Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Jul 2017, 7:02 am

Ray Jay wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:I love Senator Sasse.

CNN? Unwatchable. If I want non-stop Trump-bashing, I can go to the Facebook feed of my liberal friends.


Yes.

That's what most people do ... they have 2 billion users. How many people use CNN?


Few, which is sad.

I was hoping for an analytical outlet to save me from Fox (23 hours a day, the Bret Baier show is fine) and MSNBC. So, CNN turned into "the world's least-trusted source for news?"

Bummer.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Jul 2017, 10:25 am

I have to laugh that Fox has gotten so bad...so much a shill for Trump that even DF can't watch it. Sometimes I'll glance over at Fox News at the gym just to see their headlines which are so skewed that they are amusing

I don't really watch CNN so I can't give an assessment of how fair or not they are. I will say this: doing stories on Trump has become a big business for the media--there is a lot of money to be made from it. Any time you get those kinds of financial pressures to keep finding new content...it can have a distorting effect. But I thought under liberal capitalism with massive profit-driven conglomerates owning major news outlets that news was just another commodity to be manipulated for maximum profit? I don't think that is what we want news to be though--just another commodity.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Jul 2017, 11:13 am

freeman3 wrote:I have to laugh that Fox has gotten so bad...so much a shill for Trump that even DF can't watch it.


Because I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Trump supporter.

However, this should bother anyone who cares about the US:

How negative was press coverage of President Trump's first 100 days in office? Far more than that of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, according to a new report from the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.

The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump's initial time in office. They found, to no one's surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative — 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.

The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.

Accusations of bias aside, it's simply a fact that a number of negative things happened in Trump's opening 100 days. The Russia investigation, for example, was a source of endless criticism from Democrats and other Trump opponents. The travel ban executive order led to intense argument and losses for the administration in the courts. The healthcare debacle created more negative coverage because it was a major screwup and a setback for both Trump and House Republicans.

That said, the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.


The media is so hysterical that it is bad for our country, imnsho.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6593
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 05 Jul 2017, 11:51 am

Hopefully Europe's porous borders are still porous enough for DF to get to Oxford. :angel:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Jul 2017, 11:58 am

bbauska wrote:Hopefully Europe's porous borders are still porous enough for DF to get to Oxford. :angel:


For insurance purposes, I'm taking my wife.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Jul 2017, 12:09 pm

Maybe Trump is just sui generis bad. The Wall Street Journal is a right-wing publication and it has 70 percent negatives news. Even Fox--which at times is like a mouthpiece for Trump--was 52 percent negative.

The reality he has been incredibly bad. Unbelievably bad. What positive thing has he done that he should be credit for? When he does something that people think is good--like the response to Syria's use of chemical weapons--he gets credit for it.

If Trump wants better press coverage...be a better president. Let the Russia investigation play out, focus on getting something done legislatively, and stop with the stupid tweets all of the time.

Presidency by insult doesn't work. During the campaign the media helped him with free coverage and his insults of other candidates did not cost him. Remember, CNN was like an ally back then. Now the incentive is for the media to focus negatively on his tweets when he crosses the line (which is friggin' almost always).

The press is not easy on presidents, your link says Bill Clinton and GWBush got 60 percent negative coverage early in office. I am going to be shocked then that Trump got 80 percent negative coverage?

The press is fine; the president isn't.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Jul 2017, 2:05 pm

freeman3 wrote:Maybe Trump is just sui generis bad. The Wall Street Journal is a right-wing publication and it has 70 percent negatives news. Even Fox--which at times is like a mouthpiece for Trump--was 52 percent negative.

The reality he has been incredibly bad. Unbelievably bad. What positive thing has he done that he should be credit for? When he does something that people think is good--like the response to Syria's use of chemical weapons--he gets credit for it.

If Trump wants better press coverage...be a better president. Let the Russia investigation play out, focus on getting something done legislatively, and stop with the stupid tweets all of the time.

Presidency by insult doesn't work. During the campaign the media helped him with free coverage and his insults of other candidates did not cost him. Remember, CNN was like an ally back then. Now the incentive is for the media to focus negatively on his tweets when he crosses the line (which is friggin' almost always).

The press is not easy on presidents, your link says Bill Clinton and GWBush got 60 percent negative coverage early in office. I am going to be shocked then that Trump got 80 percent negative coverage?

The press is fine; the president isn't.


The problem I have is "all attack, all the time" doesn't help. He is doing things besides tweeting. The VA revamp appears to be good, for example.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Jul 2017, 2:06 pm

Fair point.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Jul 2017, 11:14 am

df
He is doing things besides tweeting.


If he wasn't tweeting all the time, maybe other things might gain attention.
He is his own worst enemy.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 20 Jul 2017, 8:31 pm

Freeman

The press is fine; the president isn't


The American Press is far from "fine." In fact, some would say they have never been so deep in a crisis of legitimacy as they are now.

Trump? He is rudderless on a sea of himself.