Question on the media
Moderator: Global Moderator
Question on the media
Wondering everyone’s opinion on this. I think conservatives have always argued that the media has a liberal bias. But for the most part the media tried to appear neutral. This seems to have changed dramatically with Trump. When I open my computer each day no matter what newsfeed appears (MSN or Bing) almost every news story is anti-Trump. Late night talk shows have spent every min of the last 4 years insulting the President. I mean Samantha Bee called his daughter a “feckless c*nt” on national tv and the outrage was pretty tame. The gloves came off when Trump took office.
Is this only a Trump thing or do you think this is a permanent sea change? Let’s say in 4 years the Republicans nominate some generic politician...say a Mitt Romney type. Does the media go back to appearing unbiased and show that person some respect or is the toilet swirly treatment of any Republican going to be forever now?
Is this only a Trump thing or do you think this is a permanent sea change? Let’s say in 4 years the Republicans nominate some generic politician...say a Mitt Romney type. Does the media go back to appearing unbiased and show that person some respect or is the toilet swirly treatment of any Republican going to be forever now?
- Cortopassi
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3338
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
- Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html
Re: Question on the media
My opinion is it's a tit for tat. He calls most media fake news and they do not appreciate that and hit back.
I do think it's obvious by now that he was not cut out for for being president. Yeah, go ahead and flame me.
What I mean specifically, is he could be/has been a perfectly fine CEO of his OWN company. Where when somebody doesn't agree with him, they can be removed at his will.
The government aspect and having an opposing side that he couldn't just fire I think is/was an eye opener for him.
The Art of the Deal was one of his books, right? Did not nicely translate into compromise in government type negotiations. So he gets mad, calls people names, and ends up making enemies of a lot of people, including most media.
If it was a Mitt Romney, I do not believe it would be the same.
And if it is Biden, you know damn well Rush, Fox News, etc will all bust his balls just as hard.
I do think it's obvious by now that he was not cut out for for being president. Yeah, go ahead and flame me.
What I mean specifically, is he could be/has been a perfectly fine CEO of his OWN company. Where when somebody doesn't agree with him, they can be removed at his will.
The government aspect and having an opposing side that he couldn't just fire I think is/was an eye opener for him.
The Art of the Deal was one of his books, right? Did not nicely translate into compromise in government type negotiations. So he gets mad, calls people names, and ends up making enemies of a lot of people, including most media.
If it was a Mitt Romney, I do not believe it would be the same.
And if it is Biden, you know damn well Rush, Fox News, etc will all bust his balls just as hard.
Re: Question on the media
All Republicans in my lifetime have gotten the "toilet swirly treatment". I was too young to remember much of what they said about Eisenhower but this was definitely true of Nixon and Reagan, not quite so much the two Bushes. If Reagan were elected president today I'm sure things would be pretty much the same as with Trump. The level of nastiness does seem to be much greater today, along with the sheer quantity of voices spewing it on a non-stop basis, but that just seems to be a sign of the times.
I can only speak for myself and not the conservative media but when a Dem is president I usually find myself disagreeing strongly with much of what they do and say but I feel no compulsion to denigrate their character. I actually voted for Carter the first time he ran and thought he was a good person. Didn't vote for Obama but thought pretty much the same of him. LBJ - well, I don't hold him in such high regard nowadays. Bill Clinton? I'd have a hard time describing him as a good person either but I think that's an entirely reasonable conclusion.
I can only speak for myself and not the conservative media but when a Dem is president I usually find myself disagreeing strongly with much of what they do and say but I feel no compulsion to denigrate their character. I actually voted for Carter the first time he ran and thought he was a good person. Didn't vote for Obama but thought pretty much the same of him. LBJ - well, I don't hold him in such high regard nowadays. Bill Clinton? I'd have a hard time describing him as a good person either but I think that's an entirely reasonable conclusion.
Re: Question on the media
I've been carrying around a healthy disrespect for the media for many years, and it's definitely gotten worse over time. I've noticed a few stages in the deterioration.
First, they started being very selective in what they chose to report, in order to create a narrative without being openly partisan or biased. Being impartial, or at least appearing to be that, was considered to be the linchpin of journalism ethics and professionalism. I don't know when I first realized this was happening, but I think I started waking up to it in the early 1990s.
Sometime during the late Clinton/early Bush years (late 1990s, around 2000) true investigative reporting disappeared. Instead, you saw replicated sound bites that were (sometimes hilariously) exactly the same across different news outlets, and parroted press releases. The principle of that all facts/stories should be verified by more than one source clearly stopped happening around this time.
What we have now is that all the precepts of professionalism and the impartiality mandate have gone entirely out the window. Newspapers might as well be blogs, where the writers freely tell you what they think, and there is no code of ethics. I wonder if news outlets realize that by positioning themselves as blog-equivalents, they've effectively opened up the field of journalism to anyone with a WordPress account.
I think Trump's "fake-news" moniker is simply a recognition of something that happened long before he came on the scene. He is the first public figure to stop pretending that journalism still exists as a profession. Obviously journalists don't like being told this, so they are hitting back. It's like a playground fight between them now.
First, they started being very selective in what they chose to report, in order to create a narrative without being openly partisan or biased. Being impartial, or at least appearing to be that, was considered to be the linchpin of journalism ethics and professionalism. I don't know when I first realized this was happening, but I think I started waking up to it in the early 1990s.
Sometime during the late Clinton/early Bush years (late 1990s, around 2000) true investigative reporting disappeared. Instead, you saw replicated sound bites that were (sometimes hilariously) exactly the same across different news outlets, and parroted press releases. The principle of that all facts/stories should be verified by more than one source clearly stopped happening around this time.
What we have now is that all the precepts of professionalism and the impartiality mandate have gone entirely out the window. Newspapers might as well be blogs, where the writers freely tell you what they think, and there is no code of ethics. I wonder if news outlets realize that by positioning themselves as blog-equivalents, they've effectively opened up the field of journalism to anyone with a WordPress account.
I think Trump's "fake-news" moniker is simply a recognition of something that happened long before he came on the scene. He is the first public figure to stop pretending that journalism still exists as a profession. Obviously journalists don't like being told this, so they are hitting back. It's like a playground fight between them now.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am
Re: Question on the media
I think it’s more than the usual tit-for-tat and Trump not being cut out for the job. He may or may not be right for it, but the political establishment and the media are actively trying to subvert him and his administration. That takes things to a level we haven’t seen before.
Re: Question on the media
I was very young when Nixon was impeached, but now I wonder how much of his impeachment was due to him doing something that much worse than other presidents have done, and how much was the liberal media deciding to bring him down?
I haven't read much about Watergate frankly, but what little I have read makes me think that it wasn't that big of a deal relative to things that other presidents have done and gotten away with. Am I correct or not?
On the subject of Trump, I think the media see him as outside the political establishment because he is not a lifelong politician. If a lifelong Republican gets elected, it's no big deal, because Republicans are hardly different from Democrats at this point. With Trump, they don't know what to expect, so they are trying to bring him down. And he fights back unlike most of their subjects, so that just makes them try harder.
I haven't read much about Watergate frankly, but what little I have read makes me think that it wasn't that big of a deal relative to things that other presidents have done and gotten away with. Am I correct or not?
On the subject of Trump, I think the media see him as outside the political establishment because he is not a lifelong politician. If a lifelong Republican gets elected, it's no big deal, because Republicans are hardly different from Democrats at this point. With Trump, they don't know what to expect, so they are trying to bring him down. And he fights back unlike most of their subjects, so that just makes them try harder.
Re: Question on the media
Nixon wasn't impeached - he resigned before that happened after being advised by Republicans in congress that they would not support him.stuper1 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 3:44 pm I was very young when Nixon was impeached, but now I wonder how much of his impeachment was due to him doing something that much worse than other presidents have done, and how much was the liberal media deciding to bring him down?
I haven't read much about Watergate frankly, but what little I have read makes me think that it wasn't that big of a deal relative to things that other presidents have done and gotten away with. Am I correct or not?
On the subject of Trump, I think the media see him as outside the political establishment because he is not a lifelong politician. If a lifelong Republican gets elected, it's no big deal, because Republicans are hardly different from Democrats at this point. With Trump, they don't know what to expect, so they are trying to bring him down. And he fights back unlike most of their subjects, so that just makes them try harder.
I agree that others have almost surely done much worse than Watergate and got away with it. From what I've been hearing about the Russia Hoax, Obama may well be one of them but he will obviously get a pass in the history books for two reasons. You can guess them both, I'm sure.
- vnatale
- Executive Member
- Posts: 9481
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
- Contact:
Re: Question on the media
I lived through all of Watergate and read many books on it.stuper1 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 3:44 pm I was very young when Nixon was impeached, but now I wonder how much of his impeachment was due to him doing something that much worse than other presidents have done, and how much was the liberal media deciding to bring him down?
I haven't read much about Watergate frankly, but what little I have read makes me think that it wasn't that big of a deal relative to things that other presidents have done and gotten away with. Am I correct or not?
On the subject of Trump, I think the media see him as outside the political establishment because he is not a lifelong politician. If a lifelong Republican gets elected, it's no big deal, because Republicans are hardly different from Democrats at this point. With Trump, they don't know what to expect, so they are trying to bring him down. And he fights back unlike most of their subjects, so that just makes them try harder.
It was not the media that forced his resignation. It was when the Republicans turned on him that he say no way out but to resign. That was the turning point.
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Re: Question on the media
Right, but did the Republicans turn on him because they knew the liberal media had it in for him and wouldn't let Watergate go. Whereas, the media gave a pass to previous presidents that did things just as bad but weren't so conservative?
- vnatale
- Executive Member
- Posts: 9481
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
- Contact:
Re: Question on the media
The Republicans turned on him once they realized there was sufficient evidence that he should no longer be president. The media was much different back then. No internet. No cable. No radio talk shows. Just the three TV networks of NBC, ABC, CBS.
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Re: Question on the media
My point is that if the media wanted to they probably could have found stuff done by say Johnson that was just as bad or worse as what Nixon did, such as using the FBI to spy on political opponents, etc. The media didn't want to do that, because Johnson was much more to their taste than Nixon. I'm sure there are many other instances of such things happening during our country's history. I highly doubt that Nixon's sins are the most egregious, but he was the only one who had to resign because the media turned against him.
- vnatale
- Executive Member
- Posts: 9481
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
- Contact:
Re: Question on the media
Are aware that the media and the public were behind Johnson's winter 1968 announcement that he'd not be seeking re-election?stuper1 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:21 pm My point is that if the media wanted to they probably could have found stuff done by say Johnson that was just as bad or worse as what Nixon did, such as using the FBI to spy on political opponents, etc. The media didn't want to do that, because Johnson was much more to their taste than Nixon. I'm sure there are many other instances of such things happening during our country's history. I highly doubt that Nixon's sins are the most egregious, but he was the only one who had to resign because the media turned against him.
And, did the media turn their heads aside when it came to Bill Clinton and Monica? I assume you might be old enough to remember that the media gave it their full 100% attention.
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Re: Question on the media
I was alive in 1968 but just barely. I wasn't talking about deciding on re-election but rather about impeachable offenses.
Yes, you're right about the media giving Frisky Bill 100% attention. They always like a salacious story because it gets lots of eyeballs. I don't think it influenced who they recommended voting for though.
Yes, you're right about the media giving Frisky Bill 100% attention. They always like a salacious story because it gets lots of eyeballs. I don't think it influenced who they recommended voting for though.
- vnatale
- Executive Member
- Posts: 9481
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
- Contact:
Re: Question on the media
It was Newsweek that broke the Monica story. At the time no one had any idea how it would affect his presidency. I think it'd be fair to say that no one thought it would help it.stuper1 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:30 pm I was alive in 1968 but just barely. I wasn't talking about deciding on re-election but rather about impeachable offenses.
Yes, you're right about the media giving Frisky Bill 100% attention. They always like a salacious story because it gets lots of eyeballs. I don't think it influenced who they recommended voting for though.
And, the 1968 example was one in showing that the media back then were no friends of Johnson.
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
- vnatale
- Executive Member
- Posts: 9481
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
- Contact:
Re: Question on the media
Yes. Your edit is correct.
I happened to be on Drudge when he posted that. And, I'm fairly certain it was Michael Isykoff (not correct spelling!).
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Re: Question on the media
Ahhhh I remember the Lewinsky days. I was like 10 years old when that story broke. The result of that story was that I had learned some new vocabulary. That was an awkward conversation with my parents.
MicroMasters
Ruby on Rails rules all
www.allterraininvesting.com
Ruby on Rails rules all
www.allterraininvesting.com
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Question on the media
He may not have been cut out to be President, but he is precisely the person we need as President in these times.Cortopassi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:37 am My opinion is it's a tit for tat. He calls most media fake news and they do not appreciate that and hit back.
I do think it's obvious by now that he was not cut out for for being president. Yeah, go ahead and flame me.
What I mean specifically, is he could be/has been a perfectly fine CEO of his OWN company. Where when somebody doesn't agree with him, they can be removed at his will.
The government aspect and having an opposing side that he couldn't just fire I think is/was an eye opener for him.
The Art of the Deal was one of his books, right? Did not nicely translate into compromise in government type negotiations. So he gets mad, calls people names, and ends up making enemies of a lot of people, including most media.
If it was a Mitt Romney, I do not believe it would be the same.
And if it is Biden, you know damn well Rush, Fox News, etc will all bust his balls just as hard.
If Hillary had won, the country would already be unrecognizable.
We need him a lot more than he needs us; his life was fine before becoming President. Isn't it odd that he was never accused of all the horrible sins (racism, sexism, etc.) in his 40 years of fame before he was elected?
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Question on the media
Yep.stuper1 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:21 pm My point is that if the media wanted to they probably could have found stuff done by say Johnson that was just as bad or worse as what Nixon did, such as using the FBI to spy on political opponents, etc. The media didn't want to do that, because Johnson was much more to their taste than Nixon. I'm sure there are many other instances of such things happening during our country's history. I highly doubt that Nixon's sins are the most egregious, but he was the only one who had to resign because the media turned against him.
- vnatale
- Executive Member
- Posts: 9481
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
- Contact:
Re: Question on the media
There was this well known allegation:Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:30 pmHe may not have been cut out to be President, but he is precisely the person we need as President in these times.Cortopassi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:37 am My opinion is it's a tit for tat. He calls most media fake news and they do not appreciate that and hit back.
I do think it's obvious by now that he was not cut out for for being president. Yeah, go ahead and flame me.
What I mean specifically, is he could be/has been a perfectly fine CEO of his OWN company. Where when somebody doesn't agree with him, they can be removed at his will.
The government aspect and having an opposing side that he couldn't just fire I think is/was an eye opener for him.
The Art of the Deal was one of his books, right? Did not nicely translate into compromise in government type negotiations. So he gets mad, calls people names, and ends up making enemies of a lot of people, including most media.
If it was a Mitt Romney, I do not believe it would be the same.
And if it is Biden, you know damn well Rush, Fox News, etc will all bust his balls just as hard.
If Hillary had won, the country would already be unrecognizable.
We need him a lot more than he needs us; his life was fine before becoming President. Isn't it odd that he was never accused of all the horrible sins (racism, sexism, etc.) in his 40 years of fame before he was elected?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/peop ... 36151.html
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
- vnatale
- Executive Member
- Posts: 9481
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
- Contact:
Re: Question on the media
And, it's possible she was paid how much money for her to provide that revised description?Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:02 amDid you bother to read the whole article, in which she says that it wasn't rape?vnatale wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:45 pmThere was this well known allegation:Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:30 pmHe may not have been cut out to be President, but he is precisely the person we need as President in these times.Cortopassi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:37 am My opinion is it's a tit for tat. He calls most media fake news and they do not appreciate that and hit back.
I do think it's obvious by now that he was not cut out for for being president. Yeah, go ahead and flame me.
What I mean specifically, is he could be/has been a perfectly fine CEO of his OWN company. Where when somebody doesn't agree with him, they can be removed at his will.
The government aspect and having an opposing side that he couldn't just fire I think is/was an eye opener for him.
The Art of the Deal was one of his books, right? Did not nicely translate into compromise in government type negotiations. So he gets mad, calls people names, and ends up making enemies of a lot of people, including most media.
If it was a Mitt Romney, I do not believe it would be the same.
And if it is Biden, you know damn well Rush, Fox News, etc will all bust his balls just as hard.
If Hillary had won, the country would already be unrecognizable.
We need him a lot more than he needs us; his life was fine before becoming President. Isn't it odd that he was never accused of all the horrible sins (racism, sexism, etc.) in his 40 years of fame before he was elected?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/peop ... 36151.html
Vinny
"When Lost Tycoon was about to be printed in 1993, Mr Trump and his lawyers provided a statement from Ms Trump, published beneath the allegation of rape.
It read: "During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me.
"I wish to say that on one occasion during 1989, Mr Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage.
"As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness which he normally exhibited toward me, was absent. I referred to this as a 'rape,' but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.
"Any contrary conclusion would be an incorrect and most unfortunate interpretation of my statement which I do not want to be interpreted in a speculative fashion and I do not want the press or media to misconstrue any of the facts set forth above.
"All I wish is for this matter to be put to rest."
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."