# "The media gave Trump $2 billion of free attention" - what was the alternative? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 18, 2017, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996 "2017-08-18T18:08:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/21 "2017-08-22T19:02:19Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > It’s not the media’s job to select the president. It’s not the media’s job to select the president, but it’s the media’s job to figure out whether one of their key news contributors and commentators is full of shit, and if they find that he is, it’s their job to keep him from using them as a platform to spread propaganda. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/22 "2017-08-22T19:09:36Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > This [bar chart](https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029497770) speaks volumes. The phony email “scandal” was covered significantly more than any other topic in the campaign. Sticking with Donald even as he peddled steaks was just one of many low points, switching from Hillary and/or Bernie’s speech/event to show a podium awaiting Cheeto was another. To be fair, it’s likely that the breakout of attention had more to do with whatever drove clicks rather than based on any sort of logic. To some extent, this is a fault of free speech and a free market. It’s the same as our national diet, slowly everything that isn’t a macronutrient is going away in our food, and our portion sizes are increasing. It’s just what people want and the companies who provide it will be rewarded and those who don’t will be punished. Having the media serve as an integral part of the process is not good for good governance. And having the other side of the equation, the electoral college, be the playtoy of the parties doesn’t do enough to balance the equation. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/23 "2017-08-22T19:51:21Z")
The media didn’t have the traditional horse race to cover in the Republican primary season with so many candidates. Still, they could have focused more on the narrowness of the Trump plurality wins. They could have explained the uniqueness of the winner take all states which started to make Trump unstoppable as he added to his delegate count. On the Democratic side, they could have dropped the damn horse race narrative with Clinton and Bernie after Super Tuesday and certainly after New York. They could have explained the delegate allocation process and how Bernie’s wins in small delegate caucus states really didn’t mean much in the delegate count. ---
**Author:** ![Joanie\_Loves\_Trotsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Joanie\_Loves\_Trotsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joanie_Loves_Trotsky)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2017, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/24 "2017-08-23T17:25:31Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Lol. That’s not how the media business works. It’s about getting eyeballs to advertisers. That’s your answer, folks. The media just didn’t realize that the more press they gave him (even "bad’ press), the more power they gave him. There’s an old saying: “Any press is good press.” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2017, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/25 "2017-08-23T23:48:35Z")
At the risk of stating the obvious, what the media should have done is what Jon Stewart has been encouraging them to do for years: get serious and stop catering to the salacious and ridiculous. Stop covering it strictly as a horse race. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/26 "2017-08-27T05:19:14Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > NY Times finally grew a spine, what, about a month before the election? Said they were going to start calling bullshit, stop with the false equivalency. To be sure, IIRC, Paul Krugman had been calling for the Times (and the press in general) to be doing this for much longer. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/27 "2017-08-27T22:33:49Z")
The alternative is to just report on all the other candidates. Deliberately limit any mention of Trump to be inline with how much they talk about the other frontrunners. I do get why they reported on the awful things that Trump said, assuming it would get people to stop. But, when that clearly wasn’t working, the best choice would have been to pull back. But they thought he was a joke candidate who couldn’t win, so why not use him to get eyeballs and ad revenue? Now, of course, it’s too late. Reporting on how awful he is is extremely important. But there was an opportunity when they could have not done so. Is it one I would have recognized? No. But hindsight is 20/20. The main thing is to try and learn going forward, so this doesn’t happen again. Equal time. That’s all you need. Not more time because you are more outrageous. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/28 "2017-08-28T03:02:44Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The alternative is to just report on all the other candidates. Deliberately limit any mention of Trump to be inline with how much they talk about the other frontrunners. > > I do get why they reported on the awful things that Trump said, assuming it would get people to stop. But, when that clearly wasn’t working, the best choice would have been to pull back. > > But they thought he was a joke candidate who couldn’t win, so why not use him to get eyeballs and ad revenue? > > Now, of course, it’s too late. Reporting on how awful he is is extremely important. But there was an opportunity when they could have not done so. > > Is it one I would have recognized? No. But hindsight is 20/20. The main thing is to try and learn going forward, so this doesn’t happen again. > > Equal time. That’s all you need. Not more time because you are more outrageous. A lot of people here wanted Trump as the Republican candidate on the stated assumption he’d be easy to beat in the primary. I’m thinking the many in the press had the same thoughts. I was like be careful of what you wish for. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/29 "2017-08-28T04:58:07Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Lol. That’s not how the media business works. It’s about getting eyeballs to advertisers. This is correct … in post-rational America. But don’t forget that as recently as the late 20th century, TV news was treated as a “loss leader” serving community interest. Newspapers and magazines have often been founded or purchased to serve political agenda as much as for revenue. > [@octopus](#): > > It’s not the media’s job to select the president. 😕 In what fantasy world do you live in? Did Ronald Reagan get 44 million votes by personally walking precincts and knocking on 44 million doors? The “media,” especially in the general sense of the term, certainly DOES play a huge role in choosing the President. (Whether that is its “job” is a semantic issue of interest only to pedants.) And a large portion of the media, e.g. FoxNews, DID “do its job” — it wanted Trump elected and he was. Mainstream media sources supposedly operated by rationalists, to their enduring shame, failed to do their job. ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/30 "2017-08-28T14:12:26Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > A lot of people here wanted Trump as the Republican candidate on the stated assumption he’d be easy to beat in the primary. I’m thinking the many in the press had the same thoughts. I was like be careful of what you wish for. I would agree with this being a factor. People in the media “knew” that once it was all over, Hillary would be elected and Trump wouldn’t (I mean, he couldn’t win, how could he?). ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2017, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/31 "2017-08-30T06:39:38Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The “media,” especially in the general sense of the term, certainly DOES play a huge role in choosing the President. (Whether that is its “job” is a semantic issue of interest only to pedants.) And a large portion of the media, e.g. FoxNews, DID “do its job” — it wanted Trump elected and he was. > > Mainstream media sources supposedly operated by rationalists, to their enduring shame, failed to do their job. I just saw [a news-clip which discusses part of the problem.](http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2017/08/reporting-labour-media-170826131910246.html) A large portion of America is the working-class … but since the 1980’s _worker issues get little attention from the media_. Labor strikes are covered from the perspective of consumers denied service by the strike. TV time or newspaper space formerly spent covering labor is now spent covering financial markets. After a hard day’s work, a blue-collar worker might turn to TV news for information about why his wage is low, or whether workers are organizing. Instead he is presented with news about fluctuations in stock prices. _ **It is the mass media which has failed America so dramatically.** _ The election of Trump is just the tip of an iceberg of faulty trends in modern American media. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2017, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/32 "2017-08-30T15:57:42Z")
How much free attention did Clinton get? If it was anywhere near Trump, then the OP is a fail. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2017, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/33 "2017-08-30T16:34:10Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > How much free attention did Clinton get? If it was anywhere near Trump, then the OP is a fail. As I said in the OP, any major-party presidential candidate gets a lot of free publicity just by being one of the last two running for the world’s top job. But the post-Election Day griping of many folks was that 1) Trump was an \*unusually bad \*candidate, and 2) the media enabled him with the $2-5 billion in free publicity. Had it been a Jeb, a Huckabee, a Warren or Biden, nobody would be complaining about it from that angle, any more than they complained about Romney getting “free attention” in 2012 - or even if an unusual candidate like Bill Gates got elected - the complaint of these folks was that the media enabled Trump by lavishing him with all that free publicity. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2017, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/34 "2017-08-30T17:56:33Z")
I have seen this 2-5 billion dollar number thrown around but not been able to find any detailed analysis of the methodology used. Comparing media coverage with paid ads and putting a monetary number to the former sounds dubious. Much of this coverage of Trump particularly in the last few months was negative, at times overwhelmingly so. Trump was unique in that he attracted negative coverage not just from left-leaning pundits but often from right-leaning ones like George Will and David Brooks. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/35 "2017-08-30T18:18:50Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > I have seen this 2-5 billion dollar number thrown around but not been able to find any detailed analysis of the methodology used. Comparing media coverage with paid ads and putting a monetary number to the former sounds dubious. Much of this coverage of Trump particularly in the last few months was negative, at times overwhelmingly so. Trump was unique in that he attracted negative coverage not just from left-leaning pundits but often from right-leaning ones like George Will and David Brooks. Do you deny that the coverage — negative or not — worked in Trump’s favor? One might argue that the _negative coverage was especially productive_: it energized his hard-core base out, which saw itself as anti-establishment. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2017, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/36 "2017-08-30T18:23:31Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > As I said in the OP, any major-party presidential candidate gets a lot of free publicity just by being one of the last two running for the world’s top job. But the post-Election Day griping of many folks was that 1) Trump was an \*unusually bad \*candidate, and 2) the media enabled him with the $2-5 billion in free publicity. > > Had it been a Jeb, a Huckabee, a Warren or Biden, nobody would be complaining about it from that angle, any more than they complained about Romney getting “free attention” in 2012 - or even if an unusual candidate like Bill Gates got elected - the complaint of these folks was that the media enabled Trump by lavishing him with all that free publicity. Still, the media and many Dems were glad to see Trump wreak havoc on the Republican side. People crossing over to interfere in primaries. Iirc, posters here encouraged that. Lol. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2017, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/37 "2017-08-30T18:37:11Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > How much free attention did Clinton get? If it was anywhere near Trump, then the OP is a fail. [$3.24 billion](https://www.mediaquant.net/2016/11/a-media-post-mortem-on-the-2016-presidential-election/). Nice try, though. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2017, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/38 "2017-08-30T18:44:04Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Do you deny that the coverage — negative or not — worked in Trump’s favor? One might argue that the _negative coverage was especially productive_: it energized his hard-core base out, which saw itself as anti-establishment. Yes, I doubt that negative coverage helped Trump. There seems to be a basic post hoc fallacy that because Trump received a lot of negative coverage and then won, he won because of the negative coverage. I think a more reasonable analysis is that the negative coverage hurt him but that was overcome by other factors : he was facing an unpopular opponent, Republicans were hungry for a win after 8 years of Obama, and that in particularly the closing weeks he did manage to focus on a populist message that managed to turn just enough voters in the crucial Mid-west. Trump managed to eke out a narrow win against a weak opponent but that doesn’t mean he was immune to negative coverage. He was unpopular through much of the campaign and remains unpopular now with ratings that are unprecedented for a President in his first year. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2017, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/39 "2017-08-30T18:49:58Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Yes, I doubt that negative coverage helped Trump. There seems to be a basic post hoc fallacy that because Trump received a lot of negative coverage and then won, he won because of the negative coverage. > > I think a more reasonable analysis is that the negative coverage hurt him but that was overcome by other factors : he was facing an unpopular opponent, Republicans were hungry for a win after 8 years of Obama, and that in particularly the closing weeks he did manage to focus on a populist message that managed to turn just enough voters in the crucial Mid-west. > > Trump managed to eke out a narrow win against a weak opponent but that doesn’t mean he was immune to negative coverage. He was unpopular through much of the campaign and remains unpopular now with ratings that are unprecedented for a President in his first year. Immune enough, apparently. It didn’t stop 46% of the voters choosing him. (Not to mention that most of those voters’ attitudes were along the lines of, “Oh, that Trump,” as they pulled the lever for him.) Or are you claiming that Trump would’ve won bigger without all the negative coverage…I should add, coverage of a truly petty and unscrupuluous individual? ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996/40 "2017-08-30T19:43:48Z")
46% isn’t particularly extraordinary for a Republican candidate. I believe with the exception of the 90’s when Ross Perot did well and Goldwater, even Republican candidates who lost have often gotten 45-46% of the vote going back to the 1940’s. Republicans have a solid base of voters who turn out regularly. They had been out of the White House for 8 years, there was an open Supreme Court seat and Trump’s opponent was herself unpopular so it wasn’t astonishing that he was able to turn out 46% despite bad media coverage. There is no need to invoke some paradox where bad coverage helped him. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-gave-trump-2-billion-of-free-attention-what-was-the-alternative/793996.md?page=3)