Sure, but the point is
[list=A][li]The overwhelming slant towards liberalism among the MSM has been going on for decades before Trump, and[/li][li]That same overwhelming slant puts them out of touch with the voters that elected Trump.[/list]You are making a mistake if you think the anti-conservative, anti-Republican bias in the MSM is limited only to Trump Derangement Syndrome.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
I know this is the common claim from conservatives but do you have any evidence for this?
And please note that Hollywood movie stars opining on politics are not the media.
Besides what Whack-a-Mole said, I have to add here that based on what almost all conservative newspaper editors told us, the Derangement Syndrome is happening with many out of touch with reality voters that did go for Trump.
Please do not mistake entirely justifiable contempt for being “out of touch” or “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (a three-word phrase up there with “Beta Cuck Soyboy” and “Social Justice Warrior” in saying far more about the person saying it than about whoever the invective is aimed at).
And if you wanna make the case based on 2012, feel free. But Trump is not normal in any sense of the word. There were newspapers who endorsed Romney. Almost all of them refused to endorse Trump. That’s not because of liberal bias.
People say that in an attempt to detract from real ailments. Watch some YouTube and you’ll see TDS is legit.
OK, we are far off-topic now…
Sure, I can give you some cites to deny.[list=A][li]The slant among reporters has been going on for decades, and[/li][li]That put them out of touch with the voters who elected Trump is shown by their horrified surprise when Hilary lost. That the result came as a surprise to the insular MSM seems a bit more than obvious. [/list][/li]
I suppose I should have learned from the FoxNews thread still going on in GD that the standards of evidence for liberal media bias are very much different from those proving FoxNews bias, but what the hey - I am an incurable optimist.
Regards,
Shodan
Red herring, considering that we are talking about mainstream media and not nuts out there.
My parents owned newspapers. Since they started with exactly nothing, they wore all the hats at first – reporter, editor, proofreader, ad rep, publisher. I grew up with the smell of printers’ ink in my nose. I worked for them as a teenager and later at other papers and magazines.
It is a truism that reporters are romantic cynics, editors are cautious liberals, and publishers are conservative.Probably still holds true more or less. What makes papers go is not readership, but advertising. But advertisers naturally want to see the circulation data, so there’s a built-in feedback loop. Publishers, traditionally anyway, are supposed to let editors make the day to day decisions; otherwise the editors couldn’t do their jobs. Editors are usually drawn from the ranks of experienced reporters.
Fox News is is an anomalous propaganda machine funded by reactionary-right multi-billionaires, with a well-burnished façade of journalism laid over it. It’s not a conservative media outlet, it is something quite different. You can’t compare it with anything but other propaganda outlets, such as those in nations where the government has control over the media. Positing that Fox is on the right and MSNBC is on the left is one of those false equivalencies beloved of the right, like saying there are rightwing facts and leftwing facts.
Journalism has, believe it or not, an ethical and moral code. That’s why romantics get into reporting. The idea that the public should be informed of the real truths that someone in power doesn’t want them to know is a fundamental motivation in journalism. Of course that’s always going to be a dirty business. Bureaucrats and business owners (advertisers!) often have a vested interest in media silence. The press is itself a business and is subject to pressures of many kinds. But actual conservative papers like the Wall St. Journal also adhere to this ethical code, which contains such imperatives as No Making Shit Up, Get the Facts Straight, Let the Reader Decide, and stuff like that.
Actually you ignore what others posted, and you also ignore that you did not reply to that also, letting the points stand.
For starters, there was no denial about what reporters say on a survey: the point was though that there is less evidence of the position of the reporters bias showing in the mainstream media. Overall what I have seen is that regardless of their politics they are more professional than you believe, **but that makes them fall for false equivalencies often. **
And Hillary won the popular vote, what I see from many bloviators on the internet is to ignore that bit so as to ignore how complex this is and that simple conclusions are not really based on reality.
Except that the New York Times, Salon.com, Politico, etc. have also described MSNBC as left-leaning.
MSNBC controversies - Wikipedia
Yes, and that still does not make it in any way equivalent to a republican propaganda outlet.
Glad you noticed that, because one very good example about what **Ulfreida **was referring to was the endless Benghazi investigations.
Never-mind that they were in big part started and continued to run for political reasons. On the ‘FOX is really bad’ thread I was amused on how a right wing outfit made a graph showing how many times MSNBC reported on the Benghazi investigations, and it showed how little (but they did cover it) MSNBC did report on it compared to the wall to wall coverage FOX did about Benghazi.
Based on the fact that no wrongdoing by Clinton but inefficiencies and other issues from the military were found, it is clear that MSNBC did the reasonable thing and gave the proper coverage to Benghazi, while FOX and other right wing outfits beat the drum constantly for propaganda reasons.
I can think of a myriad of reasons why the media would dislike Trump, probably some of the same reasons I do.
What I have a hard time believing is that given their dislike of Trump for reasons both fair and unfair that they are then able to put aside their dislike and cover him objectively. They were not able to do so for Mitt Romney and he was the opposite of Trump in personality and behavior. Social psychology shows us that when a group of people who all feel the same way get together without dissenters their views become more extreme. Why should journalists be immune to this?
This has been going on for years. A poll found that in 1992 89% of journalists in DC voted for Bill Clinton. 7% voted for George HW Bush who was as nice and polite as Trump is rude and vulgar. In the middle of that campaign there was a story about Bush being mystified by a supermarket scanner that was completely made up.
Fortunately not every news organization is entirely influenced by their backers. I was very concerned when Bezos bought the post, but we relieved to discover that the only change that I saw was that when the Post said something bad about Amazon(just as likely to be bad as good) they would add the disclaimer that Bezos owns both Amazon and the Washington Post.
The same for NPR, which frequently reports one or anther scandal with the tag line, “[object of scandal] is an underwriter for NPR”
Again, they are not immune, but they are more professional than you think and weary about the ones that are buttering their toast.
And this was already replied many times before. I can only see a lot of projection from many right wing sources. They are unwillingly letting many of their readers or viewers that they do think that other media is like FOX, but biased in the other direction, however the evidence shows that it is not like the gross propaganda and omissions that we get from FOX and other right wing outfits.
I’ve been pondering a question in this thread from a couple of days ago – as a former cub reporter at a small town daily decades ago – but this post answers things way better than I could have. The last paragraph is particularly good and I would only add that the profession is one that simply has little appeal to conservative types, discussions that we’ve had before on these boards, and questions for which conservatives usually don’t have very good answers.
I’m not sure why you’d need to put aside your dislike for someone in covering them objectively if the reasons you dislike them are objective facts. Like, here’s a raw fact: Trump lies orders of magnitude more often than any politician in recorded history. This is both true and a very good reason to hate him if you care about the truth.
Do we have good evidence of broad media bias against Mitt Romney? If so, I must have missed it.
As others have pointed out, the “dissenters” here can be found among the editors and publishers. Hard to have “no dissenters” when the dissenters are literally the people signing your paychecks.
Oh come on. I’m willing to bet there was a similar split in 2000, when the main “made up story” was Al Gore talking about inventing the internet (which he didn’t say, and which was blown way out of proportion given the role he did play in the creation of the internet).
I wonder how the split was in 2004, when Kerry lost in no small part because of an entirely fabricated smear campaign, the swift boaters.
And what were the big stories of 2016? Well, on Trump’s end there was extensive coverage of his many, many, many scandals… But on Clinton’s end, the media spent more time on her stupid fucking emails than on all policy issues combined.
Why yes, sometimes the media fucks up. It does so in both directions, as it turns out - except for Fox News, because Fox News is only ever working in one direction, and so can only ever fuck up in that direction.
You need to put aside your hatred of someone you are covering in order to be objective which is the point of journalism.
The dissenters are not editors and publishers. Editors are generally as liberal as journalists or more. Publishers do not control what journalists write and are not dissenters in any meaningful way.
The Kerry issue was raised by a group of Vietnam Veterans who bought ads against him. The media tried to cover for him as much as possible. In contrast when a forger made up a story about George Bush’s time in the National Guard, CBS news covered it with barely any fact checking. That is how bias works, when a story makes a democrat look bad they examine it with a jewelers loop looking for inconsistencies and when a story make a republican look bad they can’t publish it fast enough.
Liberals hate Fox News because their bias is obvious because it runs counter to their own biases. Similarly conservatives notice the bias of the rest of the press because it runs counter to our own biases.
Almost every word here is painfully wrong but I honestly just do not have the energy to go over the swift boat smear campaign or the firing of Dan Rather again. At this point it’s like debunking the “magic bullet” JFK conspiracy.