Did the MSM's pro-hillary bias get Trump elected?

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House Did the MSM's pro-hillary bias get Trump elected?

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #59231
    wv
    Participant

    ======================
    link:https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/22/election-2016-donald-trump-media-coverage
    Trump v the media: did his tactics mortally wound the fourth estate?

    “…..see link….since Trump’s victory, another theory has been aired increasingly by right-of-center pundits such as Howard Kurtz of Fox News that flips the argument that the media did too little too late to expose Trump on its head. In this iteration, major outlets did too much, were too eager to go after him. The editor of the Wall Street Journal, Gerard Baker, tells CJR that “some reporters saw it as their role to stop this man from becoming president, they put themselves in the role of partisans”.
    Advertisement

    It fell to Piers Morgan of Mail Online, as it often does, to put the case most stridently: “The NYT’s ludicrously biased anti-Trump barrage of bile helped him get elected.”

    “That’s ridiculous,” ripostes the Times’ Dean Baquet…..

    …..Of all the mainstream media bashing that has been unleashed since 8 November, one source of it stands head and shoulders above the rest: Donald Trump himself. Which is not surprising, given his track record during the campaign.

    Reporters deemed to be producing unfavourable copy were punished by Trump: Jorge Ramos was ejected from a press conference after the Univision anchor dared to ask an awkward question; Coppins was turned away from Trump rallies as comeuppance for his caustic 2014 profile; a lengthening list of other media outlets were banned by the campaign; individual journalists were targeted for bullying, such as NBC News’s Katy Tur; supporters at campaign stops were enabled to turn in anger against camera operators just doing their jobs, screaming: “CNN sucks! CNN sucks! CNN sucks!”

    Since Trump’s metamorphosis into president-elect, the tendency to target the media has only got worse. Now he routinely gives the press pool the slip, showing contempt for both transparency and tradition. Back on his Android phone, Trump is on the “failing” New York Times warpath, displaying a sort of frenzied disdain that hardly bodes well for the relationship between soon-to-be president and the country’s paper of record.

    “I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” says Baquet, who as former editor of the Los Angeles Times and Washington bureau chief of the Times has seen more than most. “I don’t think we’ve ever had a president-elect tweeting about us, that’s for sure.”

    As 20 January 2017 and the start of his presidency bears down upon us, much of the media will enter the Trump era carrying with them a profound sense of trepidation….see link…”

    • This topic was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by wv.
    #59233
    — X —
    Participant

    I think it played a pretty significant part. For YEARS, most of America has been begging for an election (any political election) to consist of *only* debates on the issues and discussions of political views. Killary poured millions upon million into negative ads against Trump, and her campaign was pretty much only about how shitty Trump would be as President versus how she could offer any substantive change over the status quo. That was CLEARLY aided by the MSM’s constant pounding of anything and everything Trump said, anything and everything Hillary said against him, and anything and everything associated with the shady characters who supported Trump.

    Her shady dealings with the Clinton Foundation, her intentional breach of National security laws, and her pay-to-play dealings as Secretary of State got nothing more than a cursory mention on MSM outlets. Fox News was the only outlet to cover that stuff in-depth (showing how much air-time it got versus negatives against Trump), but we all know the reason behind that. Still though, it was very, very obvious that the MSM was in the bag for Killary. Anyone with half of a functioning brain could see it, and lots of polls substantiated that claim.

    But I say it played a part, because I don’t think that’s why she lost. She lost because she pretended she was winning from day one. Also, she didn’t take advantage of ANY of the opportunities presented to her to speak to right-wing pundits or journalists. She rejected an invitation to appear on FOX several times, rejected an opportunity to sit down with Hugh Hewitt (who would have been extremely fair to her), and rejected opportunities to have press conferences that weren’t just intimate settings on her private plane. If you wanna win the Electoral College, you have to do those things, and you have to do them often. You have to go out and talk to people and make appearances. She didn’t feel like it, apparently, because she felt she didn’t need to. Like I said, she thought she had it in the bag from the minute Trump became the nominee. All she had to do was crack on Trump all the time and that would prove to be enough.

    Except, no.

    You have to be odd, to be number one.
    -- Dr Seuss

    #59236
    wv
    Participant

    I Still though, it was very, very obvious that the MSM was in the bag for Killary…. and lots of polls substantiated that claim.
    But I say it played a part, because I don’t think that’s why she lost.

    —————-
    Well i agree with the part i quoted there ^.

    Yeah, i think the nonrightwing MSM was in the bag for The Hillary. It was obvious to me. I’d never seen anything quite like it before. I was used to a more ‘subtle’ pro-dem bias, but the pro-Hillary/anti-Trump bias on NPR, the NYTimes and the other places i read/watched were way beyond ‘subtle’.

    Just my opinion.

    I cant sum up why she lost though. It was a lot of things, and I dont think i know all the reasons. I know one reason was her pro-goldman-sachs/pro-Corporation/pro-war/fuck-the-poor-policies.
    I wish that was the only reason, but I’m sure there were other reasons.

    w
    v

    #59246
    bnw
    Blocked

    Hildabeast lost because she is a lying traitorous self enriching hypocrite who has zero appeal to people because she doesn’t like people. She likes her voters. Huge difference. She outspent Trump by 10 times, by 20 times? No amount of money spent could wipe away the insider swamp stench that permeates her being. Her flagrant disregard for the law and the safety of government workers goes way back. She was the original Brian Williams sans consequences until the night of November 8th.

    Yes the MSM outrageous anti-Trump coverage helped Trump. However Trump’s calling out the MSM at every event across this nation for months helped him more. He brought the public’s record high disdain for the press out of the normal passive acquiescence to an active protest in which the thousands at his events could participate. Trump took the supposed strength of the MSM and turned it against them and they’re too stupid to realize he’s been doing it against them since election day too. He will take his message directly to the people as president and the MSM will still be incapable of stopping him.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    #59255
    wv
    Participant

    … Trump took the supposed strength of the MSM and turned it against them and they’re too stupid to realize he’s been doing it against them since election day too. He will take his message directly to the people as president and the MSM will still be incapable of stopping him.

    —————–
    Well stepping aside from his policies which you know I loathe,
    I suspect, and its only a gut-intuition thing…but i suspect his arrogance/cockyness/narcissism/ego is what is going to be his undoing. I suspect his own weaknesses will bring him down. So, i agree, it wont be the MSM.

    Who knows though. All I can do is watch from my front porch.

    w
    v

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.