tabloid aspect of the mysogyny...which itself should be enough to end his aspirations.

Comedy Central, particularly their news shows, is practically media, at least in practice. Too many people get their "news" from Jon Stewart type shows. Why wouldn't you give a shit? that doesn't make any sense. Of course they influence people. In a broader sense, why wouldn't it concern you that the vast majority of what people see on television is put up by a tiny group of biased people (Hollywood)?

Radio probably leans slightly conservative, but that audience is miniscule. Internet is the wild west, so it has biases all over the place, probably evening out, though I wouldn't call it a good example of fair and balanced. There has to be a better way. Not to mention the fact that Twitter and Facebook's curation leaves a lot to be desired.

On the day the DNC had major shakeups over the email hacking, CNN didn't mention it on the front page, but ran 13 anti-Trump stories including the one about him eating chicken with a fork. I don't think you need to worry that the media isn't suitably anti-Trump. They have that base covered.

They most certainly did mention it. Im on CNN like all day everyday enjoying the madness. There was coverage of that. There is also plenty on Hillarys emails. The differnce is, none of this stuff is as damaging and absurd as everything that comes out of the Trump campaign.

This was a specific story about DNC resignations, which is a pretty newsworthy thing I think. If CNN did mention it on their website, it was buried far down the page in favor of a dozen minor stories bashing Trump. I took a screenshot of CNN's website because I was so shocked by it, but I'll have to dig it up. I agree the Hillary emails themselves aren't that important, but I do think the media routinely buries news stories critical to the democrats in favor of any minor story bashing Trump. Does Trump's millionth accuser really merit a brand new news story? Not really. And it's not just for ratings or clicks: It's because of an agenda, and one that existed before Trump ran for president.

I agree with that

[digster]

It's hard to see how someone could argue the media, particularly the broadcast media, has been biased against Trump, mainly because Trump likely wouldn't have been the candidate he has been without the millions in free media he got throughout the campaign, particularly in the primary. Was the media doing that because it was in the tank for Trump? No, it's because people tuned into see Trump be Trump, but it's hard to then spin that into the media always having it out for the guy. There's no one they had it in for less this past year.

Some may argue that the negative treatment Trump is getting now is some type of 'bias,' but I think just as many would argue that it's the appropriate coverage of his unique dumpster fire of a candidacy. I get that that approach may not affirm every viewer's worldview, but provided the reporting is honest, at some point that's the viewer's problem rather than the journalist.

[Norah]

There aren't a million Trump accusers. There are about a dozen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-r ... 2c043a7212

And yes, every time a Presidential candidate is accused of sexual assault that should be a story. That seems a little more important than personnel changes within a campaign or party leadership, which while newsworthy aren't really smoking gun evidence of anything.

[Strat]

The way I see it (granted in my warped more liberal than not worldview) the media didnt even go after trump up until the last 4-5 months ago. WTF were they thinking?

[BurtReynolds]

There aren't a million Trump accusers. There are about a dozen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-r ... 2c043a7212

And yes, every time a Presidential candidate is accused of sexual assault that should be a story. That seems a little more important than personnel changes within a campaign or party leadership, which while newsworthy aren't really smoking gun evidence of anything.

Of course it should be a story. It should probably be the top story on many days. But it probably shouldn't be 12 individual stories all lined up at the top of a news website, pushing everything else that's happening in the world down the list, especially legitimate stories critical of that news organization's preferred candidate.

[Birds in Hell]

The way I see it (granted in my warped more liberal than not worldview) the media didnt even go after trump up until the last 4-5 months ago. WTF were they thinking?

I don't think it happened by accident or by laziness, Strat.

[Norah]

There aren't a million Trump accusers. There are about a dozen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-r ... 2c043a7212

And yes, every time a Presidential candidate is accused of sexual assault that should be a story. That seems a little more important than personnel changes within a campaign or party leadership, which while newsworthy aren't really smoking gun evidence of anything.

Of course it should be a story. It should probably be the top story on many days. But it probably shouldn't be 12 individual stories all lined up at the top of a news website, pushing everything else that's happening in the world down the list, especially legitimate stories critical of that news organization's preferred candidate.

What you're asking for is fairness bias. These email stories require a lot of speculation, and ignoring of context, to get anywhere close to being the bombshells that the right is making them out to be. They don't deserve the same kind of attention as "11th woman comes forward with claims that the Republican nominee for President sexually assaulted her."

[Norah]

The way I see it (granted in my warped more liberal than not worldview) the media didnt even go after trump up until the last 4-5 months ago. WTF were they thinking?

I don't think it happened by accident or by laziness, Strat.

It's almost like the coverage really amped up around the time that the nominees were actually chosen.

[Birds in Hell]

The way I see it (granted in my warped more liberal than not worldview) the media didnt even go after trump up until the last 4-5 months ago. WTF were they thinking?

I don't think it happened by accident or by laziness, Strat.

It's almost like the coverage really amped up around the time that the nominees were actually chosen.

Oh no, I think it was a very deliberate choice. The media wanted Trump to get the nomination.

[Norah]

The way I see it (granted in my warped more liberal than not worldview) the media didnt even go after trump up until the last 4-5 months ago. WTF were they thinking?

I don't think it happened by accident or by laziness, Strat.

It's almost like the coverage really amped up around the time that the nominees were actually chosen.

Oh no, I think it was a very deliberate choice. The media wanted Trump to get the nomination.

Yeah, Breitbart definitely did.

[BurtReynolds]

There aren't a million Trump accusers. There are about a dozen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-r ... 2c043a7212

And yes, every time a Presidential candidate is accused of sexual assault that should be a story. That seems a little more important than personnel changes within a campaign or party leadership, which while newsworthy aren't really smoking gun evidence of anything.

Of course it should be a story. It should probably be the top story on many days. But it probably shouldn't be 12 individual stories all lined up at the top of a news website, pushing everything else that's happening in the world down the list, especially legitimate stories critical of that news organization's preferred candidate.

What you're asking for is fairness bias. These email stories require a lot of speculation, and ignoring of context, to get anywhere close to being the bombshells that the right is making them out to be. They don't deserve the same kind of attention as "11th woman comes forward with claims that the Republican nominee for President sexually assaulted her."

No I'm not. I'm not talking about emails. I'm talking about major democratic party changes in the heat of a presidential election, based on a failure to do their job. But I'm not even talking about the election. What about Syria? Russia? Any of the other dozens of things that are going on that are, yes, more important than twenty year old groping allegations? These aren't left/right election stories, but they are barely mentioned. This is deliberate, and has little to do with newsworthiness.

I'm not saying that there should be an anti-Hillary story for every anti-Trump one. I'm saying dozens of mostly similar Anti-Trump news stories clogging up the front page of the media's website or dominating their television coverage at the expense of everything else, especially news critical of the Democratic party is-- to put it lightly-- overkill. It's also deliberate, and not based solely on traffic. They desperately want Trump to lose.

[McParadigm]

To be clear, CNN's "chicken with a fork" story appeared on 8/2, which does not stand out as a particularly significant day in the email scandal. Fox News reports nothing about it that day, and instead offers the following:

Black Lives Matter making demands

Should Khizr Khan's patriotism be questioned?

Medical benefits of dental floss unproven

Donald Trump responds to President Obama's criticism

Donald Trump sounds off on 'rigged election' possibility

Can elevation training masks improve your endurance?

Vanilla Ice has public meltdown at the airport

[Norah]

There aren't a million Trump accusers. There are about a dozen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-r ... 2c043a7212

And yes, every time a Presidential candidate is accused of sexual assault that should be a story. That seems a little more important than personnel changes within a campaign or party leadership, which while newsworthy aren't really smoking gun evidence of anything.

Of course it should be a story. It should probably be the top story on many days. But it probably shouldn't be 12 individual stories all lined up at the top of a news website, pushing everything else that's happening in the world down the list, especially legitimate stories critical of that news organization's preferred candidate.

What you're asking for is fairness bias. These email stories require a lot of speculation, and ignoring of context, to get anywhere close to being the bombshells that the right is making them out to be. They don't deserve the same kind of attention as "11th woman comes forward with claims that the Republican nominee for President sexually assaulted her."

No I'm not. I'm not talking about emails. I'm talking about major democratic party changes in the heat of a presidential election, based on a failure to do their job. But I'm not even talking about the election. What about Syria? Russia? Any of the other dozens of things that are going on that are, yes, more important than twenty year old groping allegations? These aren't left/right election stories, but they are barely mentioned. This is deliberate, and has little to do with newsworthiness.

I'm not saying that there should be an anti-Hillary story for every anti-Trump one. I'm saying dozens of mostly similar Anti-Trump news stories clogging up the front page of the media's website or dominating their television coverage at the expense of everything else, especially news critical of the Democratic party is-- to put it lightly-- overkill. It's also deliberate, and not based solely on traffic.

So you're saying it's wrong that US based news organizations are giving priority coverage to the US election in an election year?

[Norah]

I HAVE TO SCROLL DOWN TO SEE ANYTHING ABOUT SYRIA!!!!!!

[Norah]

WHY DO I HAVE TO CLICK THE INTERNATIONAL SECTION TO GET NEWS ON IRAQ!?!!?!?!?!?!

[Birds in Hell]

The way I see it (granted in my warped more liberal than not worldview) the media didnt even go after trump up until the last 4-5 months ago. WTF were they thinking?

I don't think it happened by accident or by laziness, Strat.

It's almost like the coverage really amped up around the time that the nominees were actually chosen.

Oh no, I think it was a very deliberate choice. The media wanted Trump to get the nomination.

Yeah, Breitbart definitely did.

I have no idea, but I'm talking about the mainstream media outlets here. Even before he got the nomination, the amount of media attention lavished on Trump was wildly disproportionate. Whether the reason is that he's great for ratings, or whether it's because it was presumed he would be a much easier candidate for Clinton to beat than Rubio or Kasich, I think the lack of criticism was deliberate.

[BurtReynolds]

There aren't a million Trump accusers. There are about a dozen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-r ... 2c043a7212

And yes, every time a Presidential candidate is accused of sexual assault that should be a story. That seems a little more important than personnel changes within a campaign or party leadership, which while newsworthy aren't really smoking gun evidence of anything.

Of course it should be a story. It should probably be the top story on many days. But it probably shouldn't be 12 individual stories all lined up at the top of a news website, pushing everything else that's happening in the world down the list, especially legitimate stories critical of that news organization's preferred candidate.

What you're asking for is fairness bias. These email stories require a lot of speculation, and ignoring of context, to get anywhere close to being the bombshells that the right is making them out to be. They don't deserve the same kind of attention as "11th woman comes forward with claims that the Republican nominee for President sexually assaulted her."

No I'm not. I'm not talking about emails. I'm talking about major democratic party changes in the heat of a presidential election, based on a failure to do their job. But I'm not even talking about the election. What about Syria? Russia? Any of the other dozens of things that are going on that are, yes, more important than twenty year old groping allegations? These aren't left/right election stories, but they are barely mentioned. This is deliberate, and has little to do with newsworthiness.

I'm not saying that there should be an anti-Hillary story for every anti-Trump one. I'm saying dozens of mostly similar Anti-Trump news stories clogging up the front page of the media's website or dominating their television coverage at the expense of everything else, especially news critical of the Democratic party is-- to put it lightly-- overkill. It's also deliberate, and not based solely on traffic.

So you're saying it's wrong that US based news organizations are giving priority coverage to the US election in an election year?

International stories. Domestic stories. Doesn't matter. Those were just two examples. They all get pushed down in favor of Trump taking a dump.

[Jorge]

No I'm not. I'm not talking about emails. I'm talking about major democratic party changes in the heat of a presidential election, based on a failure to do their job. But I'm not even talking about the election. What about Syria? Russia? Any of the other dozens of things that are going on that are, yes, more important than twenty year old groping allegations? These aren't left/right election stories, but they are barely mentioned. This is deliberate, and has little to do with newsworthiness.

Pro tip: next time you're on the CNN website, click on the little Edition section on the top right corner of the page and switch from the US edition to the International edition. Way less clickbait-y Trump stuff.

[BurtReynolds]

The way I see it (granted in my warped more liberal than not worldview) the media didnt even go after trump up until the last 4-5 months ago. WTF were they thinking?

I don't think it happened by accident or by laziness, Strat.

It's almost like the coverage really amped up around the time that the nominees were actually chosen.

Oh no, I think it was a very deliberate choice. The media wanted Trump to get the nomination.

Yeah, Breitbart definitely did.

I have no idea, but I'm talking about the mainstream media outlets here. Even before he got the nomination, the amount of media attention lavished on Trump was wildly disproportionate. Whether the reason is that he's great for ratings, or whether it's because it was presumed he would be a much easier candidate for Clinton to beat than Rubio or Kasich, I think the lack of criticism was deliberate.

Oh leftwing media was as excited to see Trump win the nomination as Breitbart, though I doubt they knew how hard it would be to beat him at the time. Many on all sides would probably like to go back in time and take him more seriously.

[Norah]

That's what it is. They're going to put the stories on the top that are most likely to generate clicks. It's the inherent problem with capitalist journalism.