The 45th POTUS - Donald J. Trump

[Jorge]

Of course their policy and ideology is from different ends of the political spectrum, but Trump reminds me a lot of former Argentine president Cristina Kirchner.

[BurtReynolds]

It's also how communism rose to power, and they killed a lot more people than fascism. So remember that the next time socialists take over the media and acts like they are the moral authority.

Praise Trump for draining the swamp. Praise him.

[Norah]

Yeah, because democratic socialism and communism are the same thing.

[BurtReynolds]

now you're getting it.

[Wendy Carlos's Twin]

It's also how communism rose to power, and they killed a lot more people than fascism. So remember that the next time socialists take over the media and acts like they are the moral authority.

Neither is acceptable. Remember that the next time your fascist leader pulls a stunt.

[BurtReynolds]

sorry, the movie thoughts thread is bringing out my inner fascist.

[E.H. Ruddock]

sorry, the movie thoughts thread is bringing out my inner fascist.

Sad!

[Jorge]

This is more outrageous than his immigration policy

[Simple Torture]

He also eats pizza with a fork:

Spoiler: show

[wease]

What is he, a fucking child? Catsup on a fucking well-done steak? I thought he was supposed to be cultured and shit? And pizza with a fork?!? He's from New York!! WTF? Does Melania fucking cut it for him like he's still 4 years old. Jesus Christ.

[wease]

Is that Palin next to him?

[E.H. Ruddock]

Catsup. Is this 1955?

[Jorge]

What is he, a fucking child? Catsup on a fucking well-done steak? I thought he was supposed to be cultured and shit? And pizza with a fork?!? He's from New York!! WTF? Does Melania fucking cut it for him like he's still 4 years old. Jesus Christ.

OK you need to calm down

[wease]

Catsup. Is this 1955?

[BurtReynolds]

this food stuff is fake news

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016 ... g-erin.cnn

[McParadigm]

I wanna go back to this discussion of media bias.

Bias is inherently a perceptive claim. At the individual or societal level, it tends to be broadly measured using the softest of measurement tools: opinion. And nobody seems to be bothered that the ultimate bias delivery system (opinion built on narrow personal perceptions) is our benchmark for determining if the media is biased.

What statistics do we toss around whenever we discuss bias? Public faith in the media polling. There's noting scientific about faith. In fact, historically it's proven a damn good way to be wrong.

Now, there are a lot of overlapping types of coverage and forms of delivery that we treat as a singular entity called "the media," but they don't really share a lot of common ground. TV media has and responds to a very different kind of competition than print media. In many ways, it blurs the boundaries of what exactly constitutes journalism (vs, say, entertainment). It is also the most beholden to pundit-centric coverage, as it relies on dramatic debate as a delivery system for information and points of view. It requires a constant influx of fuel for this drama, and so it tends to overblow and over-repeat. Personally, I draw a huge line between TV news media and publications...particularly those that engage in investigative journalism.

Regardless of that distinction, however, the long-lived perception of liberal media doesn't really hold up to actual (as in not perceptual) evaluation.

Take a research study done on media representation during the 2000 election, which reviewed number of stories, and ratio of negative statements ("here's where Gore slipped up,") to positive ("Bush needed to demonstrate that he could do x, and he did"):

Gore’s coverage was decidedly more negative, more focused on the internal politics of campaigning and had less to do with citizens than did his Republican rival.

In contrast, George W. Bush was twice as likely as Gore to get coverage that was positive in tone. Coverage of the governor was also more issue-oriented and more likely to be directly connected to citizens.

Take a 2012 comparison of how public perceptions of media bias versus actual concrete, comparable data (http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/academic ... Fall13.pdf). Sample quote:

The data presented in Figure 2 indicates the Romney campaign boasted a greater percentage of electoral coverage than the Obama campaign across the print, radio and television mediums. On average, the Romney campaign was allotted 3% more statements in election coverage than the Obama campaign.

Those of you around and paying attention in 1988 may remember a huge post-election self-analysis by the media, not unlike today's, after a similar report found a far more extreme imbalance that trend lines suggested directly injured the Dukakis candidacy.

Or you can look at Harvard's study of 2016 coverage:

Trump was covered more negatively than Clinton over the course of the general election, with coverage being 77 percent negative to 23 percent positive compared to Clinton coverage running 64 percent negative to 36 percent positive coverage. But over the course of the entire campaign, Clinton was covered more negatively than Trump, with 62 percent negative and 38 percent positive coverage compared to Trump's coverage, which was 56 percent negative and 44 percent positive.

One candidate was a lawsuit-riddled businessman who opened his campaign with a semi-racist jab, and went on to attack a gold star family, ask Russia for help, be exposed as a pussygrabber, threaten to jail his opponent, and attack the media directly. Under those circumstances, sorry, but unbiased coverage would not be that close unless his opponent was a woman.

Oh.

I'm sure more than one person's reaction will be "If out think the media isn't leftist, you're fooling yourself." The problem with relying on perceptions, rather than measured reviews of comparable data, is that human perceptions are informed primarily by biases, which often serve to simplify complex situations (an evolutionarily valuable mistake, early on) or to confirm what we have already decided to believe. It took centuries after medical service blossomed as a profession for doctors to realize that bleeding a sick person doesn't help...because the confirmation bias was so overwhelming. It took the collection of sizable, measurable data to prove that the perceptions were wrong.

[McParadigm]

I should add that I don't believe the media is inherently right wing, either. In fact, there was a meta-study sometime ago that collected data for a period of 30 or so years, and found no trending bias. I also realize that there are an increasing number of intentionally left or right leaning pseudo-media, these days. But when you are talking about "mainstream" print media, the hard data consistently demonstrates that it just isn't there.

Unless you consider coverage of environmental degradation to be inherently liberal, or something. In which case you get into the old "science has a liberal bias" stick.

[BurtReynolds]

Trump was covered more negatively than Clinton over the course of the general election, with coverage being 77 percent negative to 23 percent positive compared to Clinton coverage running 64 percent negative to 36 percent positive coverage.

that's really all that matters here. That and the sheer quantity of Trump headlines.

But over the course of the entire campaign, Clinton was covered more negatively than Trump, with 62 percent negative and 38 percent positive coverage compared to Trump's coverage, which was 56 percent negative and 44 percent positive.

Clinton's only opponent before the general election was far left of Clinton, so if there is a leftist bias, it's no surprise that she got more negative attention. Trump ran against a dozen right wingers of various degree, and it could be said that the Left had a rooting interest in seeing him win the nomination.

This only serves to back up a left bias, not disprove it.

And people's perception of the media's leanings matters. The tone matters. Media bias isn't some hard science. “As the presidential campaign comes to a close, a majority of voters (51%) say most reporters have tried to help Barack Obama win the presidency. Just seven percent (7%) think they tried to help John McCain.” (Rasmussen Reports, 2008) There is far too much nuance needed to decide if a news item is biased: the subtle language used in the articles, what they don't report, what stories get priority, etc.

[BurtReynolds]

[digster]

Now, there are a lot of overlapping types of coverage and forms of delivery that we treat as a singular entity called "the media," but they don't really share a lot of common ground. TV media has and responds to a very different kind of competition than print media. In many ways, it blurs the boundaries of what exactly constitutes journalism (vs, say, entertainment). It is also the most beholden to pundit-centric coverage, as it relies on dramatic debate as a delivery system for information and points of view. It requires a constant influx of fuel for this drama, and so it tends to overblow and over-repeat. Personally, I draw a huge line between TV news media and publications...particularly those that engage in investigative journalism.

I agree with many things in this post, but having a background in journalism, the bolded is particularly irritating, because it's just simply not like that. When someone refers to "The Media," I never am really sure what they're defining that as, and I'm not sure they've sharply defined it either. Presumably, the anchor living in a multimillion Manhattan penthouse, but what about the editor of the community paper in the suburbs? What about the reporters for state and local papers throughout the country, which despite the downturn of the business model are still a primary source of news for many people? What about podcasters, blog writers? Are these individuals all part of the Big Bad Media conspiracy?

The notion that such a diverse and diffuse type of profession is capable of even getting on the same page, much less conspiratorially collude, is a bit lazy. I think that response may sometimes be the means to counter information that troubles the narrative someone has established. If the messenger is corrupt then there's little point in considering the message.