We also have media sources like tv channels or newspapers that cover the candidate.
One media source is against that person and often lies, uses half truths, and definitely has a slant against that candidate.
Another media source LOVES the candidate. Every report about them is glowing and they will cover up anything negative that they find and will even lie about them.
In both cases people watching them usually pick up on the slant pretty quick. The slant will probably not affect supporters or opponents but what would be the effect on those in the middle?
So what I’m asking is could a media source that shows a supportive bias do just as much harm as one that doesnt?
Lying is lying, including lying by omission. An informed voter will have morvthan one source of news to cross check.
(Did you have examples in mind? I can think of only one major news outlet which acts as in your hypothetical, actively lying about its preferred leader’s opponents while ignoring its preferred leader’s crimes. )
It depends on which part of the population the base of candidate in question belongs to. Here in the US a Republican candidate would benefit while a Democratic candidate wouldn’t. Why? Because as a whole the Republican base prefers to hear favorable lies and doesn’t want to hear the unfavorable truth. The Democratic base is the opposite. This doesn’t necessarily apply to every single individual, but if it his trait was present equally on both sides the Democrats would have their version of Fox News and conservative “news” people who care more about biased and outright false favorable news than they do about the truth (Hannity, Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Michelle Malkin, Alex Jones, Ann Coulter, Breitbart, Bill O’reilly, Tucker Carlson, etc.). Those names are just off the top of my head. I can’t think of a single person who I would say is a member of the “liberal” (meaning they present news in a false manner favorable to the left) media, despite what Trump and his base might proclaim otherwise. Why can’t I think of such a journalist? Because if they exist they’re on some no name YouTube channel or Facebook page with maybe a few hundred followers. They’re not at CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, 538, or any other serious news outfit that I can think of.
LOL. Fox News is a cancer and done a million times more damage to this country than any other modern force.
I guess you could argue that their damage is mostly done by their negative coverage of Democrats instead of positive coverage of Republicans, but that’s splitting hairs.
So a neutral voter is reading about a moderately flawed candidate they’re unfamiliar with, and the flaw isn’t related to one of the voter’s hot-button issues? I think the biggest factor is going to be the piece of media that the voter views first. Whichever item creates the first impression is probably going to be the most influential, as it’s easier to establish an opinion than to change one. Beyond that, I think that people will expect a regression to the mean to indicate where the truth is. So the voter will probably assume that the politician is better than as described in the article that’s excoriating him, and worse than as described in the article that’s lauding him. I think most people are generally skeptical about political candidates, so the regression to the mean away from the positive article will have the stronger effect. An overly negative article about a political candidate generates an opinion like “What else would you expect? They can’t be that bad.” An overly positive article creates a view of “What a load of bullshit. They must be worse than I thought.” So my opinion is that yes, a media source that shows a supportive bias can do just as much, or more, harm as one that doesn’t.
Absolutely. The Huffington Post is every bit as bad as FoxNews in terms of how they spin things. Even the headlines give me - former political reporter - the heebie jeebies. No one who works there can consider themselves non-biased.
As someone mentioned, it depends on the candidate’s party affiliation because the mindset of voters is completely different. An obviously biased, supportive media source for a progressive politician is bad, for someone like Trump it’s good.
In terms of people I cant give any names but I’d say CNN and MSNBC support Hillary quite a bit.
And although I know its not “the media” look at how Saturday Night Live and the people on the late night talk shows barely touch her. Oh their might be a tiny joke but never enough to draw blood.
On one hand you have a twice-divorced reality show host with a ridiculous hairpiece and bad fake-tan, known for bankruptcies, wrestling cameos, and squabbles with Rosie O’ Donnell, hawking steaks and get-rich-quick scams, whose entry into politics involved leveling racially-charged birth certificate conspiracy theories at the (then)current elected president right before riding a golden escalator down to his own presidential bid.
On the other hand you have a former US senator, secretary of state, and first lady.
You’re a serious news outlet. Are you obligated to treat each candidate with equal positive/negative coverage?
You’re a late night comedy show, filled with a whole bunch of writers age 25-35, with known target demographics that skew younger/liberal. Are you obligated to make fun of both candidates equally?
For sure it can be. I mean, the most supportive, positive-sounding news sources are generally those in despotic regimes, like North Korea. If it’s all sunshine and daisies, it’s an all-but-certain sign that there’s important, bad stuff being omitted.
But respond to the OP’s question: How do you think this affects the candidates (or more to the point, the potential voters for those candidates) who are being thus spun?
(And have you seen the incendiary headlines at Raw Story?)