Sick of media imbalance wrt hillary vs. trump negative stories?

there is no stronger political myth than that of the ‘‘liberal media’’

story after story, book after book has been written on the subject. one of the best was Mark Hertsgaard’s On Bended Knee, about the supine, enabling media response to one of the most corrupt regimes in US history.

obviously there are large numbers of ill-informed news consumers who disagree with this pov, but here’s a particularly egregious, and current, example of the insanely uneven coverage given to the Hillary faux scandals, vs. the past and current Trump malfeasance that gives rise to the notion that those who think that the media are in her corner are living in a benighted, alternate reality:

How Much Did Cable News Cover Trump’s ‘Pay to Play’ vs. Clinton Foundation Story?

CNN, MSNBC, FOX: 644 mentions in a transcript search of Clinton Foundation scandals

the same network coverage of Trump’s coincidental donation to Florida AG Bondi, and her subsequent dropping of the Trump U investigation: 11, including guess how many mentions on Fox

this disparity has been going on for decades, despite constant statistical evidence that shows the megacorp owned mainstream media has always covered the republicans in a much more favorable light, including the duration of the Iran Contra scandal. Just ask Dan Bonner or Robert Parry.

But I digress. If it turns your stomach to see the likes of Boris Epshteyn, or Trump himself, whine and piss themselves about the ‘‘slanted’’ coverage they get, when the truth of the matter is more than clear to anyone who lives outside the Oort Cloud of right wing propaganda, here’s a simple way to help the media realize that there are those who appreciate equal coverage of all aspects of the political circus, currently disguised as the sequel to the Donald Trump ‘Reality’ Adventure:

the site title above says it all…just go there and click the links provided. you don’t even have to read any of the stories. the act of clicking the link tells the “news” providers all they need to know…that somebody is out there, consuming their product. that’s all it boils down to anymore

THe media is liberal but it doesn’t explain everything. When it comes to candidate coverage, the media tends to reward the more open candidate and pillory the candidate who doesn’t give them as much access. So there’s no question who they are more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to, and I think it’s as far a metric as any. Any candidate who avoids the press has something to hide and the media is going to find out what it is.

Trump has just as much to hide, but he distracts the media by being willing to talk about anything, anytime, and generates headlines with his mouth. That tends to keep the media off the scent of the more serious stuff.

Clinton can get the media back on her side by being as available as John McCain was during his primary campaigns. McCain did start to clam up a little in late 2008, but that had more to do with Palin than with McCain suddenly being scared of the media. Clinton doesn’t have to worry about that, she has Tim Kaine. So start having them on the bus and plane, just discourse on any subject with reporters, hold court on the bus, that sort of thing. Answer all questions directly. Fix her problem in a heartbeat.

from the KOS story, a list of contacts, if you feel moved to get in touch with the formerly inkstained wretches who control the bulk of the liberal media: let them know what you think. it hasn’t mattered much in the past, but if you care enough not to want to see the Enabling Act 2.0 put into place next year, you might give some thought to let them know that WE know the imbalance in coverage favoring Trump is unacceptable, to say the least.
*
ETA by Jonathan Chance: I’m going to rule that the bulk of this post crosses the rule against "This message board is intended as a medium for public discussion. Do not post spam, including but not limited to advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, solicitations, offers to trade or barter, charitable appeals, or other messages primarily intended to promote a cause, venture, organization, event (except Straight Dope-related events), website, or other entity or activity, whether or not money is involved. " I have therefore edited it.*

, etc.

wow…thanks for making my point about alternate realities

remind me, please, who was it that didn’t allow any media bumpkins on his plane til immediately after Hillary did?

hope to see some other responses, but I must hit the hay

thanks for your answer, though, adaher

Yeah, cough cough Matt Lauer.
MSNBC started to bring this up in silent apology perhaps for their colleague screwing the pooch big time - which I suppose they can’t admit on the air.

A reason to contemplate doing something else this election season.

How many times did Trump have to testify before Congress for “Pay to Play”?

It’s hard to think of a single day when some negative story about Trump wasn’t in the news. I don’t see where it makes any sense to compare two individual news stories and ask which one gets more coverage. Who gets more coverage, overall, of negative items? I haven’t counted, but do you honestly think it isn’t Trump?

Wasn’t Trump in the primaries.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if this trend had continued.

I agree.

The problem is not media failure to bring the negative to Trump.

The problem is that in dashing Dunning-Kroger style, Trump simply dismisses anything negative. He doesn’t address or acknowledge it.

The Today Show the morning after led with a long report on how Trump really had supported the Iraq invasion - doing the job their guy should have done live.

*More *of this “both parties do it” stuff, dude? Srsly?

Do you honestly think negative reporting has been in proportion to the facts?

At least part of the problem is that the media, like most everyone else, believes Clinton is going to win. And since they see themselves in the grand tradition of investigative watch-dogs, they think there is more value and dignity in ferreting out whether Secretary Clinton met with a Nobel Prize-winning economist because he donated money to the Clinton Foundation, than there is dignity and value in reporting about whether Trump bribed Pam Bondi not to prosecute him.

Well, he didn’t! He simply recognized her superb legal abilities when no one else had! His perception was acute and correct, she saw the legal flaws in any possible indictment, as he knew she would! It was recognition for a job well done before the job was done!

It seems to me that the press pays more attention to the crazy things Trump says and not enough to any scandal stuff he might have done.

The media does call out Trump, every day. It’s just that since his mouth is such a story there isn’t really media space for anything else. Simple gaffes will always beat complex stories.

That being said, Florida media has been all over Bondi, whose career is pretty much over assuming voters here have a lick of sense.

Uh. Well, yeah. OK.

Not the best assumption, there.

Different things get called out in different ways by different media outlets. People donating to the Clinton Foundation and then meeting with the Secretary of State got days of coverage across many outlets. I’ve seen the Bondi thing far less on national coverage, even though it is objectively more suspicious.

The Matt Lauer interviews are another great example of this. Even the questions for Clinton were leading and negative, while they were more neutral and open for Trump.

What explains that other than a desire to be harder on Hillary?

Which gets to my other point, which is that you build goodwill with the media by being open to them, and hostility when you won’t talk to them. While the media is generally liberal, they’ve always been a bit hostile to the Clintons and the feelings are quite mutual. Obama and Sanders also benefitted by comparison. Why should it be surprising that Trump should also benefit?

Trump blacklists reporters who say critical things about him. He won’t even disclose his taxes. You can’t be serious.

I’m sure those reporters are rather pissed off about that. He still talks to more of them and has a better relationship with them than Clinton. His cultivation of the media has been much more skillful than Clinton’s, who has regarded them as an adversary. Trump may regard some reporters are adversaries, but Clinton regards the media as an institution as her enemy.