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

[FieldTheorist]

Robert Scheer: The Media Have ?Dropped Any Pretense of Objectivity? in Covering Donald Trump - Truthdig
The Media Have ‘Dropped Any Pretense of Objectivity’ in Covering Donald Trump


“The mainstream media, led by The New York Times, have dropped any pretense of objectivity in covering the Donald Trump phenomena. The man is constantly depicted as nothing but pure evil in thought and deed, while the considerable ethical complications of his leading Democratic opponent are rationalized—when they are not simply ignored.

But demonization is a poor substitute for reporting, and what is lost is that Trump’s extraordinary success in sweeping aside the entire Republican establishment is a consequence, rather than the root cause, of what ails us ………..

One may make the argument that Trump has brought this all upon himself……
But I agree with the lack of objectivity of the MSM and cable channel coverage of Trump……. I understand the MSM looks for or makes up controversy just to sell newspapers or increase their ratings…..
We seem to have lost what I remember as real journalism of the past………
And suggest the loss of real journalism is our fault………For not demanding more rather than accept news reports of Paris Hilton’ latest fling as news making many MSM outlets into imitations of Supermarket tabloids…….

Trump has good/bad qualities and they should be reported impassionedly, accurate and in-depth

Fair is fair and nothing other is acceptable IMHO

Of course. It's the Donald's turn to get *******ed by the institution that he opposed --the powerful and the rich. The fact that Donald is a politically inept imbecile who doesn't understand that using the term "Mexican" pejoratively will get him no where in the general election --well, that doesn't help him. Trump will now face the music, so to speak, regarding the course he decided to take and the enemies that he's made in the primary. His only consolation is so will Hillary. But she's overwhelmingly likely to be the president now, all the same.

 

[imyoda]

Of course. It's the Donald's turn to get *******ed by the institution that he opposed --the powerful and the rich. The fact that Donald is a politically inept imbecile who doesn't understand that using the term "Mexican" pejoratively will get him no where in the general election --well, that doesn't help him. Trump will now face the music, so to speak, regarding the course he decided to take and the enemies that he's made in the primary. His only consolation is so will Hillary. But she's overwhelmingly likely to be the president now, all the same.

Personally I think Trump is a scumbag............I just believe in "fair play" no matter who it may be..........Call me odd.....but that's me.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Personally I think Trump is a scumbag............I just believe in "fair play" no matter who it may be..........Call me odd.....but that's me.

Fair play went out the window they second they started to deal with Sanders. You're a bit late to the game in this regard. At least with Trump you can argue he made a deal with the devil (in terms of free media and air time, to the tune of 2 billion dollars), and how his due has come.

 

[imyoda]

Fair play went out the window they second they started to deal with Sanders. You're a bit late to the game in this regard. At least with Trump you can argue he made a deal with the devil (in terms of free media and air time, to the tune of 2 billion dollars), and how his due has come.

Late to what game?


The game you just made up by changing the subject?

Get real...........

 

[Patrickt]

And yet...

You make good use of this very nonobjective media when creating your anti-Trump hit-threads.

Could it be you are being a wee bit hypocritical?

That's true but "TruthDig" has never presented itself as unbiased. The NYT has. But, around 1946, my grandfather told me what a person had to do to be a citizen. There were a number of points but one was, "You have to read both newspapers every day, Pat. They both lie but if you read both you can sometimes figure out what's really going on." One newspaper was Democrat and the other Republican. Some are more blatantly dishonest than others but they all have their bias.

By and large the media has been handling Trump with kid gloves. They hear his stupid statements and then allow him to lie and weasel his way out of it. They no he won't say, "I was wrong," or "I'm sorry I made a mistake," so they just go on as if nothing had happened.

 

[Mycroft]

That's true but "TruthDig" has never presented itself as unbiased. The NYT has. But, around 1946, my grandfather told me what a person had to do to be a citizen. There were a number of points but one was, "You have to read both newspapers every day, Pat. They both lie but if you read both you can sometimes figure out what's really going on." One newspaper was Democrat and the other Republican. Some are more blatantly dishonest than others but they all have their bias.

By and large the media has been handling Trump with kid gloves. They hear his stupid statements and then allow him to lie and weasel his way out of it. They no he won't say, "I was wrong," or "I'm sorry I made a mistake," so they just go on as if nothing had happened.

Why the hell are you telling me this?

It's got nothing to do with anything I said to imyoda.

Look...if you want to get up on your soapbox and rant at the world, go ahead. But don't act like your rant is in response to something I've said.

 

[Patrickt]

Why the hell are you telling me this?

It's got nothing to do with anything I said to imyoda.

Look...if you want to get up on your soapbox and rant at the world, go ahead. But don't act like your rant is in response to something I've said.

I apologize. But I am glad you got a chance to rant and whine.

 

[Peter King]

Robert Scheer: The Media Have ?Dropped Any Pretense of Objectivity? in Covering Donald Trump - Truthdig
The Media Have ‘Dropped Any Pretense of Objectivity’ in Covering Donald Trump


“The mainstream media, led by The New York Times, have dropped any pretense of objectivity in covering the Donald Trump phenomena. The man is constantly depicted as nothing but pure evil in thought and deed, while the considerable ethical complications of his leading Democratic opponent are rationalized—when they are not simply ignored.

But demonization is a poor substitute for reporting, and what is lost is that Trump’s extraordinary success in sweeping aside the entire Republican establishment is a consequence, rather than the root cause, of what ails us ………..

One may make the argument that Trump has brought this all upon himself……
But I agree with the lack of objectivity of the MSM and cable channel coverage of Trump……. I understand the MSM looks for or makes up controversy just to sell newspapers or increase their ratings…..
We seem to have lost what I remember as real journalism of the past………
And suggest the loss of real journalism is our fault………For not demanding more rather than accept news reports of Paris Hilton’ latest fling as news making many MSM outlets into imitations of Supermarket tabloids…….

Trump has good/bad qualities and they should be reported impassionedly, accurate and in-depth

Fair is fair and nothing other is acceptable IMHO

But should MSM remain silent when they have to report on someone like Donald Trump when he proclaims boldfaced lies?

There are few politicians who have been given such a free ride like Trump has been given on MSM television stations. People have been *****footing around the blustering Trump and hardly ever did they do their journalistic duty to at times as real and critical questions of Donald Trump.

If someone tells boatloads of lies, should newspapers remain silent or report honestly and accurately what a candidate has said and exposed the untrue nature of those comments. You claim it is demonizing, I claim it is exposing the lies of Donald Trump.

Because other media have been doing their best at demonizing Hillary and Obama at every single moment of the day/week/month/year/tenure as president/senator/secretary of state. That is how a very divided country and a divided media deals with things.

And what has been lost is the fair portrayal of the comments/claims of Donald Trump on most TV stations. They have been playing lip service to him and his "phenomenon" instead of doing what they should be doing, acting like journalists. And sadly people attack news sources who actually do their journalistic duties towards the Trump phenomenon and that are critically looking at what Trump wants and says.

All news sources have a political slant, and there is no duty of every MSM to be totally fair to both candidates if one candidate stands for everything you disagree with. That is why there are loads of media sources so that people can build up their own views of a candidate and not be spoon fed nothing but softball news stories but cutting edge journalistic substantial stories that people can use to make up their own mind about a candidate.

Donald Trump is so far out there with his comments and claims/lies/racist comments that it is logical that most of what you call MSM disagrees with those views and reports on them.

 

[imyoda]

But should MSM remain silent when they have to report on someone like Donald Trump when he proclaims boldfaced lies?

There are few politicians who have been given such a free ride like Trump has been given on MSM television stations. People have been *****footing around the blustering Trump and hardly ever did they do their journalistic duty to at times as real and critical questions of Donald Trump.

If someone tells boatloads of lies, should newspapers remain silent or report honestly and accurately what a candidate has said and exposed the untrue nature of those comments. You claim it is demonizing, I claim it is exposing the lies of Donald Trump.



Because other media have been doing their best at demonizing Hillary and Obama at every single moment of the day/week/month/year/tenure as president/senator/secretary of state. That is how a very divided country and a divided media deals with things.

And what has been lost is the fair portrayal of the comments/claims of Donald Trump on most TV stations. They have been playing lip service to him and his "phenomenon" instead of doing what they should be doing, acting like journalists. And sadly people attack news sources who actually do their journalistic duties towards the Trump phenomenon and that are critically looking at what Trump wants and says.

All news sources have a political slant, and there is no duty of every MSM to be totally fair to both candidates if one candidate stands for everything you disagree with. That is why there are loads of media sources so that people can build up their own views of a candidate and not be spoon fed nothing but softball news stories but cutting edge journalistic substantial stories that people can use to make up their own mind about a candidate.

Donald Trump is so far out there with his comments and claims/lies/racist comments that it is logical that most of what you call MSM disagrees with those views and reports on them.

In all fairness the media went a tad over the top........and they could have reported the news like they should report it............and not reporting it like a tabloid.......IMHO

Good and thoughtful post....... Thanks for your sharing

 

[Peter King]

In all fairness the media went a tad over the top........and they could have reported the news like they should report it............and not reporting it like a tabloid.......IMHO

Good and thoughtful post....... Thanks for your sharing

The problem is that when someone runs a opportunistic and populist campaign with few facts, fewer policies, loads of untruths, enormous amounts of insults, boatloads of accusations and a good deal of conspiracy theories, like The Donald is doing, than the MSM does not have the chance to talk about his policies. And when he attacks Clinton on her ancient history, as do the not MSM, it is logical that Trump's past comes into the frame. And again, with no policy to speak off (to report on) and a person that is in the new just about every minute of every day, you run the risk of talking about his personality a lot. Especially if that personality seem to clash with what most people think a president needs to be.

 

[imyoda]

The problem is that when someone runs a opportunistic and populist campaign with few facts, fewer policies, loads of untruths, enormous amounts of insults, boatloads of accusations and a good deal of conspiracy theories, like The Donald is doing, than the MSM does not have the chance to talk about his policies. And when he attacks Clinton on her ancient history, as do the not MSM, it is logical that Trump's past comes into the frame. And again, with no policy to speak off (to report on) and a person that is in the new just about every minute of every day, you run the risk of talking about his personality a lot. Especially if that personality seem to clash with what most people think a president needs to be.

I do not disagree ......

I think the MSM went a tad over the top.............I call that not fair...........and will say so no matter who it might be

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

of course, the bloated and corrupt establishment is rightly terrified of Trump. Buckle up.

TRUMP 2016
YES. WE. CAN.

 

[AFM]

We in Australia are having our federal election this weekend and we have only two scumbags to vote for, but you in America have an outsider a chance for change, a chance to blow one inept political party apart, and defeat the other which has been in power for the last eight years.
Before you vote just think, really just how much damage can Trump do in four years compared to how stuffed your country is now, and if Hillary gets in you will have another four years of Obama policies which haven't been that great. Just look at Britain they have voted to get our of the EU, and unchaining themselves from all the rules and regulations that have stopped them over the last forty years, you now have this chance with Trump, I wonder if you will take it?

 

[Fiddytree]

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.

You know, what I find fascinating is that conservatives, have by and large, proclaimed themselves to have noticed the dirty secret about the media and its manipulations, yet a number of them are falling over themselves trying to explain how conservatives do not have primary responsibility for what has happened, because the media duped them. Somewhere down the line, we have to accept that voters chose where this was headed and a plurality victory nevertheless indicts the conservative movement. For not only had voters decided to bend to Trump (sometimes enthusiastically), but so had the conservative institution. Blaming that on the media wrongly absolves the conservative voter for what he has unleashed.

Given that conservatives "aren't duped" by the media like the sheep liberals, it would stand to reason that the rank and file Republican would see through this media ploy regarding Trump and would have voted accordingly. But the logical conclusion from that conspiracy would be that they haven't "seen through" what the media has done. If the conspiracy is true, at best the conservative was less astute about the goings on of the media (despite having large swaths of the movement strictly dedicated to exposing the media's liberally duplicitous ways) and fell into the trap. This would stand counter to what the populist conservatives have been telling us for decades. If there was a media conspiracy afoot, conservatives were supposed to be wising up to this. If I gave this much credence, I could only conclude that for all of the money, for all of the talk about knowing what goes on in the media, conservatives really just are that stupid.

But I find that to be too kind to conservatives. It frees them of responsibility for the goings ons of their own party. We have known for quite some time that the Tea Party was this nebulous movement, where a large chunk of its sympathizers and abstract "members" (because there was rarely anything so coherent as a membership list), viewed the welfare state as something that white, working class and middle class voters of other certain criteria deserve, whereas other demographics are undeserving. Trump played right into that policy orientation. Trump also played right into the populist tradition of the Goldwater-Reagan movement, which stressed how the elites were bad and the average citizen was morally--if not managerially--superior. Trump was monetarily an elite, but due to being outside commentator of politics and holding a crass linguistic style that purposefully tried to lure the demographic majoritied non-elites antagonistic toward the changing winds, he became that mantle conservative populism. The Tea Party movement ate that stuff up all the the time, so Trump played hard into that. It has not been an easy transition, by any means, but it's not an alien transition either.

But go on and blame the media for this. With the media conspiracy, without the media conspiracy, it still indicates that conservatives are acting on their stupidity. As much as I have my on and off relationship with William Kristol, he had nevertheless understood some years ago that, "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." Liberals had could not have voted for Donald Trump in sufficient numbers to achieve the outcome, voters in the Republican Party had to be the primary actors. If there is any one entity to blame, it is the Republican voter.

 

[Born Free]

Robert Scheer: The Media Have ?Dropped Any Pretense of Objectivity? in Covering Donald Trump - Truthdig
The Media Have ‘Dropped Any Pretense of Objectivity’ in Covering Donald Trump


“The mainstream media, led by The New York Times, have dropped any pretense of objectivity in covering the Donald Trump phenomena. The man is constantly depicted as nothing but pure evil in thought and deed, while the considerable ethical complications of his leading Democratic opponent are rationalized—when they are not simply ignored.

But demonization is a poor substitute for reporting, and what is lost is that Trump’s extraordinary success in sweeping aside the entire Republican establishment is a consequence, rather than the root cause, of what ails us ………..

One may make the argument that Trump has brought this all upon himself……
But I agree with the lack of objectivity of the MSM and cable channel coverage of Trump……. I understand the MSM looks for or makes up controversy just to sell newspapers or increase their ratings…..
We seem to have lost what I remember as real journalism of the past………
And suggest the loss of real journalism is our fault………For not demanding more rather than accept news reports of Paris Hilton’ latest fling as news making many MSM outlets into imitations of Supermarket tabloids…….

Trump has good/bad qualities and they should be reported impassionedly, accurate and in-depth

Fair is fair and nothing other is acceptable IMHO

The NYT is nothing but a far left liberal tabloid.

 

[CanadaJohn]

You know, what I find fascinating is that .........

I don't disagree with a lot of what you've posted and I don't believe you'll find that I ever claimed that all conservatives or even a majority of conservatives are intelligent enough not to be duped. That doesn't limit nor dismiss the obvious influence that the media has had in the choice for Republican nominee this time around. It is unquestionable, in my view, that the vast majority of the media want Hillary Clinton to be President and that the media early on saw Jeb Bush as a direct threat to Hillary Clinton's rise to the Presidency. The moment that Donald Trump entered the race, the media pimped for Trump as a candidate that Clinton could easily beat and they pumped up the negative story line about Bush and his campaign.

If you don't think the media and their programming and advertising can influence how the viewing audience accepts or rejects a product, and make no mistake that a political candidate is a product today, then you must believe that the $200 billion annually spent in the US is wasted dollars. The opposite is also true in that the total blackout of any reference to Gary Johnson or Jill Stein is of influence in their overall rankings in the polling. I'd wager that if either Johnson or Stein were given the wall to wall coverage that Trump was given - endless coverage of rallies as well as weekly if not daily one on one interviews - they'd both be significant players in this year's election. As it is, together, with no coverage, they are drawing in between 15% and 20% of polling numbers.

 

[imyoda]

The NYT is nothing but a far left liberal tabloid.

How do you know? Some one told you so!

And since I believe you have never read the NYT.......or have read it enough to form a defendable argument it is so.........

All we have here is a rumor masquerading as a well considered opinion

 

[Fiddytree]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you've posted and I don't believe you'll find that I ever claimed that all conservatives or even a majority of conservatives are intelligent enough not to be duped. That doesn't limit nor dismiss the obvious influence that the media has had in the choice for Republican nominee this time around. It is unquestionable, in my view, that the vast majority of the media want Hillary Clinton to be President and that the media early on saw Jeb Bush as a direct threat to Hillary Clinton's rise to the Presidency. The moment that Donald Trump entered the race, the media pimped for Trump as a candidate that Clinton could easily beat and they pumped up the negative story line about Bush and his campaign.

If you don't think the media and their programming and advertising can influence how the viewing audience accepts or rejects a product, and make no mistake that a political candidate is a product today, then you must believe that the $200 billion annually spent in the US is wasted dollars. The opposite is also true in that the total blackout of any reference to Gary Johnson or Jill Stein is of influence in their overall rankings in the polling. I'd wager that if either Johnson or Stein were given the wall to wall coverage that Trump was given - endless coverage of rallies as well as weekly if not daily one on one interviews - they'd both be significant players in this year's election. As it is, together, with no coverage, they are drawing in between 15% and 20% of polling numbers.

The media obviously played a significant role in Trump's rise and being able to withstand not having much infrastructure.

I griped many times about that. Despite that, however, Trump picked the perfect moment to run. The Republican Party had been running on crass, intentionally-anti-intellectual populism for years and it just needed a perfect spokesman for it. They built the masses up for this nonsense and they had several decent options to run with various degrees of it (Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Cruz). The Republican Party and the conservative movement created this monster and now they must be held to account.

 

[CanadaJohn]

The media obviously played a significant role in Trump's rise and being able to withstand not having much infrastructure.

I griped many times about that. Despite that, however, Trump picked the perfect moment to run. The Republican Party had been running on crass, intentionally-anti-intellectual populism for years and it just needed a perfect spokesman for it. They built the masses up for this nonsense and they had several decent options to run with various degrees of it (Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Cruz). The Republican Party and the conservative movement created this monster and now they must be held to account.

I disagree, however nothing is gained by belabouring the point. You feel that the Republican Party invited the Tea Party and the Trumpettes - I'd argue the Tea Party and the Trumpettes coopted the Republican Party, lacking another avenue to power. To the extent that the Republican Party is to blame, it is based solely on their "big tent" approach to party affiliation.

I would hope the Republican Party, if it can rein in its State level associations, would ensure that in coming elections only registered Republicans, who have been registered for a period of time, may vote in its primaries to avoid such mischief making in the future. Better to be a smaller party with a clear message than a larger one with no clear message at all.

 

[Mycroft]

I disagree, however nothing is gained by belabouring the point. You feel that the Republican Party invited the Tea Party and the Trumpettes - I'd argue the Tea Party and the Trumpettes coopted the Republican Party, lacking another avenue to power. To the extent that the Republican Party is to blame, it is based solely on their "big tent" approach to party affiliation.

I would hope the Republican Party, if it can rein in its State level associations, would ensure that in coming elections only registered Republicans, who have been registered for a period of time, may vote in its primaries to avoid such mischief making in the future. Better to be a smaller party with a clear message than a larger one with no clear message at all.

The TEA Party was nothing more than the first attempt by those who disliked what the GOP Elites were doing...their attempt to change the way the GOP was working. They were shoved off into the corner by the GOP, they were ridiculed by the left and the media and they found that they didn't have enough support or power to buck their own Party Elites and the Democrats at the same time.

Trump is the second attempt by those who dislike what the GOP Elites are doing to change things. But this time, they have actually succeeded in one respect by preventing the GOP Elite's chosen nominee from becoming the Party candidate. If Trump ends up as President, I predict we'll see a resurgence of the TEA Party...with them supporting Trump and Trump supporting them...to the further detriment to the GOP Elite and the Democrats.

So, I agree that the TEA Party and the Trump phenomenon are the fault of the Republican Party, but not because of their approach to party affiliation. Rather because of the disregard the GOP Elites have shown to the Party rank and file.

 

[Mycroft]

We in Australia are having our federal election this weekend and we have only two scumbags to vote for, but you in America have an outsider a chance for change, a chance to blow one inept political party apart, and defeat the other which has been in power for the last eight years.
Before you vote just think, really just how much damage can Trump do in four years compared to how stuffed your country is now, and if Hillary gets in you will have another four years of Obama policies which haven't been that great. Just look at Britain they have voted to get our of the EU, and unchaining themselves from all the rules and regulations that have stopped them over the last forty years, you now have this chance with Trump, I wonder if you will take it?

Right now, it's about 50-50.

 

[DA60]

Objectively and the media?

:lamo

Anyone that takes the mass media seriously has no idea about the world around them, IMO.

I NEVER get my news from one source. And I always assume if the source is an American, major media source that they are either lying or stupid or both.

IMO, America's major media sources are HORRIFIC at news reporting. If they are not clueless then they are staggeringly biased.

Thank goodness for the Internet.