Can we stop this canard that the media let Trump get away with the crap he said? If people are still clinging to this, they're just being purposely blind to it.
It not having an effect is not the same as it not being reported. His crap was constantly in the media. Photon was basically chain posting news articles about terrible things he did/had done constantly for weeks.
I think it is much more nuanced than this.
The media treated every transgression by every candidate as a world ending crisis and only discussed how it would affect the campaign. This led to people becoming numb to the issues.
Meaningless things like Milania's plagerism were treated similarly to trump admitting he sexually assaulted women.
They also focused only on how things affect the race. Outside of maybe the Times and the Washingtonpost everything was punditry and not journalism.
Policy was not discussed by either side.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I really don't think that was the case. There was a variance in the way things were treated. The problem was that there was just so so much of it that it just became background noise. By the time some of the bigger things came out, there had been so much other things reported that, generally, people just paid half attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
I really don't think that was the case. There was a variance in the way things were treated. The problem was that there was just so so much of it that it just became background noise. By the time some of the bigger things came out, there had been so much other things reported that, generally, people just paid half attention.
He was like Mr Burns and all his diseases keeping him alive because no one disease could gain the upper hand
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Can we stop this canard that the media let Trump get away with the crap he said? If people are still clinging to this, they're just being purposely blind to it.
It not having an effect is not the same as it not being reported. His crap was constantly in the media. Photon was basically chain posting news articles about terrible things he did/had done constantly for weeks.
No, we can't, because it was unprecedented in election history. Trump did and said more than enough to be disqualified from office, but the media did not do their job and hold his feet, nor the Republican Party to fire. They reported it, but did. It frame it with the same level of consternation that they did when they reported Clinton's issues. Trump was treated as a clown with little chance. They treated him as if he wasn't a serious candidate nor vetted him they way they should have. They didn't make a big enough deal about the information he failed to provide (taxes for example) nor put any significant pressure on the candidate to comply. The news divisions were outperformed by the late night shows and that speaks to the failures in the media. To me, comments like this show how desensitized we've become to lies and corruption from the powerful and think it's okay they follow their own rules. It shows how happy most are with an infotainment media rather than an informative media. This is another one of those fascinating outcomes of a very strange election cycle. Not only did the electorate select a fascist, but they are now demanding we defend his behaviors from a compliant media. Very strange indeed.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
The media's job is to report it, not force him to be unelected. They reported so much of it that it was overload and actually made it all less effective.
The whining over the media is one of the worst things about this election cycle. As far as the "framing" less seriously, that's what happens when it's a new thing every other day compared to one issue over an election.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
The media's job is to report it, not force him to be unelected. They reported so much of it that it was overload and actually made it all less effective.
The whining over the media is one of the worst things about this election cycle.
I disagree that the medias job is to report news. They have an important role in being arbiters of fact in the same way that scientists due in their field. The question that I think needs to be answered out of this is how do you take a misinformed voter and turn him into an informed voter?
Historically, journalists were trusted arbiters of facts. Now they are not and merged into this infotainment medium that people choose the facts to match their opinions.
The media is broken in its function as the fourth estate and that leaves the masses open to propaganda.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I'm not saying the media is fantastic, but New Era is basically complaining that the media didn't harp on things until it worked and Trump wasn't elected. Sorry, that's not their job. Trump supporters complained all election about the media being out to get Trump by reporting his deficiencies ... now here we are with people saying they didn't do enough. There was more than enough information out there to decide who you should vote there, I mean come on.
I'm not saying the media is fantastic, but New Era is basically complaining that the media didn't harp on things until it worked and Trump wasn't elected. Sorry, that's not their job.
Nope, that is not what I was saying at all. And that actually was their job. I was very clear in saying they failed their duties as the people's oversight to power. Prior to changes in regulation in late 80's and 90's the function of mass media was to perform an important function in our democracy. They were to be our voice to the powerful and ask the questions the general population could not. They were to access the information that we could not. They were to educate the electorate so we went to the ballot box with the knowledge that our candidates had been vetted and we knew what they stood for. They were to do so in a fair and balanced way as dictated by law. Deregulation and actions by the court eliminated the requirements on media to perform these duties and media consolidation turned the newsrooms into profit centers.
Quote:
Trump supporters complained all election about the media being out to get Trump by reporting his deficiencies ... now here we are with people saying they didn't do enough. There was more than enough information out there to decide who you should vote there, I mean come on.
There was plenty of coverage, but little reporting. If the media did their job they would have dug deeper into Trump and shown the public he was indeed the serial liar that he was accused of being. David Fahrenthold was one of the few reporters who stuck to a story and chased it down to exhaust the facts. Sadly, no one else from the mass media was interested in facts and was more interested in promotion of the cult of personality that had become the primary focus of the election. If the mass media had bothered to follow Fahrenthold's lead and looked into Trump's taxes, Trump's admission of sexual assault, Trump's housing racial discrimination, Trump's mafia ties, Trump's ties to Russia, the Trump University scandal, Trump's use of illegal immigrant workers, Trump's abuse and refusal to pay contractors, the Trump Foundation, and on-and-on, they may have educated enough people to realize what a complete threat this guy was to our system of government and our society in general. They failed and instead allowed the guy that should have been vetted to set the agenda, frame his opponent, and own the media cycle.
Quote:
People stopped caring. The electorate is broken.
People didn't have the information. The electorate deserve a large percentage of the blame for the outcome - critical thinking skills were laid to waste this cycle - but the mass media failed the electorate by not investigating and reporting on the many issues that should have ended Trump's presidential campaign.
I'm not saying the media is fantastic, but New Era is basically complaining that the media didn't harp on things until it worked and Trump wasn't elected. Sorry, that's not their job. Trump supporters complained all election about the media being out to get Trump by reporting his deficiencies ... now here we are with people saying they didn't do enough. There was more than enough information out there to decide who you should vote there, I mean come on.
People stopped caring. The electorate is broken.
I agree with GGG. Trump supporters complained about the media because the media made EVERYTHING a big deal was was incredibly petty. When Melania made a speech in the last week of the campaign I heard CNN report it as
"Melania Trump made an public appearance today, her first since she plagiarized the First Lady's speech"
Is that really necessary?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Nope, that is not what I was saying at all. And that actually was their job. I was very clear in saying they failed their duties as the people's oversight to power. Prior to changes in regulation in late 80's and 90's the function of mass media was to perform an important function in our democracy. They were to be our voice to the powerful and ask the questions the general population could not. They were to access the information that we could not. They were to educate the electorate so we went to the ballot box with the knowledge that our candidates had been vetted and we knew what they stood for. They were to do so in a fair and balanced way as dictated by law. Deregulation and actions by the court eliminated the requirements on media to perform these duties and media consolidation turned the newsrooms into profit centers.
There was plenty of coverage, but little reporting. If the media did their job they would have dug deeper into Trump and shown the public he was indeed the serial liar that he was accused of being. David Fahrenthold was one of the few reporters who stuck to a story and chased it down to exhaust the facts. Sadly, no one else from the mass media was interested in facts and was more interested in promotion of the cult of personality that had become the primary focus of the election. If the mass media had bothered to follow Fahrenthold's lead and looked into Trump's taxes, Trump's admission of sexual assault, Trump's housing racial discrimination, Trump's mafia ties, Trump's ties to Russia, the Trump University scandal, Trump's use of illegal immigrant workers, Trump's abuse and refusal to pay contractors, the Trump Foundation, and on-and-on, they may have educated enough people to realize what a complete threat this guy was to our system of government and our society in general. They failed and instead allowed the guy that should have been vetted to set the agenda, frame his opponent, and own the media cycle.
People didn't have the information. The electorate deserve a large percentage of the blame for the outcome - critical thinking skills were laid to waste this cycle - but the mass media failed the electorate by not investigating and reporting on the many issues that should have ended Trump's presidential campaign.
How did everyone here on this board learn about these things? We all saw that he constantly lied, we all saw that he never released his tax returns, we all saw the sexual assault comments video, we all saw the fact that his Foundation is a sham. This wasn't because we found it out on our own. We weren't out there investigating Trump. It was all reported in the media. You're still saying the same thing. They should have done this, they should have done that. They did, it just didn't work. You can't seem to separate the execution of something with the effectiveness of it.
What it basically comes down to, in the comparison of Trump reporting to Clinton reporting it's like one kid standing under a dump truck of skittles pouring out trying to catch as many as he can, and another kid being handed a Snickers bar. Volume worked against depth.
You wanted them to pick a story because you think if they went in depth it could have sunk Trump. I disagree. If that wall of total #### that came out on him during this election didn't sway the electorate, then nothing in the stuff that came out, elaborated upon, would have. It would have literally taken evidence of him paying multiple women for abortions or murdering someone to have any effect. Not enough people cared.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Given that there seems to be a no longer insignificant amount of people who are turning away from and/or are distrustful of "mainstream media", do you think that their handling of Trump in the manner above helped or hindered his case in their eyes?
The media definitely played a big roll on how things were perceived. But I don't think it was conscious.
Donald Trump did and said so many negative things and the media covered them as they should, but then it seemed like they would try to give equal time to tell negative Clinton narratives and it always came back to the emails. I think that focus on a few issues had more impact than the constant one-off things Trump was doing him. I think Trump figured out early that if the heat is on you for something big, it's better to say some outrageous things to change the subject. And the media went for it big time.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
How did everyone here on this board learn about these things? We all saw that he constantly lied, we all saw that he never released his tax returns, we all saw the sexual assault comments video, we all saw the fact that his Foundation is a sham. This wasn't because we found it out on our own. We weren't out there investigating Trump. It was all reported in the media. You're still saying the same thing. They should have done this, they should have done that. They did, it just didn't work. You can't seem to separate the execution of something with the effectiveness of it.
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.
Quote:
What it basically comes down to, in the comparison of Trump reporting to Clinton reporting it's like one kid standing under a dump truck of skittles pouring out trying to catch as many as he can, and another kid being handed a Snickers bar. Volume worked against depth.
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.
Quote:
You wanted them to pick a story because you think if they went in depth it could have sunk Trump. I disagree. If that wall of total #### that came out on him during this election didn't sway the electorate, then nothing in the stuff that came out, elaborated upon, would have. It would have literally taken evidence of him paying multiple women for abortions or murdering someone to have any effect. Not enough people cared.
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.
And if they'd gone in depth, you'd be here complaining about all the topics they ignored. Should they have been bleeping Crooked Hillary?
The media whining from both sides is annoying. There was more than enough reported to make the decision on who should have been elected. Even if it wasn't to the depth to satisfy you.
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?
Sorry, but are you basically saying the media has an obligation to report on things that would benefit a left leaning candidate?
No, the media needs to report in a manner that enables people to vote based on facts.
There are too many mis-informed voters.
People who believe manufacturing jobs are coming back
People who believe it's possible to deport all illegals
People who believe Donald trump would have made more money just investing it
People who believe that a wall would reduce illegal immigration, that Mexico would pay for it or that it is in anyway a feasable project with real benefits.
You can't even have a debate on policy if there isn't a common set of facts to base the discussion around.
I don't have any good answers on how to fix it but the future of democracy requires an educated electorate.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
No, the media needs to report in a manner that enables people to vote based on facts.
See, this is the disconnect. This was done. There was more than enough information presented that a person evaluating this election and making a decision on fitness for the job could use it to make an easy choice.
As much as I hate the term, this was very much a "post-truth" election. When a large part of the rhetoric is distrust of the media, what do you expect the result to be when they do a deep dig investigation on one of the magnitude of Trump deficiencies? All of a sudden, because they went in depth on a topic, people are going to drop their inherent distrust of them?
Sorry, but are you basically saying the media has an obligation to report on things that would benefit a left leaning candidate?
I am saying that the media has a responsibility to report on and vet both candidates. The political affiliation of either candidate is irrelevant. The job of the media is to do the job the people cannot, and that is dig into the facts of these individuals and provide us information we would normally not have access to. Dive deep and expose the flaws and faults of these people so we know what type of person we are putting into the most powerful seats in the world. Present the facts and let the people decide. What was presented in this past election was the cult of personality. That was full on fail by the media.
