[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by New Era

Sorry, depth matters. The tax thing, would have given us a lot more insight into his business dealings and charitable givings; claims that may have changed public perceptions of him. Same with every other issue. The media had pressed Clinton for decades so there was much more information out there on her. Depth matters.



It's not like that at all. On the surface, you can look at it that way. Except how the Trump campaign was covered (complete lack of depth), the exposure and repetition, and then the soundbites used, worked in his favor, not against him. Exposure is important, but more important are the semantics used in framing each candidate, and the candidates framing each other. Trump managing to get away with call Clinton, "Crooked Hillary," and that soundbite being repeated throughout the newshole was the absolute best campaigning Trump could do, and the mass media did it for him, free of charge. That resonated much more than the weak coverage the mass media provided into Trump's many scandals.



Plenty of people cared. Plenty of people also tuned out as a result of not being engaged, a result of poor media coverage of the election as a whole. Do you know that 70% of eligible voters did not vote for Donald Trump. Unfortunately, 40% of those eligible voters were do disenchanted they decided to stay home. If the mass media had done their job and showed the depths that Donald Trump would go to to make the system work for him, they may have been a little more enthused to get to the polls. So yes, the behaviors of the media and the piss poor job they did during the election, means something. It should still be talked about and continue to be talked about until the next election and the one after that. Keep talking until it changes.

Sorry, but are you basically saying the media has an obligation to report on things that would benefit a left leaning candidate?