The Media Have ‘Dropped Any Pretense of Objectivity’ in Covering Donald Trump

[eohrnberger]

Most sane people knew the media coverage of Donald Trump wasn't objective from the start, way back in June 2015. It was clear what was going on. The media, about 80-90% liberal owned and operated, loved the distraction that buried Hillary Clinton's troubles. They pumped Trump up endlessly with free, puff piece interviews and appearances and marveled in the Trump "phenomenon", even though they created it. It was masterful. I saw the reverse here in Canada where the media created the phenomenon of Justin Trudeau, an empty bag of hair and selfies, and turned him into the winning candidate.

The modern media is incredibly corrupt and manipulative and the average viewer should always be aware of their underlying goals. Trump was the media's only hope of getting Hillary Clinton elected in November. Only a fool doesn't know that and only a media pimp would write an article feigning amazement that the media has now changed their focus leading into the election.

Agreed.

And yet there are many who reject this bit of factually based common sense, running around with their fingers in their ears shouting 'La! La! La! La!' at the top of their lungs whenever these facts are observed and called out.

Don't overlook the impact the collapse of the 4th estate has had on journalistic ethics. Suddenly out of a job, they have been hired by these ideologically driven enterprises to provide content.

What would you do if your gig at the LA Times suddenly ended, and you had a chance to write for Salon? Pass, because you have standards, or toe the line and provide the content and bias they are paying for?

Also, Google the authors of the content that is being presented on the internet. Many are only in the early 20's, with little life experience, and certainly willing to allow the strings that came with the job to be pulled.

I'd have to agree. journalistic ethics and integrity has fallen to a low point. One can only hope that it will re-surge in the near future, but somehow, I kinda of doubt it.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Perhaps you missed the OP.

I'd happen to be agreement.

Perhaps the phrase 'several examples' is confusing you.

There are none is that.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

His statement on Brexit.
His statement on abortion.
His statement on Obama's approach to ISIS.
His comments about NATO.

If you produce his complete comments about them I can show you why coverage hasn't been fair.

Huh. So you can't cite anything specific about how he was treatly unfairly in regards to those remarks, but you want me to produce his complete comments.

You'll have to do better than that.

 

[bubbabgone]

Huh. So you can't cite anything specific about how he was treatly unfairly in regards to those remarks, but you want me to produce his complete comments.

You'll have to do better than that.

I know what he said.
You know what someone said he said.
I'm giving you the opportunity to do what you should have already done.
But I figure there's no way you'll do that so I propose a compromise ... take any of my examples and tell me what you think he said and I'll tell you what he really said.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I know what he said.
You know what someone said he said.
I'm giving you the opportunity to do what you should have already done.
But I figure there's no way you'll do that so I propose a compromise ... take any of my examples and tell me what you think he said and I'll tell you what he really said.

So you can't cite how what he said was treated unfairly by the media, and now you're just blowing smoke.

Nothing new there.

 

[bubbabgone]

So you can't cite how what he said was treated unfairly by the media, and now you're just blowing smoke.

Nothing new there.

I just told you I could.
Tell me what you think he said about any of those topics.
Don't be afraid.
Do you even know or are you just comfortable repeating stuff?
How about this ... do you think Trump said he wants to pull out of NATO?

 

[Patrickt]

Sorry, but I don't consider the New York Times mainstream media as the plunging finances show. They are simply a partisan hack for the DNC. The media in general has given Donald Trump a pass on almost everything from his miraculous 4-F classification for the draft, through his bankruptcies, around his casinos, over Trump University, his lost or settled lawsuits, and his numerous business failures. His ludicrous statements from paying off the national debt in eight years to deporting all illegal aliens.

Donald Trump is so much like Obama it's scary. From both being uniters to both allegedly writing books about themselves to:
"In an interview with Business Insider at Trump Tower in New York last week, Trump repeatedly brushed off concerns about the practicality of his immigration plan, saying that he would have perfect legal authority to circumvent the courts."

Donald Trump sees himself as another Barack Obama who can finish the job Obama started. Donald Trump dreams of being a king. Circumvent the courts, ignore the Congress, ruled the commoners.

But, tell me, what are his good points? He's an amazing huckster, a fact that Vladimir Putin notes and admires. He's an incredible and unabashed liar but most liberals are. He's a deadbeat who stiffs working people and then convinces fools that he's for the working person. He's against immigration but uses H-1b visas to hire foreigners and employees illegal immigrants. He praises Hillary Clinto effusively until she has something he wants and the he turns nasty.

If liberals were capable of being embarrassed, Donald Trump would embarrass them.

 

[SailaWay]

donald trump understands like teddy roosevelt.. that a govt must stop the buying off politicians that then stops inventions and competiness...teddy roosevelt stopped the harm of monopolies and brought in compitition same with trump.. all dems hate trump because of how their rich gets rich over fooling people and half republicans like big oil candidates gets rich also by buying off politicians to stop inventions that could harm their money issue

DONALD TRUMP EQUALS TEDDY ROOSEVELT

 

[chuckiechan]

The problem with the media corrupting the truth, is they are muddling our view of events. If we are constantly fed the wrong information, we are going to make the wrong choices.

It's like your boss and coworkers lying to you about your impending departure.

How do you stop someone from lying to you when they have a constitutional right to do so.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I just told you I could.
Tell me what you think he said about any of those topics.
Don't be afraid.
Do you even know or are you just comfortable repeating stuff?
How about this ... do you think Trump said he wants to pull out of NATO?

I accept your admission that you have no answer to what I asked you.

Thanks for fessing up to that.

 

[Wiggen]

Agreed, that the media coverage of Trump is anything but fair, and that it is very much in line with the media pushing their leftist agenda.

I think that we can continue and say with the same level of certainty that the media is very much in bag for Hillary, pretty much refusing to honestly cover her very many instances of corruption, poor judgement, conflicts of interest, and pay to play political favors.

Mostly what the media does is let Trump speak and then report what he says. Unfortunately for you Trumpies, the man is a racist, misogynistic bully and demagogue. Thankfully now that he's disposed of the 16 dwarfs, he gets to see major league pitching now. It should be fun.

 

[bubbabgone]

I accept your admission that you have no answer to what I asked you.

Thanks for fessing up to that.

Don't be so evasive. (although I know why you are)
It's an easy question.
It's one of the 4 topics I listed.
It's on point.
It's a Hillary campaign talking point.
... do you think Trump said he wants to pull out of NATO?

 

[Hatuey]

With Trump now 6-12 points below Hillary on the average national poll... the slow march towards blaming the media for what is the most unqualified GOP candidate ever begins... more at 6.

 

[Fiddytree]

Exposing Donald Trump for being the most unqualified major party candidate in the history of this republic (among being one of the most divisive) is not the media eschewing its duty. If the media were to, on the other hand, define deviancy down, then that would be dereliction.

 

[Fiddytree]

Most sane people knew the media coverage of Donald Trump wasn't objective from the start, way back in June 2015. It was clear what was going on. The media, about 80-90% liberal owned and operated, loved the distraction that buried Hillary Clinton's troubles. They pumped Trump up endlessly with free, puff piece interviews and appearances and marveled in the Trump "phenomenon", even though they created it. It was masterful. I saw the reverse here in Canada where the media created the phenomenon of Justin Trudeau, an empty bag of hair and selfies, and turned him into the winning candidate.

The modern media is incredibly corrupt and manipulative and the average viewer should always be aware of their underlying goals. Trump was the media's only hope of getting Hillary Clinton elected in November. Only a fool doesn't know that and only a media pimp would write an article feigning amazement that the media has now changed their focus leading into the election.

The media played a part, but the most honest truth is that the conservative masses themselves brought us to this point.

Conservatives had 17 candidates, almost all having some form of Governmental experience, most having more experience than Obama when he was running. Then one by one, conservatives actually believed the nonsense that anyone would be better than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. One by one, the greatest field in a generation narrowed between freshmen Senators (replicating the bare minimum experience of the Obama administration so repeatedly belittled by conservatives only 6 years ago) and charlatans with no experience, with barely a coherent understanding of policy at all.

Then, when all was said and done, the least qualified, most divisive candidate won.

It was conservatives that deliberately chose to be stupid and profane; largely because they themselves are stupid and profane.

 

[cpwill]

The media played a part, but the most honest truth is that the conservative masses themselves brought us to this point.

The Media turned the primary into a referendum of "Do you like things the way they are, or do you like Trump".

Then, when all was said and done, the least qualified, most divisive candidate won.

It was conservatives that deliberately chose to be stupid and profane; largely because they themselves are stupid and profane.

No. Trump's core supporters (the ones we are most likely to run into here) tend to be, however, the majority of his voters are low-information (see first point).

 

[Hatuey]

View attachment 67203349The Media turned the primary into a referendum of "Do you like things the way they are, or do you like Trump".

Trump turned the GOP primary into such a referendum by painting every single one of his competitors as part of 'the establishment'. The GOP followed along because that's what they'd been preaching since the Tea Party.

 

[CanadaJohn]

The media played a part, but the most honest truth is that the conservative masses themselves brought us to this point.

Conservatives had 17 candidates, almost all having some form of Governmental experience, most having more experience than Obama when he was running. Then one by one, conservatives actually believed the nonsense that anyone would be better than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. One by one, the greatest field in a generation narrowed between freshmen Senators (replicating the bare minimum experience of the Obama administration so repeatedly belittled by conservatives only 6 years ago) and charlatans with no experience, with barely a coherent understanding of policy at all.

Then, when all was said and done, the least qualified, most divisive candidate won.

It was conservatives that deliberately chose to be stupid and profane; largely because they themselves are stupid and profane.

Sorry Fiddy, I'm not buying it. The media. in all its forms, has enormous influence today and the grossly exaggerated, free, favourable media that one and only one candidate received in the coverage of the Republican nomination process was unprecedented, in my view. Even the debates were presented and graded based on Trump - all questions had a Trump influence - all scoring after the fact was based on Trump and others' performance vis-à-vis Trump. It is/was, frankly, not much different from the coverage Barack Obama received in 2007/08.

I consider you smart enough not to be duped. I don't believe that you don't see that the Trump road to the Republican nomination was totally, unabashedly, orchestrated by the media.

Finally, I'd simply say that it isn't nor wasn't "conservatives" who brought Trump the nomination. In fact, it is "conservatives" who are appalled that Trump is the nominee of the only party they can call home and it is/was "conservatives" who did their utmost to try to stop Trump from being the Republican nominee. That is simply factual.

 

[clownboy]

Finally, I'd simply say that it isn't nor wasn't "conservatives" who brought Trump the nomination. In fact, it is "conservatives" who are appalled that Trump is the nominee of the only party they can call home and it is/was "conservatives" who did their utmost to try to stop Trump from being the Republican nominee. That is simply factual.

Incorrect. It is the power broker conservatives and those that support them. The people of the party, who are conservative, voted for Trump in record number. I know you don't like that, but it's not your call to make.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Incorrect. It is the power broker conservatives and those that support them. The people of the party, who are conservative, voted for Trump in record number. I know you don't like that, but it's not your call to make.

No true conservative would ever cast their vote for a liberal Democrat like Donald Trump. You may not like it, but if you think Donald Trump is a conservative or espouses, let alone holds, conservative principles and values, then you were duped by Trump and the media.

 

[cpwill]

Incorrect. It is the power broker conservatives and those that support them. The people of the party, who are conservative, voted for Trump in record number. I know you don't like that, but it's not your call to make.

....no.

1. Trump actually swept with the liberal/moderates. Which makes sense, as he himself is a big-government liberal.
2. Trump also got a smaller percentage of the primary vote than previous winners
3. High primary turnout (which drove the raw number you are trying to reference) was both for and against Trump, and also reflective of the fact that it was a highly contested primary. Beyond that, it means nothing.


Conservatives were the ones who stood against Trump in the Primary, and who make up the #NeverTrump movement now.

 

[clownboy]

No true conservative would ever cast their vote for a liberal Democrat like Donald Trump. You may not like it, but if you think Donald Trump is a conservative or espouses, let alone holds, conservative principles and values, then you were duped by Trump and the media.

Yeah, yeah, the no true Roman argument. It's false now and has been for centuries.

 

[clownboy]

....no.

1. Trump actually swept with the liberal/moderates. Which makes sense, as he himself is a big-government liberal.
2. Trump also got a smaller percentage of the primary vote than previous winners
3. High primary turnout (which drove the raw number you are trying to reference) was both for and against Trump, and also reflective of the fact that it was a highly contested primary. Beyond that, it means nothing.


Conservatives were the ones who stood against Trump in the Primary, and who make up the #NeverTrump movement now.

1) yeah, I know that's your argument, has been since the beginning of the primaries. Just another thing you've been shown to be wrong about.

2) Trump also had a historic number of other candidates running and for longer than ever in a republican primary.

3) Actually it means he's the candidate, and that's not nothing, though I'm sure you'd like it to be so - we all hate being so wrong, you're no different in that.

And no, it's some conservatives clinging to their vision of who the candidate should be. Most are precisely the ones I detailed - the power brokers and the ones who bend knee to them.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Yeah, yeah, the no true Roman argument. It's false now and has been for centuries.

Well, we'll just have to disagree. Unfortunately, or actually fortunately, we'll never truly know since Donald Trump will not win the Presidency this time around so we'll never see how he would govern. Those "conservatives" you claim gave Trump the nomination have accomplished the almost impossible - they have secured the election of a new Democrat administration after 8 years of a Democrat in the White House and that's something that hasn't been accomplished in almost a century.

 

[cpwill]

1) yeah, I know that's your argument, has been since the beginning of the primaries. Just another thing you've been shown to be wrong about.

Actually I showed that on multiple occasions. Trump did better with moderate/liberals. He was also helped by Democrat crossovers, who are now laughing all the way to a Hillary white house.

2) Trump also had a historic number of other candidates running and for longer than ever in a republican primary.

Yup. Lots of people wanted several someones else, allowing Trump to win with minorities

And no, it's some conservatives clinging to their vision of who the candidate should be. Most are precisely the ones I detailed - the power brokers and the ones who bend knee to them.

:lamo name all these power brokers who are #NeverTrump.


You know, unlike those non-Establishment outsiders, McConnell, Boehner, and Gingrich. Definitely not Establishment, those guys... [emoji38]


Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk