The unbearable smugness of the press

[OldLady]

No, last night on PBS News Hour they started eating the humble pie. They get that they've been living in an elite bubble, and they got caught with their pants down. There needs to be a lot more diversity of experience and thought in the newsroom in order to reflect real America. At least some of them get it.

I don't see how that relates to my post at all, Rustic.

 

[OldLady]

Many believe in the "Boogeyman" created by the MSM. It's so stupid.

No one seems to be able to articulate exactly what Trump is going to do that they are so worried about. He will enforce the law.

I could articulate it. Bigly. But he is going to be our President, and I respect the office enough to TRY to keep my mouth shut.

 

[OldLady]

Turned on a local sports talk show that wanders into politics a little every week. Of course they had called the election over weeks ago, today they came to the brilliant conclusion that maybe....just maybe Trump supporters aren't racists....enjoyed every second of it.

Speaking of sports made me think of bets. Weren't the odds 5-1 in her favor? The people with money on Trump made a killing.
Good for them!

 

[Iceweasel]

No, last night on PBS News Hour they started eating the humble pie. They get that they've been living in an elite bubble, and they got caught with their pants down. There needs to be a lot more diversity of experience and thought in the newsroom in order to reflect real America. At least some of them get it.

No they don't need diversity! They need to remember the principles of journalism.
Journalists present the news and don't form opinions.

You don't do as Walter Cronkite did and was the first biased MSM "reporter" back in February 27,1968...
Read what Walter Cronkite did to 56,000 DEAD americans when he said this on his evening news.
February 27 broadcast, "Report from Vietnam," played a major role in turning Americans against the war and inducing President Lyndon Johnson to abandon his reelection campaign.That’s when, as legend has it, Cronkite was so shocked at the devastation of the communists’ Tet offensive that he went over to see for himself what was really going on. And he concluded the war was a stalemate, probably unwinnable.
Cronkite’s report, writes Brinkley, was "immediately seen as a catalyst by pundits in the Monday newspapers. . . . Cronkite turned dove, and the hawk Johnson lost his talons." This tracks with what Halberstam wrote in his 1979 book, The Powers That Be:
"It was the first time in American history that a war has been declared over by an anchorman." Lyndon Johnson was said to have watched the broadcast and exclaimed to his press secretary, George Christian, "If I have lost Walter Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America."
BUT CRONKITE WAS SO SO VERY WRONG!!! And because of him the TET OFFENSIVE which WAS a victory was pronounced by Cronkite as a DEFEAT worthy of the USA withdrawing. Which we DID!
Cronkite's Vietnam Blunder

Yes, they need to invite conservatives and former mill workers and small business people and farmers and EVERYONE to add their perspectives to what news will be covered and how. There is a vast amount of news to choose from every day when they decide what to cover. I think the reason the major 3 and the cable 2 and PBS all tend to cover the same stories is because these PBS folks are right--they share the same basic perspectives on what is important.
Yes, you see if someone in the NBC newsroom saw an AP article on education, a person with experience as, say, a high school principal, might see an interesting and valid reason to dig into the story. A guy with strong union experience background would push for strike stories, what the real issues are, in depth. Do you see what I mean?

Or they could become reporters instead of journalists. Reporters report the news, journalists make the news.

 

[healthmyths]

No, last night on PBS News Hour they started eating the humble pie. They get that they've been living in an elite bubble, and they got caught with their pants down. There needs to be a lot more diversity of experience and thought in the newsroom in order to reflect real America. At least some of them get it.

No they don't need diversity! They need to remember the principles of journalism.
Journalists present the news and don't form opinions.

You don't do as Walter Cronkite did and was the first biased MSM "reporter" back in February 27,1968...
Read what Walter Cronkite did to 56,000 DEAD americans when he said this on his evening news.
February 27 broadcast, "Report from Vietnam," played a major role in turning Americans against the war and inducing President Lyndon Johnson to abandon his reelection campaign.That’s when, as legend has it, Cronkite was so shocked at the devastation of the communists’ Tet offensive that he went over to see for himself what was really going on. And he concluded the war was a stalemate, probably unwinnable.
Cronkite’s report, writes Brinkley, was "immediately seen as a catalyst by pundits in the Monday newspapers. . . . Cronkite turned dove, and the hawk Johnson lost his talons." This tracks with what Halberstam wrote in his 1979 book, The Powers That Be:
"It was the first time in American history that a war has been declared over by an anchorman." Lyndon Johnson was said to have watched the broadcast and exclaimed to his press secretary, George Christian, "If I have lost Walter Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America."
BUT CRONKITE WAS SO SO VERY WRONG!!! And because of him the TET OFFENSIVE which WAS a victory was pronounced by Cronkite as a DEFEAT worthy of the USA withdrawing. Which we DID!
Cronkite's Vietnam Blunder

Yes, they need to invite conservatives and former mill workers and small business people and farmers and EVERYONE to add their perspectives to what news will be covered and how. There is a vast amount of news to choose from every day when they decide what to cover. I think the reason the major 3 and the cable 2 and PBS all tend to cover the same stories is because these PBS folks are right--they share the same basic perspectives on what is important.
Yes, you see if someone in the NBC newsroom saw an AP article on education, a person with experience as, say, a high school principal, might see an interesting and valid reason to dig into the story. A guy with strong union experience background would push for strike stories, what the real issues are, in depth. Do you see what I mean?

Or they could become reporters instead of journalists. Reporters report the news, journalists make the news.

Part of the problem is understanding terms.
Reporter.. a person who reports, especially one employed to report news or conduct interviews for newspapers or broadcasts.

Journalist...a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcast on radio or television.
What does a journalist do? - American Press Institute
Please tell me the difference???

NOW ABC,CBS,NBC,et.al. i.e. Mainstream Media... employ reporters, producers, and "editorialists" and "commentators".
Commentator ... a person who discusses news, sports events, weather, or the like, as on television or radio.

Rush is a commentator. Chris Matthews is also. They have a bias. They announce their bias. Maddow is a bias left wing commentator.

Reporters/journalists are to follow the 5 "Ws" that I learned in journalism school..."who","What","When",

SO now we have our terms straight why have I and many others including over 60% of Americans distrust the news media!
Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.
Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low

And as far as Trump and Trump supporters like me... here is what the MSM wanted to happen regarding Trump!
.....Trump has been hit by a tsunami of negative coverage, all but swamping the reporting on Hillary Clinton.
Liberal investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald recently told Slate that
“the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president”—and, given his views, he has no problem with that.
Media justify anti-Trump bias, claim he's too 'dangerous' for normal rules

So NOW do you understand that the gross difference between you and me and people like me that supported Trump and his views is
A) The MSM has been 100% against Trump and as such the stories such as "Trump is anti-immigrant" of which a google search shows over 12,000 results..
have been so bad in that these results not once used the term that Trump and millions like me have regarding immigrants..."ILLEGAL" is missing!
Yup... Trump married an "legal immigrant"... but the MSM seems to forget that when labeling Trump "anti-immigrant"!
B) That the distinction between people like you and me is I like most logical and rational people don't depend on my personal subjective experiences!
For example... "Black Lives Matter"... an organization based on ALL cops hate blacks..(even black cops) and will shoot them on sight!
Now probably think "BLM" has a point! WRONG! Again facts. Cops have killed more WHITES then blacks. But the MSM and people like you
make that the narrative and so we have criminals like Brown of Ferguson being the role model...have you seen the pictures of him at 6'4" choking the clerk?

I am 100% confident that all I wrote above goes way over people's heads like you. You wrote read FACTS. You read headlines/30 second sound bites
and that comes full circle to the presentation of the biased MSM! You like 32% TRUST the MSM and that in a nutshell explains why Trump won.
Intelligent, informed people i.e. us "deplorables" know the truth because we studied. We know Trump is not a sexist, racist, misogynist!
Proof? Would a racist, misogynist hire these people?
Where is the MSM on these stories? The first black transition leader? The first woman campaign manager to win a presidential campaign?
Where are those stories???

 

[Iceweasel]

No, last night on PBS News Hour they started eating the humble pie. They get that they've been living in an elite bubble, and they got caught with their pants down. There needs to be a lot more diversity of experience and thought in the newsroom in order to reflect real America. At least some of them get it.

No they don't need diversity! They need to remember the principles of journalism.
Journalists present the news and don't form opinions.

You don't do as Walter Cronkite did and was the first biased MSM "reporter" back in February 27,1968...
Read what Walter Cronkite did to 56,000 DEAD americans when he said this on his evening news.
February 27 broadcast, "Report from Vietnam," played a major role in turning Americans against the war and inducing President Lyndon Johnson to abandon his reelection campaign.That’s when, as legend has it, Cronkite was so shocked at the devastation of the communists’ Tet offensive that he went over to see for himself what was really going on. And he concluded the war was a stalemate, probably unwinnable.
Cronkite’s report, writes Brinkley, was "immediately seen as a catalyst by pundits in the Monday newspapers. . . . Cronkite turned dove, and the hawk Johnson lost his talons." This tracks with what Halberstam wrote in his 1979 book, The Powers That Be:
"It was the first time in American history that a war has been declared over by an anchorman." Lyndon Johnson was said to have watched the broadcast and exclaimed to his press secretary, George Christian, "If I have lost Walter Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America."
BUT CRONKITE WAS SO SO VERY WRONG!!! And because of him the TET OFFENSIVE which WAS a victory was pronounced by Cronkite as a DEFEAT worthy of the USA withdrawing. Which we DID!
Cronkite's Vietnam Blunder

Yes, they need to invite conservatives and former mill workers and small business people and farmers and EVERYONE to add their perspectives to what news will be covered and how. There is a vast amount of news to choose from every day when they decide what to cover. I think the reason the major 3 and the cable 2 and PBS all tend to cover the same stories is because these PBS folks are right--they share the same basic perspectives on what is important.
Yes, you see if someone in the NBC newsroom saw an AP article on education, a person with experience as, say, a high school principal, might see an interesting and valid reason to dig into the story. A guy with strong union experience background would push for strike stories, what the real issues are, in depth. Do you see what I mean?

Or they could become reporters instead of journalists. Reporters report the news, journalists make the news.

Part of the problem is understanding terms.
Reporter.. a person who reports, especially one employed to report news or conduct interviews for newspapers or broadcasts.

Journalist...a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcast on radio or television.
What does a journalist do? - American Press Institute
Please tell me the difference???

NOW ABC,CBS,NBC,et.al. i.e. Mainstream Media... employ reporters, producers, and "editorialists" and "commentators".
Commentator ... a person who discusses news, sports events, weather, or the like, as on television or radio.

Rush is a commentator. Chris Matthews is also. They have a bias. They announce their bias. Maddow is a bias left wing commentator.

Reporters/journalists are to follow the 5 "Ws" that I learned in journalism school..."who","What","When",

SO now we have our terms straight why have I and many others including over 60% of Americans distrust the news media!
Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.
Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low

And as far as Trump and Trump supporters like me... here is what the MSM wanted to happen regarding Trump!
.....Trump has been hit by a tsunami of negative coverage, all but swamping the reporting on Hillary Clinton.
Liberal investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald recently told Slate that
“the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president”—and, given his views, he has no problem with that.
Media justify anti-Trump bias, claim he's too 'dangerous' for normal rules

So NOW do you understand that the gross difference between you and me and people like me that supported Trump and his views is
A) The MSM has been 100% against Trump and as such the stories such as "Trump is anti-immigrant" of which a google search shows over 12,000 results..
have been so bad in that these results not once used the term that Trump and millions like me have regarding immigrants..."ILLEGAL" is missing!
Yup... Trump married an "legal immigrant"... but the MSM seems to forget that when labeling Trump "anti-immigrant"!
B) That the distinction between people like you and me is I like most logical and rational people don't depend on my personal subjective experiences!
For example... "Black Lives Matter"... an organization based on ALL cops hate blacks..(even black cops) and will shoot them on sight!
Now probably think "BLM" has a point! WRONG! Again facts. Cops have killed more WHITES then blacks. But the MSM and people like you
make that the narrative and so we have criminals like Brown of Ferguson being the role model...have you seen the pictures of him at 6'4" choking the clerk?

I am 100% confident that all I wrote above goes way over people's heads like you. You wrote read FACTS. You read headlines/30 second sound bites
and that comes full circle to the presentation of the biased MSM! You like 32% TRUST the MSM and that in a nutshell explains why Trump won.
Intelligent, informed people i.e. us "deplorables" know the truth because we studied. We know Trump is not a sexist, racist, misogynist!
Proof? Would a racist, misogynist hire these people?
Where is the MSM on these stories? The first black transition leader? The first woman campaign manager to win a presidential campaign?
Where are those stories???
View attachment 97928

That's what I said "Reporters report the news, journalists make the news."

 

[OldLady]

I watch Fox/CNN and PBS for news. Once in a great while CBS. I have not seen what you describe, that 100% of the coverage was anti-Trump. The editorial page in our local paper? Quite a lot. That is the editorial page. He got straight reporting coverage by the papers and the TV as well when he was here.

In my mind, it is dangerous to brainwash the public into believing that news is not fact and that they are better off believing some unvetted website with no accountability instead. That is not the way to lead an informed public.

 

[longknife]

So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doingwhen he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.
This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence!
The public’s estimation of the press declines even further -- fewer than one-in-three Americans trust the press, per Gallup -- which starts the cycle anew.
---------
Sometimes quite literally so, such as when reporters tweet out a photo of racist-looking Trump supporters and jokingly suggest that they must be upset about free trade or low wages.

Commentary: The unbearable smugness of the press


I would hope from the nearly 15,160 messages I've put since joining this forum that for those of you
that think I'm a racist, a sexist because I voted for Trump... remember where you got that opinion...the main stream media as the above article explains and once again I'm trying to help you shrinking number of people that still believe the MSM is objective!

I've seen videos of various media personalities actually crying while having to report Trump's win.

 

[OldLady]

So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doingwhen he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.
This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence!
The public’s estimation of the press declines even further -- fewer than one-in-three Americans trust the press, per Gallup -- which starts the cycle anew.
---------
Sometimes quite literally so, such as when reporters tweet out a photo of racist-looking Trump supporters and jokingly suggest that they must be upset about free trade or low wages.

Commentary: The unbearable smugness of the press


I would hope from the nearly 15,160 messages I've put since joining this forum that for those of you
that think I'm a racist, a sexist because I voted for Trump... remember where you got that opinion...the main stream media as the above article explains and once again I'm trying to help you shrinking number of people that still believe the MSM is objective!

I've seen videos of various media personalities actually crying while having to report Trump's win.

And more than a couple chins were quivering when Kennedy was shot. Does that mean they couldn't report the real news? People are human, especially after an all nighter.

 

[paulitician]

Smug Globalist Elitists are the worst. They were in the tank for the Clinton Crime Family, but the People slapped em down. And now they'll begin undermining and sabotaging Trump. That's how they do it. Credible American Journalism is dead.

 

[healthmyths]

No, last night on PBS News Hour they started eating the humble pie. They get that they've been living in an elite bubble, and they got caught with their pants down. There needs to be a lot more diversity of experience and thought in the newsroom in order to reflect real America. At least some of them get it.

No they don't need diversity! They need to remember the principles of journalism.
Journalists present the news and don't form opinions.

You don't do as Walter Cronkite did and was the first biased MSM "reporter" back in February 27,1968...
Read what Walter Cronkite did to 56,000 DEAD americans when he said this on his evening news.
February 27 broadcast, "Report from Vietnam," played a major role in turning Americans against the war and inducing President Lyndon Johnson to abandon his reelection campaign.That’s when, as legend has it, Cronkite was so shocked at the devastation of the communists’ Tet offensive that he went over to see for himself what was really going on. And he concluded the war was a stalemate, probably unwinnable.
Cronkite’s report, writes Brinkley, was "immediately seen as a catalyst by pundits in the Monday newspapers. . . . Cronkite turned dove, and the hawk Johnson lost his talons." This tracks with what Halberstam wrote in his 1979 book, The Powers That Be:
"It was the first time in American history that a war has been declared over by an anchorman." Lyndon Johnson was said to have watched the broadcast and exclaimed to his press secretary, George Christian, "If I have lost Walter Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America."
BUT CRONKITE WAS SO SO VERY WRONG!!! And because of him the TET OFFENSIVE which WAS a victory was pronounced by Cronkite as a DEFEAT worthy of the USA withdrawing. Which we DID!
Cronkite's Vietnam Blunder

Yes, they need to invite conservatives and former mill workers and small business people and farmers and EVERYONE to add their perspectives to what news will be covered and how. There is a vast amount of news to choose from every day when they decide what to cover. I think the reason the major 3 and the cable 2 and PBS all tend to cover the same stories is because these PBS folks are right--they share the same basic perspectives on what is important.
Yes, you see if someone in the NBC newsroom saw an AP article on education, a person with experience as, say, a high school principal, might see an interesting and valid reason to dig into the story. A guy with strong union experience background would push for strike stories, what the real issues are, in depth. Do you see what I mean?

Or they could become reporters instead of journalists. Reporters report the news, journalists make the news.

Part of the problem is understanding terms.
Reporter.. a person who reports, especially one employed to report news or conduct interviews for newspapers or broadcasts.

Journalist...a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcast on radio or television.
What does a journalist do? - American Press Institute
Please tell me the difference???

NOW ABC,CBS,NBC,et.al. i.e. Mainstream Media... employ reporters, producers, and "editorialists" and "commentators".
Commentator ... a person who discusses news, sports events, weather, or the like, as on television or radio.

Rush is a commentator. Chris Matthews is also. They have a bias. They announce their bias. Maddow is a bias left wing commentator.

Reporters/journalists are to follow the 5 "Ws" that I learned in journalism school..."who","What","When",

SO now we have our terms straight why have I and many others including over 60% of Americans distrust the news media!
Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.
Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low

And as far as Trump and Trump supporters like me... here is what the MSM wanted to happen regarding Trump!
.....Trump has been hit by a tsunami of negative coverage, all but swamping the reporting on Hillary Clinton.
Liberal investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald recently told Slate that
“the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president”—and, given his views, he has no problem with that.
Media justify anti-Trump bias, claim he's too 'dangerous' for normal rules

So NOW do you understand that the gross difference between you and me and people like me that supported Trump and his views is
A) The MSM has been 100% against Trump and as such the stories such as "Trump is anti-immigrant" of which a google search shows over 12,000 results..
have been so bad in that these results not once used the term that Trump and millions like me have regarding immigrants..."ILLEGAL" is missing!
Yup... Trump married an "legal immigrant"... but the MSM seems to forget that when labeling Trump "anti-immigrant"!
B) That the distinction between people like you and me is I like most logical and rational people don't depend on my personal subjective experiences!
For example... "Black Lives Matter"... an organization based on ALL cops hate blacks..(even black cops) and will shoot them on sight!
Now probably think "BLM" has a point! WRONG! Again facts. Cops have killed more WHITES then blacks. But the MSM and people like you
make that the narrative and so we have criminals like Brown of Ferguson being the role model...have you seen the pictures of him at 6'4" choking the clerk?

I am 100% confident that all I wrote above goes way over people's heads like you. You wrote read FACTS. You read headlines/30 second sound bites
and that comes full circle to the presentation of the biased MSM! You like 32% TRUST the MSM and that in a nutshell explains why Trump won.
Intelligent, informed people i.e. us "deplorables" know the truth because we studied. We know Trump is not a sexist, racist, misogynist!
Proof? Would a racist, misogynist hire these people?
Where is the MSM on these stories? The first black transition leader? The first woman campaign manager to win a presidential campaign?
Where are those stories???
View attachment 97928

That's what I said "Reporters report the news, journalists make the news."

OK... How do "journalists" manufacture (make) the news? Explain please!

Journalism is getting beneath the news. It's investigation, analysis and thoughtful commentary. It's in-depth expository reporting. Roy Greenslade: The difference between reporting and journalism

PLEASE NOTE... it is "expository reporting"... NOT commentary or editorializing which is what Hannity, Rush, Maddow
do.
BUT reporters news anchors... are all editorializing. Omitting key words as to get their personal opinion across!
CASE in point.
Trump is anti-immigrant"... just did a search and found 12,800 results.
Funny but the news and articles don't seem to want to put the adjective "illegal" in the phrase which Trump and millions like me and him are as we both have "LEGAL immigrants" as relatives! So how can WE be "anti-immigrant"?
So this is the point I'm trying to get across to you.
Still doesn't seem to register to you that "journalists/reporters" are putting their own subjective spin.
Leaving out in the above example of their "biased reporting" Trump is anti-illegal immigrant"...
BIG BIG difference and as a result gross misperceptions about Trump i.e. 'racist", "misogynist!" which is so far from the truth!

 

[healthmyths]

I watch Fox/CNN and PBS for news. Once in a great while CBS. I have not seen what you describe, that 100% of the coverage was anti-Trump. The editorial page in our local paper? Quite a lot. That is the editorial page. He got straight reporting coverage by the papers and the TV as well when he was here.

In my mind, it is dangerous to brainwash the public into believing that news is not fact and that they are better off believing some unvetted website with no accountability instead. That is not the way to lead an informed public.

OK... you obviously don't pay any attention the links people put up.
But I'll try to educate you on analytical thinking and the difference between what you are doing...SUBJECTIVE!

Since the nominating conventions in July, Donald Trump has enjoyed significantly more airtime on broadcast networks than rival Hillary, but almost all of it—91 percent—has been negative,
Moreover, the networks spent a disproportionate amount of time covering his personal controversies (440 minutes) such as his treatment of women and release of his tax returns, compared to Clinton’s (185 minutes), discussing topics like her health and email scandal.

the Media Research Center found.

Want more proof?
Now comes Jim Rutenberg, in his first season as media columnist for the New York Times.
“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”
Media justify anti-Trump bias, claim he's too 'dangerous' for normal rules

WANT MORE PROOF???

 

[EverCurious]

Thing is Trump isn't racist, sexist, nor a bigot. It's all lies. I've been watching the Midas Man since the 80s he's held the same beliefs almost the entire time. His life has been practically on full display, but they don't bring up /any/ of the things that he's done in the past which show he's not a racist bigot. On the sexist thing, 30 years ago he was putting women in the highest positions in his companies, starting with his ex-wife running close to 50% of his empire. Its not like this info isn't readily available - check out the Letterman Show and you can see Trump being Trump, talking how he talks (and being loved for it) talking about things he sees wrong with American trade deals during his various business enterprises (home and abroad), even his opinions on SSM and such. It's all out there and it isn't at all what the media painted for the idiots.

 

[dannyboys]

I believe when not if the LIB MSM continues it's relentless attacks on Trump these outlets are going to be in for some VERY BIG SURPRISE!!!!!!
I wouldn't want to be a fucking MSNBC talking head right now.
Maybe time to take a couple of years living in a foreign country Madcow/The Two 'Chrissys/O'Donnell.

 

[OldLady]

I watch Fox/CNN and PBS for news. Once in a great while CBS. I have not seen what you describe, that 100% of the coverage was anti-Trump. The editorial page in our local paper? Quite a lot. That is the editorial page. He got straight reporting coverage by the papers and the TV as well when he was here.

In my mind, it is dangerous to brainwash the public into believing that news is not fact and that they are better off believing some unvetted website with no accountability instead. That is not the way to lead an informed public.

OK... you obviously don't pay any attention the links people put up.
But I'll try to educate you on analytical thinking and the difference between what you are doing...SUBJECTIVE!

Since the nominating conventions in July, Donald Trump has enjoyed significantly more airtime on broadcast networks than rival Hillary, but almost all of it—91 percent—has been negative,
Moreover, the networks spent a disproportionate amount of time covering his personal controversies (440 minutes) such as his treatment of women and release of his tax returns, compared to Clinton’s (185 minutes), discussing topics like her health and email scandal.

the Media Research Center found.

Want more proof?
Now comes Jim Rutenberg, in his first season as media columnist for the New York Times.
“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”
Media justify anti-Trump bias, claim he's too 'dangerous' for normal rules

WANT MORE PROOF???

Your article cites two journalists with that view. Two people do not "Media" make. I am going by what I've seen. Sure Trump got more negative media coverage BECAUSE HE KEPT STICKING HIS FOOT IN IT!!! When the Wikileaks started dripping, Clinton was getting equal time. She just hadn't made as many bizarro statements during her campaign to chew over. And the media has been digging into her business for 30 years, so how much else was there to say?
I don't doubt that some journalists felt the way you describe. I saw an effort by every news organization I watched to offer the opposing opinion in all their discussions. I heard plenty of Trump's name, and no it was not all negative. Especially if you go by Trump's own motto that all coverage is good coverage. He made it work. I still believe it is dangerous to undermine the public's ability to trust facts, which nurtures the extremely unhealthy reliance that some have on the dregs of social media sites.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

No, last night on PBS News Hour they started eating the humble pie. They get that they've been living in an elite bubble, and they got caught with their pants down. There needs to be a lot more diversity of experience and thought in the newsroom in order to reflect real America. At least some of them get it.

Then they better get their asses from their newsrooms and start actually speaking to Americans and learn that we are not all racist, homophobic xenophobes, saluting Hitler and throwing bodies off of buildings.

We don't trust them. We don't like them. And I think it's too late but to say fuckoff to them.

 

[OldLady]

No, last night on PBS News Hour they started eating the humble pie. They get that they've been living in an elite bubble, and they got caught with their pants down. There needs to be a lot more diversity of experience and thought in the newsroom in order to reflect real America. At least some of them get it.

Then they better get their asses from their newsrooms and start actually speaking to Americans and learn that we are not all racist, homophobic xenophobes, saluting Hitler and throwing bodies off of buildings.

We don't trust them. We don't like them. And I think it's too late but to say fuckoff to them.

I'm not so sure I'd go rushing to speak to someone with that attitude, but you're right.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

No, last night on PBS News Hour they started eating the humble pie. They get that they've been living in an elite bubble, and they got caught with their pants down. There needs to be a lot more diversity of experience and thought in the newsroom in order to reflect real America. At least some of them get it.

Then they better get their asses from their newsrooms and start actually speaking to Americans and learn that we are not all racist, homophobic xenophobes, saluting Hitler and throwing bodies off of buildings.

We don't trust them. We don't like them. And I think it's too late but to say fuckoff to them.

I'm not so sure I'd go rushing to speak to someone with that attitude, but you're right.

Thank you.

It's up to them to mend the fences now.

Their arrogance and attitude towards those they know nothing about and to those they have never met is unforgivable until they show they deserve our trust.

I'm not expecting apologies, but I would think they have earned their position amongst used car salesman and politicians.

 

[OldLady]

No, last night on PBS News Hour they started eating the humble pie. They get that they've been living in an elite bubble, and they got caught with their pants down. There needs to be a lot more diversity of experience and thought in the newsroom in order to reflect real America. At least some of them get it.

Then they better get their asses from their newsrooms and start actually speaking to Americans and learn that we are not all racist, homophobic xenophobes, saluting Hitler and throwing bodies off of buildings.

We don't trust them. We don't like them. And I think it's too late but to say fuckoff to them.

I'm not so sure I'd go rushing to speak to someone with that attitude, but you're right.

Thank you.

It's up to them to mend the fences now.

Their arrogance and attitude towards those they know nothing about and to those they have never met is unforgivable until they show they deserve our trust.

I'm not expecting apologies, but I would think they have earned their position amongst used car salesman and politicians.

Well, it was not intentional, their slight, but people in the cities.....they just don't get what it's like out here. Or in some parts of their own cities, tbh.
We live in a VERY rural spot that gets some stray tourists in the summer. They have no clue; it can be pretty funny. Hell, the pols from the capital of our state won't even come here. We are invisible. I know what you're saying, but there's no reason to be so angry at them for not knowing any better.

 

[healthmyths]

I watch Fox/CNN and PBS for news. Once in a great while CBS. I have not seen what you describe, that 100% of the coverage was anti-Trump. The editorial page in our local paper? Quite a lot. That is the editorial page. He got straight reporting coverage by the papers and the TV as well when he was here.

In my mind, it is dangerous to brainwash the public into believing that news is not fact and that they are better off believing some unvetted website with no accountability instead. That is not the way to lead an informed public.

OK... you obviously don't pay any attention the links people put up.
But I'll try to educate you on analytical thinking and the difference between what you are doing...SUBJECTIVE!

Since the nominating conventions in July, Donald Trump has enjoyed significantly more airtime on broadcast networks than rival Hillary, but almost all of it—91 percent—has been negative,
Moreover, the networks spent a disproportionate amount of time covering his personal controversies (440 minutes) such as his treatment of women and release of his tax returns, compared to Clinton’s (185 minutes), discussing topics like her health and email scandal.

the Media Research Center found.

Want more proof?
Now comes Jim Rutenberg, in his first season as media columnist for the New York Times.
“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”
Media justify anti-Trump bias, claim he's too 'dangerous' for normal rules

WANT MORE PROOF???

Your article cites two journalists with that view. Two people do not "Media" make. I am going by what I've seen. Sure Trump got more negative media coverage BECAUSE HE KEPT STICKING HIS FOOT IN IT!!! When the Wikileaks started dripping, Clinton was getting equal time. She just hadn't made as many bizarro statements during her campaign to chew over. And the media has been digging into her business for 30 years, so how much else was there to say?
I don't doubt that some journalists felt the way you describe. I saw an effort by every news organization I watched to offer the opposing opinion in all their discussions. I heard plenty of Trump's name, and no it was not all negative. Especially if you go by Trump's own motto that all coverage is good coverage. He made it work. I still believe it is dangerous to undermine the public's ability to trust facts, which nurtures the extremely unhealthy reliance that some have on the dregs of social media sites.

OK WANT MORE PROOF!!!

More PROOF??? 96% to Clinton!!! 4% To Trump!!!

WANT MORE PROOF???

I know you’re thinking, ‘what’s the big deal? this is obvious and we don’t need them to tell us’… Well it’s slip-ups like this that EXPOSE the media for what they are. Surprisingly, people who don’t follow politics regularly, still trust places like NBC to get their political news.
They are unaware that the entire media establishment is set on defeating Trump this year.
WATCH: NBC Reporter Accidentally Admits Media Bias Against Trump

MORE PROOF???

To fight Trump, journalists have dispensed with objectivity
Why are the rules of journalism being rewritten this election year?

My local newspaper, the Sonoma County Press-Democrat, is so clearly in the tank for Hillary Clinton that I no longer take pleasure in my morning read. Trump’s acceptance speech, for example, was covered on the front page with two stories: on the left a straight, albeit somewhat judgmental, account of the speech, and on the right a “fact check” that disputed every point made by the GOP nominee. Clinton’s speech was covered with three front page stories, with headlines describing her nomination as “historic,” “inspiring” and “trailblazing.” A relatively mild fact-checking piece was relegated to the back pages.
To fight Trump, journalists have dispensed with objectivity

Hey look I can come up with thousands of examples!!!