7 ms·

And the coverage of Hillary wasn't?

rbritton 10y ago
Trying not to venture too far into a political discussion, I think the majority of the coverage of both was negative. Towards the last couple weeks, the quantity of coverage was very disproportionate depending on the source of the news [0]. People of the same political affiliation tend to gravitate towards the same news sources, and those sources appeared to be appealing to the affiliation of their viewers with the selection of information given. The particular example I have provided is from Fox News because it was quick to search for, but I suspect you could find similar elsewhere about other news organizations. [0]: https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/787078152895901696/photo/1 https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/787078152895901696/photo/...
551199 10y ago
Did you follow mainstream media during election? If you did you wouldn't have to ask that. Have a look at the Podesta Wikileaks. MSM colluded with Clinton campaign creating the narrative of Trump being 'crazy racist'. Seriously look at the emails its all there. Fabricated Fake news about Trump raping multiple people and 13 year kid certainly didn't help Trump to win. Edit: Downvoted by the bots already.
- dominotw 10y ago
  > We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously[1] Most important part of the sentence: 'and tell the press' http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign...
- the_cat_kittles 10y ago
  "downvoted by bots already" i live on the same internet as you, how are you sure its bots downvoting you when im not? really destroys your credibility to be certain of something that you cant be.
kobeya 10y ago
The coverage of Hillary tended to criticize her actions (e.g. regarding emails). The coverage of Trump tended to criticize his character. Objectively speaking, one was more of an ad hominem attack, which reflects poorly on the media.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Ad hominem is a fallacy when evaluating an argument. When you're evaluating a person (as a candidate), arguments are necessarily ad hominem, whether they're about temperament or conduct.
  - kobeya 10y ago
    As someone who thinks elections should be decoded by positions on policy not moral character or temperment, I disagree.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      You may disagree with the metric, but that doesn't make it a fallacy, just a difference of opinion.
      - kobeya 10y ago
        I didn't use the word fallacy. You did.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
It certainly was, but there was less of it.
oh_sigh 10y ago
Much less so than Trump. HRC also had much less coverage overall than Trump.

Trying not to venture too far into a political discussion, I think the majority of the coverage of both was negative. Towards the last couple weeks, the quantity of coverage was very disproportionate depending on the source of the news [0]. People of the same political affiliation tend to gravitate towards the same news sources, and those sources appeared to be appealing to the affiliation of their viewers with the selection of information given. The particular example I have provided is from Fox News because it was quick to search for, but I suspect you could find similar elsewhere about other news organizations. [0]: https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/787078152895901696/photo/1 https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/787078152895901696/photo/...

551199 10y ago

Did you follow mainstream media during election? If you did you wouldn't have to ask that. Have a look at the Podesta Wikileaks. MSM colluded with Clinton campaign creating the narrative of Trump being 'crazy racist'. Seriously look at the emails its all there. Fabricated Fake news about Trump raping multiple people and 13 year kid certainly didn't help Trump to win. Edit: Downvoted by the bots already.

dominotw 10y ago
> We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously[1] Most important part of the sentence: 'and tell the press' http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign...
the_cat_kittles 10y ago
"downvoted by bots already" i live on the same internet as you, how are you sure its bots downvoting you when im not? really destroys your credibility to be certain of something that you cant be.

kobeya 10y ago

The coverage of Hillary tended to criticize her actions (e.g. regarding emails). The coverage of Trump tended to criticize his character. Objectively speaking, one was more of an ad hominem attack, which reflects poorly on the media.

icebraining 10y ago
Ad hominem is a fallacy when evaluating an argument. When you're evaluating a person (as a candidate), arguments are necessarily ad hominem, whether they're about temperament or conduct.
- kobeya 10y ago
  As someone who thinks elections should be decoded by positions on policy not moral character or temperment, I disagree.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    You may disagree with the metric, but that doesn't make it a fallacy, just a difference of opinion.
    - kobeya 10y ago
      I didn't use the word fallacy. You did.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

It certainly was, but there was less of it.

oh_sigh 10y ago

Much less so than Trump. HRC also had much less coverage overall than Trump.