The 2016 Election and the Demise of Journalistic Standards - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14930368
One Degree wrote:Curious how any of you explain the Democrats saying these attacks on Trump are not working and we need to quit it. I wonder why they would say that if all the coverage is unbiased?
I can’t imagine them suggesting honest attacks be stopped. Can you?

Which Democrats are saying that the New York Times or Washington Post needs to stop attacking Trump?
#14930371
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Which Democrats are saying that the New York Times or Washington Post needs to stop attacking Trump?


Reductionist fallacy? Yeah, I don’t think they saw it necessary to be specific and outrage an ally.
#14930378
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:@One Degree , I still haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. You talked about "these attacks", so you have in mind something already mentioned in this thread. And specific Democrats, too - which ones said whatever you're talking about, even if you don't think it's specific?


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/ ... eud-648028

This opinion piece explains what I am talking about. The rift between Democrats on strategy against Trump. These attacks are carried by the MSM as legitimate. Many Democrats believe they should stop them.
#14930384
So some Democrats think Trump should be impeached, some don't (or not yet). So what? "These attacks are carried by the MSM as legitimate." Of course it's legitimate to say Trump is unfit for office. 4 years ago, over half of Republican supporters wanted Obama impeached, and he hadn't even done anything wrong. Unlike, say, conspiring with a foreign power to influence an election. Clearly, saying the president should be impeached is an everyday American activity, which doesn't stop your party winning elections.

And saying that it's not time to impeach is not a comment on the "honesty" of the attacks.
#14930450
Ter wrote:I agree, but there is no evenhandedness.
The mainstream news sources, NYT, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, they are all 100% pro-Democrat and terribly biased against Trump.
That is exactly what the OP was claiming.


Again honest non bias reporting there is no requirement for even handedness. Sure the mainstream media does have bais. On eof them is driven by day to day news cycle and focus on surface stuff. Complex things just odn't get across in sound bytes, so deep analysis tends to be lacking,

Trump says a lot of very stupid things, he says a lot of things that are just factual wrong. He does this a lot more often than the democrats do. A mean of lot of incredibly dumb stuff, a lot of just calling black , white lies.

A lot of politicians tell lies but their got plausible deniability, it requires some analysis , research and too much air time to show it, and most of the media just don't have the stamina to do so,

Trump going to get a lot of negative coverage because of theirbais other than towards trivia and easy stories. If other politics said such stuff they would get coverage. Massive foot in mouth in spectacular fashion, tends to attract news coverage.

Oh they are bais against trump but not a whole lot they are more bais against dumb, lying, incompetence,. corrupt public figures, of which Trump undoubted is.
#14930455
pugsville wrote:
Oh they are bais against trump but not a whole lot they are more bais against dumb, lying, incompetence,. corrupt public figures, of which Trump undoubted is.


Yes I agree, Trump is all of these things.
He also does a number of things that are liked by many, but that is for another discussion.

That is however not what I was trying to say here.
I have always known the New York Times, especially the New York Times, as a trustworthy quality newspaper. To some extent, the same was true for the Washington Post.
Those reputations are out of the window for about half the people in the US and probably from elsewhere as well. The moment journalists let their personal opinion permeate everything they write, it is no longer news but opinion. As is explained in the OP.
#14930463
Well, most Americans don't trust the MSM. You guys have lost this argument before. I figure that SO is trolling as usual, although it's hard to tell when he's serious lately since a lot of Democrats actually sound like him these days, but PC seems to think this is up for debate or something.

If we're specific about their positions, it appears that SO's position is that the media should be biased against Trump, PC's position is that they aren't biased, so they're actually against each other. Although they're sort of allied in the thread because PC will take what he can get and SO doesn't have any standards.
#14930464
Reporting on the negative things Trump does, such as inventing conspiracies out of whole cloth or choosing to separate children from their families, is not biased. Reporting on those facts is not opinion. It seems that the Trump supporters of PoFo have gravitated toward 1°'s position: any reporting not dedicated to glorifying Trump is biased.

Ironically, the only sources that our resident chuds can cite are OpEds, which are explicitly biased and premised on the opinions of the journalist. That's some fine critical thinking skills there, guys. Keep it up.

For example: on the previous page Hong Wu conflated "negative" with "biased," again pulling from an OpEd, because he is a known bullshitter who can not defend his own position except by lying. Or borderline illiterate, that's a definite possibility too. I wonder how effectively he can teach English when he is unable to tell words apart? I genuinely feel bad for the children you are teaching if the difference between "negative" and "biased" is a difficult one for you to grasp.
#14930468
Hong Wu wrote:Well, most Americans don't trust the MSM. You guys have lost this argument before. I figure that SO is trolling as usual, although it's hard to tell when he's serious lately since a lot of Democrats actually sound like him these days, but PC seems to think this is up for debate or something.

If we're specific about their positions, it appears that SO's position is that the media should be biased against Trump, PC's position is that they aren't biased, so they're actually against each other. Although they're sort of allied in the thread because PC will take what he can get and SO doesn't have any standards.

That's not true, unsurprisingly, since you have a casual disregard for truth and facts. In reality:

TREND: Who do you trust more to tell you the truth about important issues: President Trump or the news media?
News
Trump Media DK/NA

Apr 26, 2018 37 53 10
Nov 14, 2017 34 54 12
Oct 12, 2017 37 52 11
Aug 23, 2017 36 54 10
Aug 16, 2017 37 55 9
May 25, 2017 34 53 13
May 10, 2017 31 57 12
Mar 07, 2017 37 53 10
Feb 22, 2017 37 52 10

https://poll.qu.edu/search-releases/sea ... strTime=28

Now, a majority of Republicans may see the media as an "enemy of the people", but they are brainwashed turds following Trump because he hates the people they want hated. But the people who aren't invested in setting up a fascist society based on bigotry know that Trump and the lickspittles like Michael Goodwin are lying toads who you wouldn't trust to tell you the time of day.
#14930485
I think most people know that Fox News is biased who try to shape and appeal to the Republican base outlook. The OP article states that, in fact it states that Fox News came to be so successful because it recognized the need for such reportage that appeals to such audience. The author does not deny that it is bias. Yet people here like SO are losing their tempers because it comes form a news network (New York Post) that have supported Trump.

It is interesting to see that SO and others can not even read the article properly. Who judge not the substance but from predispositioned prejudices of where the article comes from. Basically for people like SO everything that come from the other side of his ideological political spectrum is actually from Nazis.

The article ends on the note, that there no unbiased media in modern US. All of them are biased. The author laments this fact, yet is hopeful that something else might arise in the future.
#14930520
One Degree wrote:I like SO’s and PC’s arguments that you provide sources from the biased media saying they are biased, or it ain’t so. LMAO

Arguments provided so far:
Ter linked a lecture by a New York Post (prop: Rupert Murdoch) columnist about his opinion
I linked a Columbia Journalism Review article about an objective Harvard and MIT study of 2016 election coverage in the press
Hong Wu linked to a Reuters July 2018 opinion poll about Trump, for no apparent reason
Hong Wu linked to a Chicago Tribune columnist saying the early 2017 coverage of Trump's presidency was negative - not the time under discussion, and since there's only one president, not really relevant, since you can't compare to "the other one". Hong Wu fails to understand the difference between 'negative' and 'biased'.
I link to a survey of historians saying Trump is the worst president ever, so it's not surprising coverage of his presidency is negative.
You link to a story in "the biased media" about Democratic leaders disagreeing with Maxine Waters on impeachment tactics.
I link to a story in "the biased media" about a poll about impeaching Obama, to show that it's not an unheard-of call, even though your post about Waters was off-topic.
I link to a poll showing Americans trust your "biased media" a lot more than their president.

At what point did I argue that your sources should be from "the biased media"? Never. Indeed, it's the OP, you and Hong Wu who have been more likely to use "the media" as a source rather than me, and when I do, it's about a poll. It's you who uses media columnists to provide your arguments.
#14930524
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Arguments provided so far:
Ter linked a lecture by a New York Post (prop: Rupert Murdoch) columnist about his opinion
I linked a Columbia Journalism Review article about an objective Harvard and MIT study of 2016 election coverage in the press
Hong Wu linked to a Reuters July 2018 opinion poll about Trump, for no apparent reason
Hong Wu linked to a Chicago Tribune columnist saying the early 2017 coverage of Trump's presidency was negative - not the time under discussion, and since there's only one president, not really relevant, since you can't compare to "the other one". Hong Wu fails to understand the difference between 'negative' and 'biased'.
I link to a survey of historians saying Trump is the worst president ever, so it's not surprising coverage of his presidency is negative.
You link to a story in "the biased media" about Democratic leaders disagreeing with Maxine Waters on impeachment tactics.
I link to a story in "the biased media" about a poll about impeaching Obama, to show that it's not an unheard-of call, even though your post about Waters was off-topic.
I link to a poll showing Americans trust your "biased media" a lot more than their president.

At what point did I argue that your sources should be from "the biased media"? Never. Indeed, it's the OP, you and Hong Wu who have been more likely to use "the media" as a source rather than me, and when I do, it's about a poll. It's you who uses media columnists to provide your arguments.


https://www.axios.com/exclusive-astonis ... 4a97b.html

The chart on this source demonstrates how any poll is irrelevant. Everything has been politicized including polls. Why would there be such an unbelievable difference in trust of the media by political view if it were not in deed horribly biased? I doubt 95% of Democrats would favor the media over Obama.
#14930541
One Degree wrote:The chart on this source demonstrates how any poll is irrelevant. Everything has been politicized including polls. Why would there be such an unbelievable difference in trust of the media by political view if it were not in deed horribly biased? I doubt 95% of Democrats would favor the media over Obama.

Why is that poll "politicized"? It shows public opinion is highly divided. But half of the question is "Trump", so of course there is a partisan difference in the answer. But you can look at the independent answer and see that CNN is significantly more trusted by them than Trump. Yes, I doubt 95% of Democrats would favour the media over Obama. because Obama was relatively truthful, for a politician. Trump lies more than any figure in American public life since ... Benedict Arnold?
#14930543
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Why is that poll "politicized"? It shows public opinion is highly divided. But half of the question is "Trump", so of course there is a partisan difference in the answer. But you can look at the independent answer and see that CNN is significantly more trusted by them than Trump. Yes, I doubt 95% of Democrats would favour the media over Obama. because Obama was relatively truthful, for a politician. Trump lies more than any figure in American public life since ... Benedict Arnold?


http://republic3-0.com/myth-independent ... an-hankin/

Just one randomly selected article about independents are not independent. They lean Democrat by the same margin the poll showed. It tells nothing sense most believe only 5% are truly independents.

No, it's not that he "may" have partici[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a […]

It is easy to tell the tunnel was made of pre fab[…]