3 ms·

Things may be about to get much, much worse, because Trump is an obvious threat to America's First Amendment rights: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/s

• whybroke 10y ago
  Including three tweets in a hour just yesterday strongly condemning the NYT for simply repeating his goal of nuclearizing Japan and S Korea eg [1] [1]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/797832229800050688 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/79783222980005068...
• grzm 10y ago
  I can hear the arguments now: "Of course the MSM is going to say that! They're obviously biased against Trump! They're just representing their own selfish interest!" Yup. A lot of media organizations endorsed Clinton over Trump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_... I've been (admittedly amateurishly) looking for research on media bias. Research is limited by its methods, and researchers hold opinions, results can be subject to confirmation bias, so this whole area is difficult for the every day person to sift through. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_State... I find it hard to believe that no bias exists, and I think a lot of journalists try to be objective, with varying success. The question to me is how much bias there is, how we can keep that in mind, and how we can agree on some shared understanding of facts. It's also in the interest of these organizations to support the First Amendment. Hard to ask them to be against — or even neutral — the First Amendment, just as we'd expect for any business to support aspects of the Constitution or law that are in their own self interest (regardless of whether we agree with it). It's also in the interest of Americans in general for strong First Amendment rights. It has broad support across parties. This kind of nuance doesn't fit easily in 140 characters or support the easy "us vs them" characterization.
  • scholia 10y ago
    > Yup. A lot of media organizations endorsed Clinton over Trump. Pretty hard to endorse Trump, given that he's a crooked racist and narcissist, a sexual predator, a pathological liar, and wholly unqualified for any public office. Given what he said in his speeches, not many companies would even hire him. As a result, even Republican newspapers broke with tradition and endorsed HRC, except for one Las Vegas paper owned by one of Trump's backers. > I find it hard to believe that no bias exists, and I think a lot of journalists try to be objective, with varying success. There's a strong bias towards getting the truth reported, which is why the leading newspapers have trained journalists, fact checkers, subeditors etc, plus ombudsmen to handle complaints. If you have the facts then you can argue about causes and solutions, and you might have (say) a more Democratic or a more Republican approach to those. Those opinions may involve denying at least some of the facts, but people generally choose the outlets that suit their own opinions. The problems start when news outlets no longer care about facts, like Fox News, Breitbart, Drudge etc. Fox actually argued in court that it wasn't obliged to tell the truth because it was an entertainment channel.