If there is one lesson that has already been learned from the 2016 election, it is that the media does actually matter . . . just not in the way that we had hoped. There has been a pronounced and rising bias against Donald Trump in the media. Some of the negative stories can be laid at the candidate’s own feet for controversial statements and actions. However, it has taken me back how consistent and aggressive the anti-Trump coverage has been in the mainstream media. It is as if Trump was declared the sole exception to the cherished media neutrality rules in this country. However, there has been an interesting response from the public, which views the mainstream media as a critical part of the “establishment.” The more the media drumbeat the call to defeat Trump, the more the public seems to swing toward the candidate. At the end of this election, the media needs to seriously examine its conduct in coverages, including the many Wikileaks emails showing both bias and coordination in favor of the Clinton campaign. One start would be something that I have long advocated: the media must stop endorsing political candidates.
Media endorsements have long been problematic for me. Reporters and editors insist that they are honest brokers of the news and neutral in their treatment. They then come out and advocate for one to win — often with little surprise to readers given their past coverage. The media endorsement is based on a belief that the media is in a unique position to tell voters which is the best candidate. It is a conceit that undermines their credibility and fuels the type of bias that we have seen in this election.
This is not an indictment of all reporters. I write and work with journalists and the vast majority take serious efforts to maintain their objectivity even when they do not like a candidate like Trump. It can take a lot of effort with a candidate singling you out in a massive crowd for name calling and derision. Most do an incredible job in overcoming their natural feelings toward someone who is relentless in his attacks. Yet, Trump is right about the overwhelming tenor of coverage and the comparison of the coverage given Clinton.
Media endorsements blur what should be a bright-line rule of neutrality. The media should inform not direct the public. There has been too much of the latter in this election.
The “great ones” like Edward R. Murrow were honored for their integrity and honesty. The public clearly see little of that in contemporary coverage. It is wrong about the media. There is plenty of both values. There are plenty of honest reporters. However, this is a self-inflicted wound. The response of the public is not just a rejection of the establishment but a clear signal that the public no longer trusts the media. It is the establishment. The more that the media portrays Trump as threatening the stability of Washington or the country, the more some voters are drawn to him. Many want change at any cost and, for better or worse, Trump is viewed as change. The media has much work to do to convince the public that it is not just the handmaiden to the establishment. Dropping media endorsements would be a significant, if largely symbolic, start.
What do you think?
Just FWIW, since this is a press thread:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwSWXz9WIAA-zG1.jpg
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I’m really confused by this piece. Are the media supposed to behave like Kellyanne Conway and ignore reality and deny the significance of the things he says and does? When Trump insulted the Khan family, when he accused Mexicans of being rapists, when he accused Megyn Kelly of being on the rag for confronting him with things he said about women, when he encouraged his supporters to beat up a dissenter at a rally, when the Access Hollywood video emerged, when Trump continued his birther nonsense, when he praised Putin, when he lies about things he said previously, and when he continued to refuse to release his tax returns, were reporters supposed to ignore all of this? This conduct is outrageous for any politician, much less one running for the most powerful position in the world. The main qualification to run for any public office should be patriotism. The next three should be good judgment, even temperament and the ability to work out compromises. Trump flunks all of these requirements. He is an egomaniac that is simply attempting to compensate for the fact that he was not his father’s favorite and because he was sent away to military school to get him out of the family home. He is emotionally damaged goods, and is dangerously ego-centric.
In Edward R. Murrow’s days, there were no politicians like Trump seeking to run for President. Someone like Trump would never have even gotten the opportunity to run. Nowadays, things are different. Perhaps you think that placing into context the misogynist, racist, insulting, demeaning and other outrageous comments and behavior is somehow being partisan, but you are simply wrong. Reporters have a duty to report on the facts. When the facts make Trump look like the pathetically unqualified person that he is, that is not partisan.
Yep.Murrow died before the George Wallace run in 1968. Some have compared Trump to Wallace.
Murrow deplored McCarthyism and I think he would also deplore today’s Trumpism.
Hmmm, think Murrow would have deplored the campus discrimination against Conservatives, aka the New Blacklisting? Think Murrow would have deplored Hillary Clinton’s charity slush fund? Think Murrow would have deplored the DNC paying people to disrupt Trump rallies?
And, since Murrow was right there during all the Nazi stuff, do you think he would deplored the way the Democrats tried to shut down the political rallies of the Republican Party? Think maybe Murrow might have said, :Holy Shades of the Brown Shirts!” I do.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
And he would have slammed Hillary for her corruption and sleaze. Do you really think Murrow would be supportive of the Clintons?
Probably not but he really detested McCarthyite authoritarian figures like Trump. i watched the show with my mother as a child and that is my takeaway. Granted that is along time ago.
Can any conversation about the misdeeds of others, especially the Clintons, not involve Trump?
With an election looming tomorrow, I doubt it.
No, it is a choice by the writer.
Does everyone who criticizes Trump on this blog have to be perceived as a Hillary supporter?
Natacha,
Well said!
Much of this primarily is a matter of money. If money is secondary, reporting reflects the political goals management the medium wishes to further.
A serious conflict of interest happens when media offer money to the campaigns of politicians and there in the case of Hillary Clinton is a direct correlation between the money offer her and the unbridled support of this candidate receives, especially in the attack of her opponent. Remember, Bernie fared no greater.
The news consumer of the left wants an echo chamber and CNN and MSNBC provide that demographic what it wants for the purpose of ad revenue. But that is really a short term matter.
I suspect one of the primal reasons several of the big media outlets are working hard to put Hillary in office is because it is much more likely she will grant special access in exchange and benefit in exchange for supporting her. It is possible the end goal that achieves both Hillary’s and the Corporations will be an administration that is willing to ignore anti-trust problems inherent with the merger and consolidation of different media corporations, the merger of course being very profitable. The quid pro quo of this means that Hillary will receive in the future a smaller number of outlets that she can use as her own form of official media, a merger of the state/private press that is easier for her to control the message and stifle dissent or blot out others who don’t portray her favorably.
Controlling the message sound improbable? Consider this, the main reason Hillary Clinton used the private email server for official State Department business is because she had designs on being president, and she wanted a way to make controversial issues disappear without record, or to organize activity that was against the policy of good governance and to do so without the possibility of scrutiny or review by the public or by Congress.
Exactly Darren. That’s how I see this all playing out. She will yield a Stalinesque hold over all media.
Sooooo.
All you Turley followers are still calling him a liberal?
Also….
Trump got $1Billion worth of free advertising for over a year. Now we should complain about media coverage?
Also….
How does this Turley Position of No Candidate Endorsements fit with his strong position on free speech?
The man has gone over the edge or maybe he just sees a Faux News slot opening up.
TRUMP NEWS
Despite conservative whining for the past 50 years about “liberal” bias in the media, studies have repeatedly demonstrated that if the corporate/establishment media has a bias it is decidedly for the status quo: not liberal or conservative. My own observations over the past several decades confirm this. And this year’s presidential election is the penultimate example. The reason they have been so over the top against Trump is not because he is a racist xenophobe, a lazy intellect who knows nothing about government, policy or the issues. It isn’t even because he is a dinosaur of a sexist who uses his status to exploit women. No. They have all jumped on him and tried all they could to destroy his candidacy because he is a serious threat to the status quo which they are sworn to defend. When Reagan was in power and set the standard they rarely asked hard questions about anything, the same thing was true when both Bushes and our previous Clinton President were in office. They have done the same during Obama’s tenure. The only real hard nosed reporting (if it can even be called that) comes on issues that can best be categorized as gossip or personal issues. But what they never do is rock the status quo boat. When a genuine loose cannon like Trump emerged they recognized that as the threat to the status quo he claims to be and which he is seen as by millions of relatively uninformed but angry and frustrated citizens. Sanders was also a threat to their beloved status quo so they did all they could to tip the scales against him and that has created undying enmity for the corporate/establishment media on the left.
As for the endorsements, the only media that does that, that I am aware of are newspapers and those will no longer exist in a relatively few years so I don’t think that really has any relevance. What we need is a media that asks tough, adversarial questions about things that matter and that do not pretend to be neutral when it comes to the truth. They need to quit pretending that climate change deniers base their views on legitimate science when those of us who are informed know that it is not. They need to quit pretending that when Republicans invent a scandal out of thin air like Benghazi that it is a legitimate probe instead of a political witch hunt designed to damage a politician the Republicans fear and hate. They need to quit pretending (as they did for a long, long time) that Republicans were not relying on a not so subtle racism while making false claims about Obama’s birth. They need to quit pretending that the alleged “war on terror” is actually a fight to protect us from crazy Islamists instead of an aggressive, imperialistic war being waged for control of natural resources (oil and natural gas primarily) by the west as led by our country. They need to tell the truth to the American people about how their voice is meaningless in the great halls of power in Washington and that our country is ruled by a very powerful and wealthy elite who can get virtually anything they want from both the Democrats and Republicans whenever they want it as we witnessed in the failure of the Department of Justice even to charge anyone of the thieves on Wall Street who destroyed the global economy and then provided them with trillions of dollars to bail them out while leaving innocent home owners out to dry leading to about 10 million homes being foreclosed in just a few years. Those are just a few example.
I read thru what you said, and here is the part I agree with:
“They have all jumped on him [Trump] and tried all they could to destroy his candidacy because he is a serious threat to the status quo which they are sworn to defend.”
Absolutely right, Trump is the little boy crying out that the Emperor is naked. Worse than merely naked, that the Emperor is a frigging idiot, and those who surround him are idiots, too.
And just FWIW, informed or not, a Global Warming Model is still just a “model.” And models are never “settled science.” And if people get paid money to find Global Warming, you can bet your sweet a$$ they are going to find Global Warming. As a concept, the whole thing is a complete farce from the get go.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky,
I worked with CFD software to model combustion system for gas turbines. These are closed systems with a limited amount of variables compared to Earth and there is not an engineer worth a dam who would risk their career on only what the model told them. Hell, even after making first parts and doing simulation tests on a test stand, you could not predict 100% how parts would perform in the field. Tree huger’s are full of…. when they will tell you that they can predict what the Earth will do.
To steal a little from Ronnie, “The scariest words are ‘I’m from the govt and the science is settled'”.
@Jim22
Thanks for the insight. I am not a scientist, but I know enough to figure out that a model is a scientific guess. But even hurricane models are all over the place, and they have a cone of uncertainty. I do not see how AGW guys can feel safe predicting a 1 degree change in something 100 years out. Certainly not enough to call it settled science.
Plus, what exactly is an average global temperature. To me, the simplest is take one reading at North Pole, and one at equator and divide by 2. Sooo, it’s -30 at the pole, and 110 at equator. OK, so that’s 70 degrees. What does that number mean to anybody? Squat.
Measure it over time and maybe after a decade or two, you get a trend. Maybe it goes up to 71. Still squat. One degree (-29) doesn’t melt ice, even it was all at the Pole. Plus, if they are using 100 year old data, that was never collected in any attempt to account for an average global temperature. So what are they really measuring?
Frankly, I put more faith in anecdotal evidence like observing melting glaciers, or shrinking sea ice, but even then how much of that is simply a side effect the last Ice Age ending, as opposed to a discrete global warming event? I am not sure we can tell.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Some very good points. You need to elaborate a little on what you mean by the “status quo.” but I think I get the drift and you are right to point out it is not the same as liberal or conservative.
BTW, penultimate means, “the next to last”, right? Not quite sure what you mean by, “And this year’s presidential election is the penultimate example.”.
As far as real change goes, I think the golden rule would do just fine. Any party. Hell, any system. The rest flows from there. Never the reverse.
Yeah, but the Golden Rule doesn’t really work well when the person who does what they expect to be done, is a malignant narcissist who would have everybody else to worship her. Because while she would them do that, she can not do that unto others.
In other words, The Golden Rule is for people without severe personality disorders.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I think your first response was quite intelligent. What I was trying to get at, true or false, is that the golden rule works when you start from it, not when you try and end up with it. It’s hard, for instance, to end up with the golden rule by making enlightened laws. Enlightened laws will result from starting with the golden rule as the aim and laws as one means of getting there. As I said, the laws will flow from the principle.
As to your point about obstacles, I would agree – there is the rub. In general, all else being equal, humans are pretty good and decent so I think there is room to speculate that if one could start out with a fairly clean slate, a few narcissists and misanthropes and what not would ultimately disapper, sanded down over time by social pressure.
But, of course, what we see is what we’ve got and it isn’t exactly a river of kindness flowing from ardent followers of the golden rule so my theory has a few insignificant glitches to get out of the way before I can put a patent on it and use the proceeds from that to conquer and then rule the world with an iron fist showing no mercy what-so-ever!
BTW, it is the opinion of some (I read this recently but can’t be bothered to find the link) that English law did indeed flow basically from the golden rule or something quite like it – not that it was in any way officially stated.
Well hell, that response came out screwed up. Let me try again. Say a person is a sexual masochist. He wants to be spanked and humiliated. That is what he would want others to do unto him. Therefore, under The Golden Rule, that is what he would do that unto others. He would spank and humiliate them. Which is probably not what others really want.
The Golden Rule is not meant for people with severe personality disorders.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Why don’t you practice the Golden Rule and stop your raging about “feral” blacks?
Uh, non sequitur to the max. Why don’t you try to determine whether the SUBSTANCE of my feral black savages statements are true, or false. All you have done so far is carp about the appearance of the speech.
For example.
Me. Those pants make you look fat!
You. That is a very hurtful thing to say!
Me. True, but those pants make you look fat. Why don’t you look at your butt in the mirror.
You. Oh, those pants really do make me look fat. (Or, no they don’t make me look fat at all! You’re just a b!tch!)
The problem is, Kate, that you have never really looked in the mirror so to speak, to see if my statements are true or false. If they are true, they might still be hurtful, but does that really matter if they are true? If you’re are not able to figure out how to judge if my statements are true, or not, spring for a few bucks on Taleeb Starkes’ book, The Uncivil War; Blacks vs. N*ggers.
He is a black guy who lays it on the line, and will give you a good introduction to the problem. If you can not afford the book, let me know, and I will link you to the first 25 pages of it in PDF form. You might also try Colin Flaherty’s books, like Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry, or White Girl Bleed A Lot. Or, just visit his youtube channel, or Tommy Sotomayor’s various youtube channels.
Let me know AFTER you have looked in the mirror.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
It’s time to change the whole election process.
1. All states should hold their primaries on the same day, in the spring. This would shorten the election process and force candidates to deliver the same message to all regions, not change it around for each primary.
2. Parties should pick their own candidates. Only those people who are actually registered members of that party should be allowed to vote in that parties primary. No cross overs. If you are an Interdependent, then be independent and stay out of the parties choosing their candidates.
3. Primaries (and the electoral college) should be proportional in all states. It is not fair that someone with 1/3 or less of the states votes receive all of the delegates (or electors) from that state. It actually cancels out the votes of the majority to award all delegates to one person with a minority of the votes.
4. Only those persons actually eligible to vote in a particular election should be allowed to either make political contributions or buy advertising in an attempt to influence that election. Out of state money should not be allowed to influence the outcome of elections in that state. Since corporations don’t get to vote, they also don’t get to buy influence.
5. Independent and third party candidates should have equal access to the general election ballots. The blocks that have been set up to keep them off the ballot should be removed.
Here’s an amended suggestion.
1. Have primaries and caucuses in June to elect delegates to party conventions to be held in August. These delegates would be elected in single-member constituencies. The primaries would make use of ordinal balloting with the order of the candidates on the ballot varying from precinct to precinct. The caucuses would be in the form of precinct caucuses in week 1 to elect delegates to a district caucus in week 2. All states would vote in week 1 and states holding caucuses would have a follow up vote week 2.
2. Convention business would be as follows: approve a platform, elect national officers and national committeemen, and showcase the party’s candidates.
3. In lieu of nomination by convention, have the aspirants complete a registration procedure and file either petitions or a monetary deposit with the Federal Election Commission. A petition candidate would have to obtain a critical mass of valid signatures from state and local elected officials. A candidate making a deposit would have to raise funds from sponsors which would be forfeit if he failed to clear certain performance hurdles at election time. Make the registration deadline around 15 May, which would allow several months for competing candidates to scrutinize and challenge an opponent’s petitions. The drop dead date would be the 3d week of August.
4. Have a constitutional amendment which assigns each state a quantum of electoral votes equal to the citizen population therein. States which meet certain criteria could be divided into electoral constituencies and the electoral votes awarded according to the results in these subfractions. You might cut California into 4 pieces, Texas into 5 or 6, Florida into 4, New York into 2, Pennsylvania into 2, Illinois into 2, &c.
5. Hold an ordinal ballot in each electoral constituency, with tabulation according to the conventions of the alternate vote. (It’s important to design the ballot properly). You tabulate everyone’s first preference votes, then eliminate the candidates receving < 2% of the 1st preference vote and re-distribute their ballots to their next preference listed among candidates remaining, tally again, then eliminate the candidate with the lowest tally and redistribute his ballots, tally again, repeat until you have just two candidates left. The one with the higher tally wins the electoral votes.
6. If no candidate wins a majority of the electoral votes, identify all candidates who received fewer than 2% of the electoral votes and re-tabulate the constituencies they won. First you count the first preference vote in a constituency, then eliminate all the candidates who received no electoral votes and all those who did who you are eliminating this round, redistribute the ballots of these eliminated candidates. You then have successive rounds of elimination and redistribution of ballots until you've awarded those electoral votes to one of the candidates who received more than 2% of the electoral votes initially.
7. If no candidate has a majority of electoral votes after the first round of re-attribution, eliminate the trailing candidate and re-attribute his electoral vote with the procedure delineated in step 6. Repeat this procedure until some candidate has a majority of the electoral votes.
You won't need a winnowing process because ordinal balloting with tabulation according to the conventions of the alternate vote performs that function. We can do away with the madcap primary season, have maybe eight sets of 'debates', and dispense with thinking about the election until 10 weeks before it takes place.
In the beginning it wasn’t just separation of church and state, it was also separation of business and state. But that all changed during the Reconstruction Era when Carpetbaggers bribed politicians to change the law. Ever since, our elections have been rigged in favor of the establishment.
http://reclaimdemocracy.Org
LBJ was actually my fault.
Blogs are part of the “new media”. Some blogs purport to be free speech and all that. Yet they are so centered on one chump like Trump that they censor out blog commentors who fail to agree or who criticize.
Music- to tune of Amen
Hill Are Eee. HIllary! Hill A Ree oh Hillary!
Agamemnon.
One more day.
One more day!
Then its eight years all the way.
We’re not talking boutP LBJ!
Nooo Way.
All the way with LBJ.
Now its Hillary!
Yes indeed.
Yes its Hillary with her weed.
There are plenty of idiots here who criticize Trump. There would be more, but a very intelligent cadre of conservative/rational commenters makes it uncomfortable for them, intellectually speaking. I mean. let’s face facts. Most “liberal” commenters are pretty much just name callers, who are mentally unable to frame arguments, and address facts. Sheeesh, why do you think the arrow of speech intolerance on campuses runs against conservatives? You don’t have to address the arguments of people you don’t let make the arguments in the first place.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Ad hominem and straw men arguments are now just about the only debate methods used by the Left. It’s not like they can discuss the facts. It’s all emotion, all the time.
The Left really lost me. I’m a fiscal conservative, but am moderate or open minded about many social issues. But the Left…with Obamacare and all the Fascist behavior of late, they’ve just lost me for good. There are still some fiscal conservative Democrats that I quite like, but the party as a whole behaves like neurotic fascists. (I apologize for any micro aggressions, hurt feelings, or trigger words this comment may have contained. I would hand over bubbles and a teddy bear to anyone feeling upset, but this is the Internet. If needed, I can provide links to mental health practitioners if anyone needs to go into counseling for hearing criticism or an opposing view point.)
So true. I am socially conservative, and economically more progressive, but the Democratic Party has become a mess. I think they maybe fractured trying to race bait and play identity politics. And yes, they pretty much just call names and sneer at conservatives.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
LHO The Trump supporters claim to be for free speech but they are authoritarians one and all. Trump’s threats against the press are an affront to our liberty.
Could you actually deign to explain what you just said. Because I am having difficulty fitting in your comment with Reality.
Because I kind of tend to think that LESS GOVERNMENT means less authoritarianism.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
My lawyers want to sue the failing @nytimes so badly for irresponsible intent. I said no (for now), but they are watching. Really disgusting Shows lack of respect for the constitution
Oh, sooo defamation lawsuits are authoritarianism??? Can you connect up the dots??? Plus, Hillary wants to drone Assange. Does that fit into your belief system as authoritarianism? or, is it something else.
Enquiring minds want to know.
Thanks!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You are a Duterte supporting authoritarian who has claimed on this very blog that drug abusers should be shot.
True. What’s your point? How does wanting to file a defamation law suit against the Times make Trump an authoritarian? What is Hillary wanting to drone Assange? Those were the questions. Focus. Concentrate. Take your Adderall pill if necessary.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“For more than 50 years, the Supreme Court has held that for a public figure to prove libel against a news outlet, they must show that the outlet acted with “‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” To seek to overturn this constitutional protection such that news organizations could be sued for publishing a story that gets some minor facts wrong but is not actually malicious would run contrary to our long-established understanding of the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press. In a constitutional democracy, it is essential that the press has broad freedom to investigate public officials so that voters have the information needed to hold them accountable.”politico
Sooo, you are worried that a SCOTUS case might get overturned? How about Heller and Citizens United? Do you fear that happening to those cases?
Plus, the “civilized” nations in Europe have a greatly restricted view of press freedom, and free speech comes with strings. Hillary wants to “globalize” us even more, which would land us in that realm of legality.. How does that play into your belief system?
I suspect that you and Harrison both have a BLM kind of mentality. You seize on anything which confirms your bias or your preferred narrative, like when a cop shoots a black man, and you disregard anything which does not confirm your bias, or your narrative, like when black thugz shoot black people.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Trump has threatened to close mosques which also is in violation of the first amendment
Hillary is trying to take our guns, which is in violation of our Second Amendment rights. How does that play into your belief system?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
She thinks those on terrorist lists should not have guns. I enjoy a little bird hunting myself but have to admit as I am getting older it is less fun.
No Dave, that is her PUBLIC position. Her PRIVATE position is quite more radical. She wants to make gun companies liable for damages if a consumer misuses the gun. That will simply drive gun manufacturers out of business. Even Bernie Sanders called her out on that one.
Under Hillary’s plan, Pooky, an ex-felon in Chiraq, shoots Ray-Ray, another ex-felon over Ray-Ray looking at him wrong. If Pooky used a Ruger, then Ray-Ray’s momma, twelve siblings, six children, and their six respective baby mommas, and four dudes claiming to be Ray-Ray’s baby daddy can sue Ruger for damages. Yeah, like that ain’t gonna end the Second Amendment.
FWIW, I feed birds, including little doves, and I don’t shoot them. Or any other poor little animal. I have guns to shoot people with, should the need arise. And I am always packing heat in my purse.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Even if you find a way to keep the media from officially endorsing a candidate, it will not solve the problem. There is too much that a “kept” media can do to sabotage, or inflate a candidate.
For example, a female reporter gets bumped in a press scrum, and it becomes a two-week+ media circus. Or this tweet by John Stossel. I hope this link works:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwblrXLVEAA_PfL.jpg
A moderator can simply sneer at a participant, and sway voters. But our problems run much deeper than the media. It is that we are ate up with educated white people who are complete frigging idiots. I do not think this condition is a new one. Many civilizations have fallen for the same reason (with different colored participants) – – – that is the “smart” people are only interested in their immediate gratification, which includes, but is certainly not limited to – self-aggrandizement, and tend quite often to be far less than smart.
One can simply look at some of the DNC shills here, on this website. For example, last night, a college educated white person here actually quoted the ADL saying that Trump raised racial stereotypes, blah blah blah. It never even occurred to this person that there is no “ADL” – The “ADL” is just an artificial being, like a corporation, and as such the “ADL” has no voice, and no opinion on anything. What it does have, is people who can speak on its behalf. And. . . if one of those people is a dedicated Hillary supporter, they can use that ADL soapbox to say anything they want to about Trump. And did. But the opinion carries no more force than the individual, who we do not even know who that person is.
That sort of mindless buying into the “authority” of a basically anonymous source, by a college educated person is why our country is FUBAR. Too many educated people simply can not think or form rational thoughts. They simply echo what they hear in the echo chamber as long as it both confirms their own biases, and makes them look good and smart.
I think that is why Trump will probably lose. The idiots outnumber the smart people.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
And the people with their hand out outnumber the hard working.
If voting was limited to white non college educated christians, Trump would win in a landslide.
True. Because those people tend to have a more realistic view of what it going on in the country, than college-educated white people, who live in white enclaves, and don’t have to struggle to make a living.
I dare say, the average white, non-college educated peasant in France, in the 1780s, had a better idea of what was going on, than some effete little college-educated courtier, stuffing snuff up his nose, in a parlor at Versailles,
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Ari Berman @AriBerman 60m60 minutes ago
Ari Berman Retweeted Ari Berman
And now NC GOP is bragging about reducing black turnout. Disgusting https://twitter.com/RaleighReporter/status/795669824135430145 …
You are making stuff up, or repeating made up stuff, to confirm your own bias. Simply providing statistics is not “bragging.” Black voter turnout is lower across the country, probably because Obama isn’t running. You should really examine why you fall for stuff like this.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Good luck w/that idea!
I think we now have a majority of news outlets acting as State Media Propaganda, for the Democratic Party, in much the same way that universities are politicized according to the State Democratic Party.
Editorial boards have been endorsing candidates for more than 100 years.
Now you’re upset because the only outlet to endorse your candidate is the KKK “newspaper” The Crusader.
Sorry I have no sympathy for you or your candidate and your bias throughout this election cycle has been shameful.
Much ado about nothing.
My two cents:
1. shortened election periods; three months is enough.
2. publicly funded elections.
3. Citizens United overturned – get the big money out of politics.
4. real debates, moderated by experts, not TV personalities, in several areas of interests to voters.
5. debates open to third party candidates with at least 5% of polling, not 15%.
Citizens United overturned – get the big money out of politics.
I.e. the only incorporated bodies who can influence the election are media outlets and unions. How verrrrry conveeeenient.
Hey Professor, your bias is showing!
Tom Clancy said it best in one of his Jack Ryan books. Young man in a 7-11 confronted by a combination print media reporter and TV anchor. His response to them, “Why should I trust you. You are reporters.”
Ever since I’ve made the distinction between journalists ‘few and far far between, and reporters aka propagandists.’
And for the record the lame stream media is blatantly left wing progressive in nature. It’s a fault of their lack of education. Left Stream Media is even a better sobriquet. They earned it.
They never explained why the loved Trump until he ran against the Wicked Witch of The Left. Honesty is not their policy by an definition.
I haven’t bothered with CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN ever since but then I haven’t owned a Television for 20 years and see no reason to change until next World Cup Season. What’s the point when they make a fetish of straight up lies to outright distortions.
The failure to report the outright attack by the present government on the retirement funds and income of the elderly along with the medical care catastrophe is an example they cannot refute. But they will twist, distort and lie about it.
PS Life without television is sooooooooo wonderful!! Try ruling your own life instead of toob of boobs.
I don’t claim to be an expert but when I want news, this is what I want. When I want opinion, I would like to have a real conversation on a real topic. However, what you get from these msm outlets is nonsense. It’s like watching a cartoon of what should be the news. I cannot even last five minutes anymore. I’m a senior and have been around awhile and I find myself resorting to YouTube and searching , searching for intelligent discourse where I occasionally find it. Further, there are a few ex reporters on there who did not follow the m/s line and have an ax to grind but will report more quickly on news. Once in a while I find a couple of comedians who do the best job of all. What does this say about the state of our news in America? When the big money owns the news it is all over. When they own the candidates as well, stop watching.
The media gave Trump every advantage to bring him down later. He complied Not doing interviews outside of FOX for months