Trump’s unwillingness to let the media establish the narrative is definitely one of the primary reasons he has had sustained appeal. When you’re dealing with a media that’s inherently hostile and that attempts to distort and exaggerate statements, or just outright manufacture issues, as they’ve constantly done with Trump and other candidates - he enhances his appeal by being dismissive of the media’s games and avoids any legitimately earned repercussions because the disingenuous allegations make it easier for him to avoid and obfuscate more substantive criticisms.
Scuzz
3103
I do think the media doesn’t know what to do about a guy who says what Trump says and then either refuses to acknowledge he said it, or refuses to acknowledge he is wrong, or blames somebody else. It only makes the media look petty or stupid to keep after him. The weird part is people still like Trump after everything he as said. Any other candidate would have crashed and burned by now. But not Trump.
Yeah, it’s absolutely amazing. I am beginning to dare to hope that Trump wins the GOP nomination.
When someone outright lies and/or makes up stories so ridiculous not even a child would believe them (Hello Carson), it is hard to blame that on the media exaggerating statements.
The media in general is doing nothing wrong. They simply see a thread sticking out and pull on it.
Republicans always blame the media. It was the same with Sara Palin and it is the same now. If you want the media on your side, stop making shit up that is obviously not true.
I do agree the media is inherently hostile, but that isn’t because they hate republicans, it is because a story about carson making up stupid lies about his past is more interesting than boring politics.
ShivaX
3106
The media should be inherently hostile, otherwise they’re just megaphones for those with power. I would strongly argue they aren’t remotely hostile enough, bullshit gets a pass far too often and lies/speculation get spread as “news” all the time. Hell, we just had someone shoot up a place based on those very lies. Lies that were easily disproven.
It only becomes an issue if they have an agenda, and even then they can do their jobs if they handle it well.
Well, the GOP has gotten used to Fox being a cheerleader and soft landing spot, more than a critic.
RichVR
3108
But Trump has even made FOX into an enemy. How fucked up is that?
I have a hard time blaming the media without blaming the rest of the public. If we put aside any utopic ideals, we have to acknowledge that media companies are businesses and they are responsible for providing a product that is valued by customers. If we as a people don’t put much stock in the truth or even being half-decently informed, it’s hard to fault the media over not doing such a job.
My dream would be the following:
government subsidized news in exchange for being able to regulate it’s accuracy (so penalties, both public and fiscal, for lying). If you want to spout off an opinion, that’s fine but your show, column, or site has to then have “OPINION” as the first word in its title and such efforts would receive no public funding. So essentially redefining the term “news” for media and sanitizing its distribution. Of course, that would have all different kinds of issues as well (including the risk of the government abusing such oversight), but I think it would at least help get things back a little closer to the realm of sanity than what we often see on Fox or MSNBC.
Dude, total government control of media is like step one for any authoritarian regime. It’s a horrible idea.
I’d agree … except it’s not total government control.
Rather, if you’re going to call your show “news” it has to tell the truth.
I’d rather have Walter Cronkite back.
This sounds like any number of conversations taking place in dorm rooms around the country about replacing money with a different system of exchange.
Centralized control by any source (but particularly government because of its monopoly on force) leads to excesses, and in the case of government, authoritarian excesses. If the government also has a monopoly on what is the truth, its just a matter of time before it’s total governmental control.
Oh, like I mentioned, it’s rife with issues, but those vanish if someone chooses to not call their show/whatever “news.” Instead of “Fox News,” you could have “Opinions by Fox” and change not one iota of programming and be totally okay with such regulations.
spiffy
3115
There are many ways to promote a bias and still tell the truth, which in my mind can be more unhealthy.
For example, the call for British airstrikes in Syria, as reported by the BBC. For the last week it’s been a non-stop reporting of how Labor is hindering the call for airstrikes, framed in a way that makes Labor obstructionist, complete with dour portraits with black graphics behind Corbyn’s name, and definately smacks of agenda from a supposedly objective news source. (As said by someone whose stance is completely divided on the issue).
Don’t get me wrong - it’s not a solution, just a step. That stuff is already going on, as you noted. This would just limit the usage of the word “news” so that it wouldn’t contain complete BS. For instance, a news show could say “Sean Hannity states that Barack Obama kicks puppies and Rachel Maddow states that Sean Hannity is a disguised lizard man,” but it wouldn’t have both of them promoting such views. It’s far from perfect.
No where near as badly as Clinton and Obama have gotten accustomed to the non-conservative media treating them deferentially and with kid gloves. Obama get outright petulant when he’s questioned, it’s so unexpected. Non-conservative politicians are so shielded by the media that they’re shocked to experience a modicum of what conservatives get every day. And they completely hide from the conservative media that confronts and challenges them in the same manner that conservative are subjected to daily.
Ideally, the media would be interested solely in informing the public on the full range of issues that are of interest to the public, but failing that it would be better if the media were all aggressive pricks who were suspicious and critical about everything and everyone in order to try to ferret out misbehavior and deceptions from political figures and hold them to account. Instead it’s just political opponents of their preferred choice that are targeted.
One of the main ways bias manifests itself are in the topics the media chooses to focus on - for instance, discussion on the economy will be prominent or muted depending upon whether that narrative is favorable to the political leader you’re biased towards. You’ll hear about every dumb thing a republican candidate says these days (and there are plenty), but not how ridiculous and confused Clinton sounds in her emails, or how the military thinks Obama is completely clueless and the worst commander-in-chief ever. The media could be telling the truth but be advancing a completely different narrative depending upon coverage choices and emphasis.
BS. You’re reading far too much into the right-wing media bias quote machine. You’re spouting a false equivalency.
Can you give some specific examples of this? My subscription to Strawman Monthly ran out.
KevinC
3121
This is going to sound like I’m taking a shot at you, but I swear it’s not intended in that way. It’s not really directed at you as an individual at all. Hope it comes across correctly.
With that in mind, when I read some of your posts I wonder how it is that we’re able to read each other’s posts, because it feels like we live in completely different realities! Speaking of Obama, to me the news outlets felt absolutely saturated with discussions around Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, birther accusations, death panels, questions regarding his religious affiliations, socialism, etc. And I don’t watch Fox News (other than it’s what’s on the TV when I’m at family gatherings), so it’s not like it was only conservative media bringing up these things.
So when you talk about this overwhelming media friendliness towards Obama and Clinton, I literally have no idea you’re talking about. And again, before the tone of this starts coming across wrong, I’m not accusing you of being crazy or claiming that I’m plugged in directly to the Truth and Reality backbone of the universe or anything like that. I’m genuinely stumped and at a loss as to how our perceptions diverge so greatly! I mean, I understand how internal biases work in how we perceive and process information, but damn!
In any case, sorry for the ramble. Carry on, Presidential Race 2016!
