$$$$
Media Bias against trump
Tue, 2016-11-01 14:24
#1
Media Bias against trump
Tue, 2016-11-01 14:26
#2
????
Tue, 2016-11-01 14:29
#3
http://thehill.com/media/303552-poll-public-overwhelmingly-thinks-media-...
76 % of American population think the media bias agiasnt trump, not news to me. After the media destroyed bernie chances they moved on trump. You think the media would act least make an effort to hide bias. Appearently desperate times mean desperate mesasures. I wonder if this poll will get any play on the major networks in the US:)
Curious how people will react to this on rabble
Tue, 2016-11-01 14:46
#4
Timebandit
Oh, you know, the way we react to most utter bullshit.
Seriously, the man has had more coverage and attention than anyone. And Trumps modus operandi has always been that all publicity is good publicity. He's reached his base without having to blow the bank on advertising - his profile has been handed to him free of charge. Even the critical media has endeared him to his base.
And while there's been criticism, there are Trump stories that aren't getting a lot of air time. Like the sex asault allegations around a 13 year old girl, for starters. Yeah, that's right. Little reporting on Trump potentially having raped a child, but Hillary might have sent a fucking email from the wrong server and it's all over the news outlets.
So please. Give me a break on the "unfair media" bull.
Tue, 2016-11-01 14:51
#5
Oh, you know, the way we react to most utter bullshit.
Seriously, the man has had more coverage and attention than anyone. And Trumps modus operandi has always been that all publicity is good publicity. He's reached his base without having to blow the bank on advertising - his profile has been handed to him free of charge. Even the critical media has endeared him to his base.
And while there's been criticism, there are Trump stories that aren't getting a lot of air time. Like the sex asault allegations around a 13 year old girl, for starters. Yeah, that's right. Little reporting on Trump potentially having raped a child, but Hillary might have sent a fucking email from the wrong server and it's all over the news outlets.
So please. Give me a break on the "unfair media" bull.
ANGER--OK
The population of this usa thinks differently.
Can anyone do DENIAL for me? The five steps
Tue, 2016-11-01 15:26
#6
Timebandit
Actually, it's frustration with the tide of bullshit you and others are bringing to this board.
Now, take off the chauvinism hat and read the substance of what I've posted rather than just commenting on the feels.
Trump's alleged rape of a child doesn't get much media play, but Clinton's emails - which were thoroughly investigated already and found not to be criminal - are all over the media. Positing the idea that the media is biased *against* Trump in the face of this is either ignorance or mendacity. Take your pick.
It's also worth mentioning that a) that a belief is held by a large number of people does not make it any more factual; and b) you've misquoted the article. See below:
The Suffolk University/USA Today poll comes on the heels of an Associated Press/GkF poll last week showing that 56 percent of likely voters, including 87 percent of his supporters, believe the media is biased against Trump.
So shoring up a bullshit proposition with a bullshitter's reading of the article = BS squared.
Tue, 2016-11-01 15:32
#7
So you do not like this poll OK. So your conseding 56% of the population think there is media bias agaisnt trump? That is not as bad, still the majority of people think there is bias agaisnt trump. Hmmm Your sinking deeper into the intelluial quickstand. I don't think your helping your cause here.
Tue, 2016-11-01 15:47
#8
interfluvial quicksand?
Tue, 2016-11-01 15:49
#9
Timebandit
No, I'm pointing out that you seem incapable of correctly quoting your own fucking source. Jaysus, can you wipe your own ass, or does someone need to correct that for you, too?
As for "intellectual" (please note the spelling) quicksand, I know the difference between "your" and "you're". You want to talk about intellect, perhaps you should investigate that first.
A small poll is not definitive. 56% of those polled felt there was bias, but we know nothing about selection or representative sample. One could also point out that of those most sympathetic to Trump - his own supporters - only 87% think there's bias. Some Trump supporters apparently don't think there's bias.
Now, as I've asked, and if you're able, please juxtapose that position on the dichotomy in my last two posts comparing media attention to Trump and to Clinton.
Tue, 2016-11-01 15:51
#10
alan smithee
A majority of Americans deny Evolution too.
Tue, 2016-11-01 15:51
#11
BS squared is hardly an issue compared to the concern that Trump may be elected in spite of himself purely as a protest vote against political insiders and the Hillbilly Machine™.
Trump's odious demeanour and airhead policy grasp may simply drive protest voters underground but not stop the votes. Interesting times for sure.
Tue, 2016-11-01 15:56
#12
Timebandit
Granted that.
However, the subject of the thread is whether the media is unfairly biased against Trump. Which is bullshit. It's not like there aren't a bajillion other threads about the US election.
Tue, 2016-11-01 16:10
#13
My point. It doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not the media is biased against Trump. If critical thinking was required, Trump would not have made it into the Primaries, never mind past them. To me, the only media issue is whether or not circus music should be played when he is announced. Clinton, on the other hand, is entirely deserving of a calliope solo.
Tue, 2016-11-01 16:25
#14
No, I'm pointing out that you seem incapable of correctly quoting your own fucking source. Jaysus, can you wipe your own ass, or does someone need to correct that for you, too?
As for "intellectual" (please note the spelling) quicksand, I know the difference between "your" and "you're". You want to talk about intellect, perhaps you should investigate that first.
A small poll is not definitive. 56% of those polled felt there was bias, but we know nothing about selection or representative sample. One could also point out that of those most sympathetic to Trump - his own supporters - only 87% think there's bias. Some Trump supporters apparently don't think there's bias.
Now, as I've asked, and if you're able, please juxtapose that position on the dichotomy in my last two posts comparing media attention to Trump and to Clinton.
Can you explain where I want wrong?
poll 1 76% media bias
poll 2 56% media bias
the article describes 2 polls. I am going through cognitive decline(Maybe thats were I am wrong) I don't understand were I went wrong. Can explain where I took liberty in misquoting.
Tue, 2016-11-01 17:07
#15
Michael Stewart
This is stupid.
Tue, 2016-11-01 17:33
#16
This is stupid.
No moreso than half the threads that get waved under our noses lately, but yes.
Tue, 2016-11-01 17:36
#17
Timebandit
No, there were not 2 polls. There was one poll. They asked multiple questions, which is a totally normal thing to do. Go back and re-read.
The first question was what candidate did they participant think the media wanted to win. That doesn't imply implicit bias in reporting, necessarily.
The second question was whether the respondent thought media's reporting was biased against Trump.
What you have is 20% of respondents who think that the media is reporting fairly in spite of not wanting Trump to win. and another 24% who don't think the media is biased against him. Also note that the majority of the 56% who do think the media's unfair are his supporters, who might just be biased against the media due to his constant whinging.
I'm guessing the answer to my rhetorical questions would be "no" and "yes", in that order.
Tue, 2016-11-01 17:50
#18
Timebandit
Let be clear here, I am not bsing here I got brain cancer 12 years ago. Chemo failed, operation could kill me, so neroonoglist decdied give me the max dose raditiaion that was would not cause secondary tumors. I am was warned the such dose will lead to problems but it saved my life. About 6 years ago after my yearly testing my doctor told that I was suffering minimal brain damage from the raditation dose. That I was going to go thru slow but steady coginitive decline because of the raditioan. I also explains poor spelling, word choice, missing words, word placement, etc issues.
I took you no offense from your words. But I am curious as to what exaclty is the flaw you see in my post. I will admit something glaring if you point if out. I am honestly don't get it. I am adult so I can handle it, no reason to easy on me.
I did not see your post before I started.
Tue, 2016-11-01 17:57
#19
Timebandit
I spelled it out for you in my last post.
Tue, 2016-11-01 18:39
#20
Thank you, i going to have really read things much more carefully in the future. That was really a glaring mistake on my behalf. Clearly I am not as sharp as I was. I accept lumps, I am duly embrassed and more than happy to move on. I tip my hat you.
Meg close this thread, useless any there any objections from the gallery
Tue, 2016-11-01 18:47
#21
Timebandit
My apologies for the over the top hyperbole.
Tue, 2016-11-01 18:55
#22
The corporate media is clearly biased against Trump.
This is not saying that Trump has been hurt by this, as Timebandit says he might have benefitted because the bias is so overt that it has motivated his supporters.
It also helps Trump that the media, like the DNC, is hilariously out of touch with the opinions of the majority on several issues.
Tue, 2016-11-01 19:30
#23
What kind of world do we live in when a candidate brags about grabbing women by the pu**y and the corporate lackey media is all over it, but when the other candidate dies of pneumonia and is replaced by a body double, they say NOTHING?
Tue, 2016-11-01 19:39
#24
Misfit
SHIT Magoo!!! I knew there was something funny going on. Maybe she'll finally rip her face off and reveal that she is really an alien lizard underneath that phong exterior of hers. Who knew?
Tue, 2016-11-01 19:46
#25
Just for fun:
[youtube]RhWTdnjAxEU[/youtube]
Tue, 2016-11-01 20:01
#26
What kind of world do we live in when a candidate brags about grabbing women by the pu**y and the corporate lackey media is all over it, but when the other candidate dies of pneumonia and is replaced by a body double, they say NOTHING?
What kind of world do we live in where a candidate suggests rigging elections in regions where America has "brought democracy", suggests droning civilian whistleblowers, agitates for a no fly zone in Syria despite the fact it will cause war with a nuclear power, hires people to incite violence at their rival's rallies, has been proven to sell favours to foreign countries for political donations, violates election finance laws, and all of the above combined gets less airtime than Trump's wife plaigarizing a convention speech?
Stop with the strawmen Magoo nobody thinks the corporate media is biased because they aren't reporting on Clinton conspiracies like body doubles or the Clinton body count. The corporate media is biased because they hold Trump to a vastly higher standard then they do Clinton. Something that happens here too.
The current head of the DNC just resigned from her position with CNN for sharing several debate questions with Clinton. The last head of the DNC stepped down for getting caught rigging the primary for Clinton (and now works on the Clinton campaign). The head of the DNC before that is Clinton's running mate. Wikileaks has shown that every corporate outlet except Fox works directly with the DNC.
But, according to you, there is no bias because strawman.
Tue, 2016-11-01 20:07
#27
Stop with the strawmen Magoo nobody thinks the corporate media is biased because they aren't reporting on Clinton conspiracies like body doubles or the Clinton body count.
Please tell me if I'm wrong here -- and save me some Googling! -- but weren't you one of the resident babblers who seemed to believe that Hillary was on death's door, and that the media wasn't touching that with a ten foot pole?
Tue, 2016-11-01 20:20
#28
First, kudos to you for bringing this subject up.
Any objective person who has been watching the election media coverage closely would have noticed that the main stream media is not even attempting to appear neutral. They are clearly anti-Trump and they are not attempting to hide it. As somebody said above, their justification must be desparate times call for desparate measures.
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.
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.
Tue, 2016-11-01 20:22
#29
Timebandit
Again: Huge hullabaloo over email issue that has been hashed and rehashed vs a bare mention that the other candidate allegedly RAPED A CHILD. I think you've got it backwards, dude.
Tue, 2016-11-01 20:28
#30
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. Or build The Wall. Or make Clinton make licence plates. Or grab random women by the pu**y.
What *should* they be endorsing? His beautiful, wonderful vision of the future??
Tue, 2016-11-01 20:29
#31
Again: Huge hullabaloo over email issue that has been hashed and rehashed vs a bare mention that the other candidate allegedly RAPED A CHILD. I think you've got it backwards, dude.
Try talking about those allegations somewhere that isn't a safe space and watch how fast they get discredited.
Tue, 2016-11-01 20:46
#32
swallow
This is stupid.
Tue, 2016-11-01 20:51
#33
Try talking about those allegations somewhere that isn't a safe space
I would agree that Breitbart isn't a safe space.
Anyhoo, the clock's ticking, Cody. You have less than seven days left now to help Make America Great Again. You really want to spend it trying to convince Canadians who can't even vote?
Tue, 2016-11-01 20:53
#34
Trump is probably the worst candidate to ever run for president in American history so it is makes sense that the media, even the pro-Republican media, have not endorsed him. Why should the media support a racist, sexist, classist, narcissistic no-nothing?
If Trump was president he would give huge tax cuts to the very rich and to corporations that would lead to uncontrollable deficits and debt. Would that be good? He would make huge cuts to universal health care. Would that be good? He would appoint right-wing judges that would favour the rich, corporations, and Christian fundamentalists. Would that be a good? He would propose building a huge wall on the Mexican border and renegotiating NAFTA and Congress would simply ignore him. Would that be good? He would contemplate using nuclear weapons to solve international problems. Would that be good? He would be prone to lashing out against any person, leader, or government he feels personally insulted by. Would that be good?
Tue, 2016-11-01 21:03
#35
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.
And the big issue which I am trying to illustrate is that 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 to the point where they are now perceived to be just as biased as Breitbart. They aren't that bad (proof- they have been covering and challenging Clinton's campaign since the FBI reopened the email investigation), but it doesn't matter because the perception is there.
Melania Trump wears white - symbol of white supremacy. Hillary Clinton wears white - symbol of women's liberation. Nevermind the fact that Melania Trump isn't even white, Maddow has an agenda to push!
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.
Tue, 2016-11-01 21:09
#36
Try talking about those allegations somewhere that isn't a safe spaceI would agree that Breitbart isn't a safe space.
Anyhoo, the clock's ticking, Cody. You have less than seven days left now to help Make America Great Again. You really want to spend it trying to convince Canadians who can't even vote?
So, what you're saying is, people need to go to Breitbart to hear a different opinion?
No wonder Breitbart has exploded in popularity this year.
Tue, 2016-11-01 21:13
#37
I thought Melania Trump was Slovenian. And as far as I know, a "white", not a Roma.
Tue, 2016-11-01 21:21
#38
Timebandit
Trump is probably the worst candidate to ever run for president in American history so it is makes sense that the media, even the pro-Republican media, have not endorsed him. Why should the media support a racist, sexist, classist, narcissistic no-nothing?
If Trump was president he would give huge tax cuts to the very rich and to corporations that would lead to uncontrollable deficits and debt. Would that be good? He would make huge cuts to universal health care. Would that be good? He would appoint right-wing judges that would favour the rich, corporations, and Christian fundamentalists. Would that be a good? He would propose building a huge wall on the Mexican border and renegotiating NAFTA and Congress would simply ignore him. Would that be good? He would contemplate using nuclear weapons to solve international problems. Would that be good? He would be prone to lashing out against any person, leader, or government he feels personally insulted by. Would that be good?
I can't imagine why anyone would have a bias against that, can you?
Tue, 2016-11-01 21:21
#39
Trump is probably the worst candidate to ever run for president in American history
Possibly second after Clinton. Depends on whether you think it's more likely that Trump will build camps or Clinton will start a war with Russia.
so it is makes sense that the media, even the pro-Republican media, have not endorsed him. Why should the media support a racist, sexist, classist, narcissistic no nothing?
Classist? Are you serious? Trump is the classist?
By the way, he's not stupid either.
Oh, and if he wins, he'll be the first president with a foreign born spouse. So, he might be racist, but he's not that racist. If he's really racist, then he's really bad at being really racist.
If Trump was president he would give huge tax cuts to the very rich and to corporations that would lead to uncontrollable deficits and debt. Would that be good? He would make huge cuts to universal health care. Would that be good? He would appoint right-wing judges that would favour the rich, corporations, and Christian fundamentalists. Would that be a good? He would propose building a huge wall on the Mexican border and renegotiating NAFTA and Congress would simply ignore him. Would that be good? He would contemplate using nuclear weapons to solve international problems. Would that be good? He would be prone to lashing out against any person, leader, or government he feels personally insulted by. Would that be good?
Faced with such a dangerous opponent, I would make sure that my party nominated the candidate most likely to win against such a threat.
Tue, 2016-11-01 21:23
#40
Timebandit
I thought Melania Trump was Slovenian. And as far as I know, a "white", not a Roma.
Yeah, she's a blue-eyed white woman. More nonsense.
Tue, 2016-11-01 21:32
#41
I can't imagine why anyone would have a bias against that, can you?Trump is probably the worst candidate to ever run for president in American history so it is makes sense that the media, even the pro-Republican media, have not endorsed him. Why should the media support a racist, sexist, classist, narcissistic no-nothing?
If Trump was president he would give huge tax cuts to the very rich and to corporations that would lead to uncontrollable deficits and debt. Would that be good? He would make huge cuts to universal health care. Would that be good? He would appoint right-wing judges that would favour the rich, corporations, and Christian fundamentalists. Would that be a good? He would propose building a huge wall on the Mexican border and renegotiating NAFTA and Congress would simply ignore him. Would that be good? He would contemplate using nuclear weapons to solve international problems. Would that be good? He would be prone to lashing out against any person, leader, or government he feels personally insulted by. Would that be good?
Moving the goalpost. The discussion isn't should the media be biased against Trump. It's about whether it is or not.
Although they shouldn't, if only because it's counterproductive.
But if Trump is as bad as all that, they shouldn't need to be biased, the facts should speak for themselves. That Trump is that bad and they still need to tilt things in Clinton's favour says a lot about Clinton.
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.
Tue, 2016-11-01 21:35
#42
Trump is probably the worst candidate to ever run for president in American history
Possibly second after Clinton. Depends on whether you think it's more likely that Trump will build camps or Clinton will start a war with Russia.
The right has done an amazing job vilifying Clinton but I think Clinton is just another run-of-the-mill Democratic presidential candidate, the same as people like her husband Bill Clinton, and also like Gore, Kerry, and Obama. These Democrats all support similar kinds of policies. So a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the status quo. On the other hand a vote for Donald Trump is a vote for white nationalism that will inevitably end in failure. That's why even Republicans oppose Trump.
Tue, 2016-11-01 21:43
#43
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??
Tue, 2016-11-01 21:43
#44
Trump is probably the worst candidate to ever run for president in American history
Possibly second after Clinton. Depends on whether you think it's more likely that Trump will build camps or Clinton will start a war with Russia.
The right has done an amazing job vilifying Clinton but I think Clinton is just another run-of-the-mill Democratic presidential candidate, the same as people like her husband Bill Clinton, and also like Gore, Kerry, and Obama. These Democrats all support similar kinds of policies. So a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the status quo. On the other hand a vote for Donald Trump is a vote for white nationalism that will inevitably end in failure. That's why even Republicans oppose Trump.
Funny, all my life I've been told Republicans are closet racists. Even Ben Carson. Now they oppose Trump because Trump is a white nationalist.
I'm having a bit of trouble squaring these beliefs.
Tue, 2016-11-01 21:47
#45
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.
Tue, 2016-11-01 21:47
#46
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.
Tue, 2016-11-01 21:48
#47
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?
Tue, 2016-11-01 21:50
#48
Swing states.
Tue, 2016-11-01 21:52
#49
Again: Huge hullabaloo over email issue that has been hashed and rehashed vs a bare mention that the other candidate allegedly RAPED A CHILD. I think you've got it backwards, dude.Try talking about those allegations somewhere that isn't a safe space and watch how fast they get discredited.
Well that might be news to the judge in the case:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-eps...
As for "safe spaces" I'd say I have run into more pro-Trump and anti-Hillary rhetoric here on rabble than any of the other places I hang out. I know a couple of guys on Facebook who have put their 9-11 ravings on hold to post endless crap in favour of him and against her. But they mostly keep to themselves and have for the most part held off on trolling.
Tue, 2016-11-01 22:21
#50
Again: Huge hullabaloo over email issue that has been hashed and rehashed vs a bare mention that the other candidate allegedly RAPED A CHILD. I think you've got it backwards, dude.Try talking about those allegations somewhere that isn't a safe space and watch how fast they get discredited.
Well that might be news to the judge in the case:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-eps...
As for "safe spaces" I'd say I have run into more pro-Trump and anti-Hillary rhetoric here on rabble than any of the other places I hang out. I know a couple of guys on Facebook who have put their 9-11 ravings on hold to post endless crap in favour of him and against her. But they mostly keep to themselves and have for the most part held off on trolling.
A Guardian investigation this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for “Jane Doe” also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag.
Again, I'm not going to argue about the veracity of these claims in a space where there is likely to be persons who have been legitimate victims.
Tue, 2016-11-01 22:44
#51
Trump is probably the worst candidate to ever run for president in American history
Possibly second after Clinton. Depends on whether you think it's more likely that Trump will build camps or Clinton will start a war with Russia.
The right has done an amazing job vilifying Clinton but I think Clinton is just another run-of-the-mill Democratic presidential candidate, the same as people like her husband Bill Clinton, and also like Gore, Kerry, and Obama. These Democrats all support similar kinds of policies. So a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the status quo. On the other hand a vote for Donald Trump is a vote for white nationalism that will inevitably end in failure. That's why even Republicans oppose Trump.
Funny, all my life I've been told Republicans are closet racists. Even Ben Carson. Now they oppose Trump because Trump is a white nationalist.
I'm having a bit of trouble squaring these beliefs.
I think many Republicans just can't abide Trump's exceedingly immoral and unethical behavior. Many also probably worry that he could end up severely damaging their party.