Media Bias against trump

97 posts / 0 new
Last post
Timebandit Timebandit's picture

My experience as well, Smith.

JKR

Cody87 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
And especially, the fact that Trump is that bad, they tilted things in Clinton's favour, and Trump is still winning says I think all that needs to be said about Clinton.

It doesn't tell us all that needs to be said about Trump winning, though.

Could you tell us more about how he's winning??

Well, one of them has to be winning and based on all indicators Clinton is losing. 

So Trump is winning by default.

Why do you support Trump?

JKR

Cody87 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Now they oppose Trump because Trump is a white nationalist.

Problem is, he just says it out loud.  Gotta keep that shit on the down low, bro.

Since everyone believes Republicans are racist anyway, why bother hiding it?

I think most people in America think that most Republicans are not racist.

JKR

I think the media bias in the U.S. has come almost exclusively from right-wing media like Fox News and right-wing talk radio. These biased sources have supported the candidacy of idiots like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and now Donald Trump. candidates like Trump and Sarah Palin. These biased news sources have also given credibility to wild conspiracy theories against politicians like Obama and Clinton. I think America is going to be susceptible to electing unqualified candidates as long as Fox News and people like Rush Limbaugh are able to shape a great swath of opinion in America. It seems like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart and their ilk have also been able to sway a lot of opinion north of the border too.

JKR

I think the media bias in the U.S. has come almost exclusively from right-wing media like Fox News and right-wing talk radio. These biased sources have supported the candidacy of idiots like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and now Donald Trump. candidates like Trump and Sarah Palin. These biased news sources have also given credibility to wild conspiracy theories against politicians like Obama and Clinton. I think America is going to be susceptible to electing unqualified candidates as long as Fox News and people like Rush Limbaugh are able to shape a great swath of opinion in America. It seems like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart and their ilk have also been able to sway a lot of opinion north of the border too.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

JKR wrote:

I think the media bias in the U.S. has come almost exclusively from right-wing media like Fox News and right-wing talk radio. These biased sources have supported the candidacy of idiots like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and now Donald Trump. candidates like Trump and Sarah Palin. These biased news sources have also given credibility to wild conspiracy theories against politicians like Obama and Clinton. I think America is going to be susceptible to electing unqualified candidates as long as Fox News and people like Rush Limbaugh are able to shape a great swath of opinion in America. It seems like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart and their ilk have also been able to sway a lot of opinion north of the border too.


I agree, and further to that, the volume of right wing biased media outlets have created an atmosphere where more moderate outlets feel obliged to cover "both sides" of any question whether it's credible or not. False equivalence has become unremarkable.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

An article on media and the U.S. Presidential candidates: http://www.salon.com/2016/11/01/in-the-media-narrative-hillary-clinton-i...

Quote:
One of the major rationales for the ceaseless coverage of the issue is the prospect of a Clinton presidency being burdened by the necessity of dealing with a full-blown witch hunt by Republican-led House committees investigating her alleged conflicts of interest. Oddly enough, the media can barely spare a moment to contemplate the overwhelming conflicts of interest and legal exposure that a President Donald Trump would bring to the White House.

As Media Matters laid out on Monday, Trump is currently facing 75 different civil lawsuits for matters including fraud, breach of contract, nonpayment, sexual harassment and defamation. He has three pending Trump University fraud suits and is suspected of perpetrating a “pay-for-play” scheme with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and possibly others to shut down a state investigation into the same fraudulent enterprise.


Some excellent links imbedded in the article as well.

lagatta

Trump endorsement ... from the KKK organ. The American Nazi Party likes him too: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/world/donald+trump+gets+support+want...

Now, I want to make it clear that to put it mildly, I do not like Hillary Rodham-Clinton. She is a war hawk and a supporter of the .0001%. But so is Trump, and he is also unhinged, which makes him even more dangerous. And the unleashing of violent racist speech can lead to horrific situations.

Nothing on earth we can do about it anyway.

Cody87

lagatta wrote:
But so is Trump, and he is also unhinged, which makes him even more dangerous.

I've said before that I'm no fan of Trump. I don't think he's been treated fairly and I think he's been underestimated far longer than he should have been, but I'd pick Warren or Sanders over him any day and twice on Tuesday. 

That said, it's not completely in the realm of conspiracy theory territory to suggest that Clinton is also getting unhinged. I think the hubub over her "why aren't I ahead 50 points?" Video was overblown, but it wasn't good. And that was a scripted video, not a rally, so that was the best take.

We also know from Wikileaks that she drinks during the day at least occasionally.

Quote:

Nothing on earth we can do about it anyway.

You've got that right, but I can't look away....

lagatta

I also drink (very occasionally) during the day - lunch dates, launches etc. Can be counted on one hand nowadays.

So? And I have a bit of wine more often than not with my supper. Does that make me a substance abuser? Nope. I worked in an environment where at one point there was a hell of a lot of substance abuse: booze, cocaine etc (well, also dope, but that is less often a problem). And of course tobacco, which got a pass but killed - especially in combination with the above-mentioned stuff.

One of those milieux that was above all workaholic, where the people were proud to work long hours and weekends. You can see the problem cases. People who enjoy a glass of wine occasionally at lunch are not (necessarily) among them. One guy I worked with started with beer at 10 a.m. Then some wine for dinner (for dinner, not with dinner)... and lots of smoking. I was better off freelancing at home, though I made less money. The environment was getting toxic.

Your allegation sounds more like toxic American puritanism than anything else. One of the most toxic things there is. Moreover, it is deeply sexist.

Cody87

lagatta wrote:

I also drink (very occasionally) during the day - lunch dates, launches etc. Can be counted on one hand nowadays.

So? And I have a bit of wine more often than not with my supper. Does that make me a substance abuser? Nope. I worked in an environment where at one point there was a hell of a lot of substance abuse: booze, cocaine etc (well, also dope, but that is less often a problem). And of course tobacco, which got a pass but killed - especially in combination with the above-mentioned stuff.

One of those milieux that was above all workaholic, where the people were proud to work long hours and weekends. You can see the problem cases. People who enjoy a glass of wine occasionally at lunch are not (necessarily) among them. One guy I worked with started with beer at 10 a.m. Then some wine for dinner (for dinner, not with dinner)... and lots of smoking. I was better off freelancing at home, though I made less money. The environment was getting toxic.

Your allegation sounds more like toxic American puritanism than anything else. One of the most toxic things there is. Moreover, it is deeply sexist.

When staffers are saying "someone needs to get over there and sober her up" at 4:30pm, that suggests more than a beer with lunch.

lagatta

I don't know anything about her personal habits and find such rumours distasteful. Attacking her on "regime change" or refusing to support a $15 minimum wage is fine; but you are veering into speculation.

swallow swallow's picture

So Cody, why do you think Melania Trump isn't white? 

lagatta

I've been to Slovenia. Lovely little country. But most everyone is definitely "white"; it is close to Austria and Northeastern Italy, and borders Croatia on the south, and has a short border with Hungary in the east.

Slovenia is a very cycling friendly country, which studied and copied Dutch and Danish cycle planning. Good food and wine too.

The negative as in most Central European countries is the discrimination against the Romani people. http://www.arnehodalic.com/portfolio_page/slovenia-the-roma-gypsies/ The Romani community is relatively small, and I don't think there is the current horror story of persecution and even pogroms as seen in Hungary, for example. Rabble could definitely ask our reporter Karl Nerenberg for more details.

bekayne

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

$$$$

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/les-moonves-trump-cbs-220001

Donald Trump’s candidacy might not be making America great, CBS Chairman Les Moonves said Monday, but it’s great for his company.

"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," Moonves said at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in San Francisco, according to The Hollywood Reporter — perfectly distilling what media critics have long suspected was motivating the round-the-clock coverage of Trump's presidential bid.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

There's an article in salon.com that is relevant to this discussion. It argues that the only actual bias is the bias towards both sides-ism which makes every ludicrous right-wing claim (climate change is a hoax by grant-greedy scientists, Hillary is an unusually dishonest politician, and so on) an equal contender for attention. If there is any bias against Trump at the moment, it is the temporary lessening of this effect.

Chauncey DeVega wrote:

The sum effect of this is that CNN and other major American news outlets elevate Right-wing talking points and falsehoods to the level of factual “news.” This legitimizes them as now being worthy of inclusion as an “alternative point of view” that should be spoken to in serious discussions of politics. CNN and the so-called liberal media then circulate Right-wing propaganda to a broader public outside of the Fox News echo chamber.

In the long term, this dynamic both contributes to and reflects America’s extreme political polarization because without an agreement on basic facts it becomes extremely difficult if not impossible to have effective government. In the immediate present, this dynamic enabled the ascendance of the fascist Donald Trump because the mainstream American corporate news media was unwilling to accurately describe his political agenda, serious shortcomings in temperament, ethics and behavior, or the racist motivations of his supporters.

bekayne
JKR

Cody87 wrote:

...but I'd pick Warren or Sanders over him any day and twice on Tuesday. 

Warren and Sanders are both wholeheartedly supporting Clinton over Trump.

Martin N.

lagatta wrote:

I don't know anything about her personal habits and find such rumours distasteful. Attacking her on "regime change" or refusing to support a $15 minimum wage is fine; but you are veering into speculation.


Hm. Speculating about an alleged daytime drunk with her hand on the red button is entirely different than gossiping about a daytime drunk with they's hand on the waiter's butt.

milo204

i think if you apply Chomsky's theories it would show that:

the media establishment will be biased against trump because he poses a threat to the stability of international (US based) wealth and power, at least compared to clinton who is lock step in line with it, totally a part of it.

so the system is really performing exactly as we should expect.

Cody87

milo204 wrote:

i think if you apply Chomsky's theories it would show that:

the media establishment will be biased against trump because he poses a threat to the stability of international (US based) wealth and power, at least compared to clinton who is lock step in line with it, totally a part of it.

so the system is really performing exactly as we should expect.

I agree, but do you mind elaborating on how Trump poses a threat to the stability of international wealth and power?

6079_Smith_W

Here is what Chomsky himself is saying:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/noam-chomsky-supports-hillary-clin...

And what do you think is more important to the powers that be, the next four years, or the next generation of control in the supreme court, abortion, gun control, and health care reform?

Without even getting into taxes, which candidate really represents the interests of the wealthy and powerful? If you want to know who has bought and paid for legislators in the U.S., you don't have to look any further than those last two areas.

But sure, let's keep pretending it is all about warmongering establishment Hillary and Donald the scrappy little peacemaker.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Obama just gave a profound stump speech at Chapel Hill! Go Obama!!!

JKR

milo204 wrote:

i think if you apply Chomsky's theories it would show that:

the media establishment will be biased against trump because he poses a threat to the stability of international (US based) wealth and power, at least compared to clinton who is lock step in line with it, totally a part of it.

so the system is really performing exactly as we should expect.

Chomsky is wholeheartedly supporting Clinton over Trump.

Cody87

JKR wrote:
milo204 wrote:

i think if you apply Chomsky's theories it would show that:

the media establishment will be biased against trump because he poses a threat to the stability of international (US based) wealth and power, at least compared to clinton who is lock step in line with it, totally a part of it.

so the system is really performing exactly as we should expect.

Chomsky is wholeheartedly supporting Clinton over Trump.

I'm fairly sure milo204 also wholeheartedly supports Clinton over Trump. One doesn't need to support any particular candidate to make a statement about the presence of media bias.

Milo204 is not making a value statement (eg. "Clinton > Trump" or "Trump > Clinton" or even "media bias is right/wrong"), just a statement that the bias is to be expected.

Chomsky could directly say "Media bias exists" and also "The media bias favours Clinton" and also "I support Clinton for president" with no inconsistency whatsoever.

swallow swallow's picture

Still curious, though, Cody: why do you think Melania Trump isn't white? 

Cody87

JKR wrote:
Cody87 wrote:

...but I'd pick Warren or Sanders over him any day and twice on Tuesday. 

Warren and Sanders are both wholeheartedly supporting Clinton over Trump.

Warren first showed up on my radar in 2014 and I was extremely excited for her to run for POTUS in 2016. I was extremely disappointed when she didn't. One of the things I liked most about her was her fearlessness in challenging the establishment and it's major players.

I didn't learn of Sanders (wasn't paying attention to first half of primaries) until around March. One of the things I liked most about Sanders was his commitment to taking on wall street and restoring the power to the people instead of the oligarchy.

You might notice that Clinton couldn't be further on these issues. And what's worse, we've now learned that the establishment's roots go far deeper than (at least I) had ever imagined. The media, several "indepenedent" government agencies, and many major corporations all have close personal ties to the uniparty establishment. Literally every day new connections are being made showing how this or that influential person is married to the sibling of a major Clinton insider.

Regardless, I still prefer Clinton to Trump by a slim margin, though I don't think she'll win.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Cody! Answer Swallow's question!

Cody87

Misfit wrote:
Cody! Answer Swallow's question!

We're pursuing the real issues now.

Is whether Melania is white or not really the most controversial thing I've said in this thread in the last two days, that it merits such scrutiny?

Fine. I retract the statement that Melania isn't white. She looks mixed to me, but I guess I hadn't looked closely enough.

Do you disagree with anything else I've said?

Mr. Magoo

Perhaps you misread her name as "Melanin".

cruisin_turtle

Cody87 wrote:

cruisin_turtle wrote:

Trump might be an idiot and an embrassment but at least he is independent and was not bought with lobbyist money to get here.  I think that's what the people are saying.

... once the corporate media destroys it's credibility, it loses it's ability to educate people on Trump's legitimate flaws.

Just as nobody here would give credence to an op-ed on Breitbart(myself included), there are now many (myself included) who will also not give credence to an op-ed by CNN or the NYT.

The corporate media has shredded their credibility...

When the corporate media is so blantantly partisan, people who see such will no longer give them credence even when they bring up valid points. This is why many people are numb to criticism of Trump.

You got it, Cody.  There are people who no longer pay any attention to the main stream media.  That is one major factor in Trump's popularity.  

The other major factor is that people have common sense and they are judging the candidates on what they DID not what they SAID. In other words, people wised up to the spin.  While Trump can't help but say stupid things almost everyday, they are just words and his past Track Record speaks of success and of the vast majority of people who have personally known him and worked with him actually like him.  Hillary's track record is just the opposite. Hillary getting Huma to marry Weiner is just one example that is blowing up right now. People hate Hillary track record even though she has been saying all the right things during the campaign. 

cruisin_turtle

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Not a single U.S. newspaper has endorsed Trump. Yet 46% of Americans are still with him.  This tells us that about half of the American population has lost all confidence in the MSM.

Perhaps none of those newspapers wants to deport all Muslims as badly as 46% of Americans do.

 

Again, it's judging words vs. judging actions. Among the many stupid things Trump has said was that he will ban Muslims from entering the U.S.  But he hasn't actually DONE anything against Muslims in all his life.  Hillary, on the other hand, has killed more Muslims than Trump ever will. And that's just in the last 8 years.

Mr. Magoo

So, TIL (Today I Learned):  Hillary Clinton is the female, live-action Barney Gumble, AND she "got" Huma Abedin to marry Anthony Weiner.

Less than six days left.  If you know she likes to snort her blow of the backs of the homeless, NOW is the time to tell your fearless truth.

 

Rev Pesky

cruisin_turtle wrote:
... While Trump can't help but say stupid things almost everyday, they are just words and his past Track Record speaks of success...

Actually his track record speaks of a series of bankruptcies, mostly using other people's money. but perhaps to some, burning up other people's money is success...

cruisin_turtle

Rev Pesky wrote:

Actually his track record speaks of a series of bankruptcies, mostly using other people's money.. 

 

Of course people would rather have an honorable person like Stein be the second choice against Hillary but they don't. What they have is a choice between  a self made billionaire who is refusing to sell favours and a career politician who lives very well on tax payers money and who owe favours worth hundreds of millions. For me, the choice is very clear.

Factoid: Trump is the first presidential candidate in my lifetime that got zero dollars from the Koch brothers.

Cody87

cruisin_turtle wrote:

Factoid: Trump is the first presidential candidate in my lifetime that got zero dollars from the Koch brothers.

There was speculation they owned Harper, too.

swallow swallow's picture

Cody87 wrote:

Is whether Melania is white or not really the most controversial thing I've said in this thread in the last two days, that it merits such scrutiny?

No, of course not, but it's typical of the pointless, fact-free elections campaign "debates." People throw out odd "facts," ignore when questioned on them, bounce from random idea to random character assassination about the candidates, and no one talks about what might actually be good policy for the country or tries to get to what is actually accurate eabout policy and events, preferring (in Newt Gingrich's language) to focus on what "feels" true. 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
People throw out odd "facts," ignore when questioned on them, bounce from random idea to random character assassination about the candidates, and no one talks about what might actually be good policy for the country or tries to get to what is actually accurate eabout policy and events

Some people "feel" that Clinton is in sufficient health to be President, and others "feel" that she's dying of Ebola (or has already died and been replaced by a body double).

How are we ever to decide whose feelings to push under the bus?  Don't we have a duty to treat all emotions equally?

iyraste1313

Now, I want to make it clear that to put it mildly, I do not like Hillary Rodham-Clinton. She is a war hawk and a supporter of the .0001%. But so is Trump, and he is also unhinged, which makes him even more dangerous. And the unleashing of violent racist speech can lead to horrific situations.

Nothing on earth we can do about it anyway.......

Nonsense...this is what these pages must be considering...what to do, instead of arguing with these reactionaries trying to turn back the pages to when there actually was some honour in the press at least.......if never in government.......

where firstly are the dicussions around what we must work for, a humanitarian non capitalist non imperialist decentralist system, ecologically respectful!

,,,,but these pages are saturated with the poisons emanating from the likes of the Orwellian CBC...these propaganda outlets must be exposed and challenged....therefore my suggestions re boycott, hook line and sinker....

our local imperialist war mongering free trading neoliberal agents in Government, their corporate takeovers of all aspects of Canadian society and culture must be challenged...therefore e.g. my suggestions that we challenge the present Canadian government in Court...they clearly won on fraudulent grounds...at least to chip away at their credibility!

But above all we must be practicing what we stand for...first tentative experiments in the vision we want to create nationally---

and what are our transitional strategies....

forget the gatekeepers of the status quo, let`s get on with it...time is running out after November 8th you can be sure pour own Canadian authorities under the guidance of our American masters willl begin implementing our cherished not to be touched Bill C51...look out, any independent thinkers out there!

 

swallow swallow's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Don't we have a duty to treat all emotions equally?

No.

Mr. Magoo

What if *my* feel is, like, ten times stronger than *your* feel?  In what universe should *my* feel NOT win????

If *your* feel lost, fair and square, there's no shame in it.  It just didn't "feel" enough.

Martin N.

I feel you need a couple of boxes of cheap red and a fondue to feel the answer to that but only if you don't feel the spirit of Damocles hovering, ever hopefull.

Mr. Magoo

I just wish it weren't about the feels.

Martin N.

Hm. Emotion vs Logic. "This may require some mansplainin" says he over his shoulder (at a dead run for the door)

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Don't let it hit you in the ass on your way out.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Cruising-turtle, I think you need to get out your dictionary and look up the meaning of the word factoid. A factoid is a piece of information that is based on speculation or assumption rather than on fact and which then gets repeated often enough that people come to assume it is true when it really isn't. So yes, I believe that your Koch brothers factoid is about the only thing you have written on this board which I find to be credible.

Pages