12 ms·

I'm a Trump supporter so take this with a grain of salt. When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excludin

I'm a Trump supporter so take this with a grain of salt. When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News). Anyone who follows Trump know these are the folks he's referring to. If he didn't like ALL of the media, he wouldn't even have a press corps. Reuters isn't really engaging with what Trump's saying. Are Trump's claims substantiated? I would say, Yes. During the last election cycle, anybody who knows anything about the DNC leaks, Podesta emails, CNN feeding Hillary questions during townhall meetings against Sanders, Hillary's gliding past the FBI investigations, "bleaching" her email servers (which were under subpoena), Bill Clinton's unprofessional meeting with Loretta Lynch... knows that there's some serious corruption happening at the top of these major news companies. As a litmus test... the fact that almost every liberal in America is yelling at Trump more than they're yelling at the DNC (and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) shows the state of mainstream media. The DNC sabotaged Bernie Sanders nomination, and he was the only candidate that would have a chance of beating Trump (a very high chance since he had young vote). When the DNC sabotaged Sanders' nomination, and doubled-down on Hillary the loss wasn't just technical––it was a landslide[1] Mainstream media is really broken in America. There really needs to be a breakup of corporation-owned news companies. It really is a swamp in Trump's idiom. [1] http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

Endama 10y ago
While I may not agree with your position, I appreciate your perspective. Thank you for sharing.
deepnotderp 10y ago
Bernie supporter here, so obvious bias, but the way they (CNN, Fox, etc.) talked down to Sanders in the primaries was disgusting, so I have to agree there. However, the trump administration wasn't attacking Fox news which I think we can all agree from an objective standpoint is several times worse than CNN in their distortion of the truth.
- williamle8300 10y ago
  Can you give examples of Fox distorting things? I gave many examples of issues that the MSMs didn't seriously cover. I don't believe that there isn't "true" objective coverage but Fox News with Hannity and Carlson are really providing coverage that is sharp, and enlightening. They're actually informing the public instead of participating in the media churn.
  - sprafa 10y ago
    There's been studies showing people who watch Fox are uninformed. I actually think they're half decent this election cycle, completely unlike the Pravda they were for Iraq/GWB, but they publish more misconceptions and lies than the others (I do not believe for a second WaPo or CNN are unbiased)
  - simplify 10y ago
    I don't know why you're getting downvoted, it's a good question. I am not a fan of trump, but I also want to see and verify examples of Fox distorting things.
    - 3131s 10y ago
      You frankly should not be heard in a discussion about American politics and media if you are so ignorant of the subject that you can't recall a few instances of bias from Fox News. And I'd say the same about CNN. Either you've never watched these networks or you are unable to think critically about politics.
  - thomyorkie 10y ago
    I would argue that presenting one (obviously biased) view as the ground truth would qualify as distortion. For example, consider how Fox reports news regarding separating religion from public, tax-funded institutions, such as removing the 10 commandments from schools, as infringements on religious freedom. Of course, liberal news organizations distort the truth as well.
  - breatheoften 10y ago
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
Can you point me to some concrete examples of times CNN or WaPo has been dishonest? Not counting editorials. > The fact that almost every liberal in America is yelling at Trump more than they're yelling at the DNC (and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) shows the state of mainstream media. Plenty of liberals in my liberal social media bubble were yelling at the DNC and DWS when they were doing news worthy things. But why should we still be? Trump is now the one doing things we think harmful.
- williamle8300 10y ago
  I listed several examples in my comment. CNN for sure did not cover these issues proportionately to their gravity. These were serious issues that were skirted by them. Had they been responsibly covered, public sentiment would be more favorable towards Trump... since he's really been rapping on this MSM corruption for a while. If anything, Trump is at least an iconoclast and whether you like his policies it would at least command respect.
  - cirath 10y ago
    >CNN for sure did not cover these issues proportionately to their gravity. This is a very reasonable statement, but ultimately does not encapsulate the rhetoric that has been levied against the media by Trump specifically, nor his more ardent supporters. Not covering proportional to gravity is not: Anything similar to lies, fabrications, false news, misconstruing the news, or presenting the topic with a completely false narrative. While it does certainly affect the narrative, and while CNN gives far more weight to articles favoring the left, this does not hurt Trump in any way as far as his getting elected was concerned. At the very least, the song played by the left leaning MSM (and that is a VERY IMPORTANT distinction, as Fox News represents the right leaning MSM; their viewer numbers have them as a larger body than CNN--how would they not be the true MSM?) lulled many Clinton supporters into a false sense of security. The post-election meltdowns by people who claimed they did not vote directly as a result of this false security, while anecdotal, points directly at that narrative. And even if you allow that CNN reports on left leaning issues in a positive light while decrying conservative viewpoints, and Fox reports on right leaning issues positively while pointing out the issues in progressive topics, one cannot use them as direct opposition to each other, as neither tends to focus both on the positives and negatives in an issue in a way that could be considered equal. Equal airtime doctrines have also caused a negative skew, but that is another topic altogether.
mikeash 10y ago
I saw a ton of liberals yelling at the DNC. Before the election, they were upset that they mistreated Bernie. After the election, they were upset that it handed the victory to Trump. It has faded away, but that's only because more important things are going on. Trump is an immediate threat to the nation in ways the DNC could never be.
- williamle8300 10y ago
  How is Trump an immediate threat? I'm really curious. All of his policies are about protecting American interests, and rebuilding America's manufacturing complex. If you're referring to the Immigration EO... please read it first. It's a really well-written bill. For those curious about whether it was a religious discrimination see this pie chart of the Muslims that are excluded[1]. The goal of the EO is to mitigate the influx of refugees from states that foment anti-Western ideals. It just happens to be this group are radicalized, and violent Islamic people. [1] https://i.redditmedia.com/09_97z77yJ2MRBOVMVYvkcVEi66uJI5KSwwqQNj7FGo.png?w=1024&s=97db18b42aa36517285f9405330f011a https://i.redditmedia.com/09_97z77yJ2MRBOVMVYvkcVEi66uJI5KSw...
  - cirath 10y ago
    Trump is a more long term threat due to the long term fallout and international perception of the United States as a result of his actions. Yes, his Immigration related EO does not affect nearly as many people as the rhetoric would indicate -- but what it does do is prevent travel to the United States for some 22,000 persons (and counting) at the very least while, by consensus, not really being likely to prevent entry to actual terrorists. It is not that the bill is truly discriminatory, just that it is likely to be ineffective in its aims while damaging international credibility of America as a land of inclusion (or, to rely on imagery from the plaque of the Statue of Liberty, a golden door, to accept your tempest-tossed refuse). Second, while his threat of 20% tariffs on importation from Mexico may seem like it originally promotes "buying local", there are several long term ramifications. First, construction materials and machinery [1] for American factories will ultimately increase the price of American produced goods as a result of this measure. Second, this bill will, directly and immediately, grant China greater bargaining power--with the United States. Thirdly, it causes Mexico to negotiate more aggressively with its local neighbors and with overseas partners, potentially closing trade avenues altogether with America. Ultimately, it boils down to one thing: Trump's measures appear to be reactionary, with little view for long term fallout, international reputation, and future trade relations with partners that are not directly related to his current target (eg: trade relations with Mexico deteriorating, giving China greater negotiating power). [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-does-the-u-s-import-from-mexico-a-whole-lot/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-does-the-u-s-import-from-me...
serge2k 10y ago
> I'm a Trump supporter so take this with a grain of salt. Immediately predict lame rhetoric about how bad the media is. > When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News). Oh right, the bastion of correct reporting, fucking Fox News. Questioning Obama's birth certificate. Warning about his terrorist fist jabs. Rightly admonishing him for asking for Dijon Mustard. > As a litmus test... the fact that almost every liberal in America is yelling at Trump more than they're yelling at the DNC The current president vs something that happened 8 months ago. > doubled-down on Hillary the loss wasn't just technical––it was a landslide[1] It wasn't a fucking landslide. 13th closest election in history by electoral college, massive loss in the popular vote. This is why Trump supporters need a fucking reality check and should maybe try some of that mainstream media. You are hooked on his propaganda and lies.
- williamle8300 10y ago
  First, tell me the numbers for electoral votes. I would consider that a landslide. Second, Obama's birth certificate was forged[1]. I'm not saying he wasn't born in America, but anyone with Photoshop and how layers work knows that the document was doctored. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/15/sheriff-joe-arpaio-probe-proves-obama-birth-certificate-fake/95500958/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/15/she...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > First, tell me the numbers for electoral votes. I would consider that a landslide Then you don't understand what a landslide, electoral or otherwise, is. Of the post-WWII elections, virtually all were bigger wins, electorally, the exception being both of George W. Bush's elections, Nixon's 1968 election, and Kennedy's 1960 election. Actually, while WWII is often used as a breakpoint for considering modern elections, the same is true if you extend the timeframe to post-WWI.
    - williamle8300 10y ago
      You may not consider 232 (CLINTON) -– 306 (TRUMP) a landslide but I certainly do.
jotux 10y ago
>the loss wasn't just technical––it was a landslide 1984 Reagan/Mondale, Reagan gets 59% of the popular vote and 98% of the electoral college -- that is a landslide. Trump getting 46% of the popular vote and 56% of the electoral college sure doesn't seem like a landslide.
mcphage 10y ago
> doubled-down on Hillary the loss wasn't just technical––it was a landslide Is this your first election? Consider even just the last one: Obama vs. Romney. Obama performed far worse than he did in his previous election, and it was absolutely no landslide. Maybe 2008 was a landslide, but not 2012. Yet in 2012 Obama won more electoral votes than Trump (332 instead of 304), and won the popular vote by 3.9%, instead of losing it by 2.1%. Trump won, yes, but the idea that it was a landslide is patently foolish, and makes the rest of your message weaker. If you're so easily misled on the details, why would I have any confidence in your bigger picture?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Endama 10y ago

While I may not agree with your position, I appreciate your perspective. Thank you for sharing.

deepnotderp 10y ago

Bernie supporter here, so obvious bias, but the way they (CNN, Fox, etc.) talked down to Sanders in the primaries was disgusting, so I have to agree there. However, the trump administration wasn't attacking Fox news which I think we can all agree from an objective standpoint is several times worse than CNN in their distortion of the truth.

williamle8300 10y ago
Can you give examples of Fox distorting things? I gave many examples of issues that the MSMs didn't seriously cover. I don't believe that there isn't "true" objective coverage but Fox News with Hannity and Carlson are really providing coverage that is sharp, and enlightening. They're actually informing the public instead of participating in the media churn.
- sprafa 10y ago
  There's been studies showing people who watch Fox are uninformed. I actually think they're half decent this election cycle, completely unlike the Pravda they were for Iraq/GWB, but they publish more misconceptions and lies than the others (I do not believe for a second WaPo or CNN are unbiased)
- simplify 10y ago
  I don't know why you're getting downvoted, it's a good question. I am not a fan of trump, but I also want to see and verify examples of Fox distorting things.
  - 3131s 10y ago
    You frankly should not be heard in a discussion about American politics and media if you are so ignorant of the subject that you can't recall a few instances of bias from Fox News. And I'd say the same about CNN. Either you've never watched these networks or you are unable to think critically about politics.
- thomyorkie 10y ago
  I would argue that presenting one (obviously biased) view as the ground truth would qualify as distortion. For example, consider how Fox reports news regarding separating religion from public, tax-funded institutions, such as removing the 10 commandments from schools, as infringements on religious freedom. Of course, liberal news organizations distort the truth as well.
- breatheoften 10y ago

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago

Can you point me to some concrete examples of times CNN or WaPo has been dishonest? Not counting editorials. > The fact that almost every liberal in America is yelling at Trump more than they're yelling at the DNC (and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) shows the state of mainstream media. Plenty of liberals in my liberal social media bubble were yelling at the DNC and DWS when they were doing news worthy things. But why should we still be? Trump is now the one doing things we think harmful.

williamle8300 10y ago
I listed several examples in my comment. CNN for sure did not cover these issues proportionately to their gravity. These were serious issues that were skirted by them. Had they been responsibly covered, public sentiment would be more favorable towards Trump... since he's really been rapping on this MSM corruption for a while. If anything, Trump is at least an iconoclast and whether you like his policies it would at least command respect.
- cirath 10y ago
  >CNN for sure did not cover these issues proportionately to their gravity. This is a very reasonable statement, but ultimately does not encapsulate the rhetoric that has been levied against the media by Trump specifically, nor his more ardent supporters. Not covering proportional to gravity is not: Anything similar to lies, fabrications, false news, misconstruing the news, or presenting the topic with a completely false narrative. While it does certainly affect the narrative, and while CNN gives far more weight to articles favoring the left, this does not hurt Trump in any way as far as his getting elected was concerned. At the very least, the song played by the left leaning MSM (and that is a VERY IMPORTANT distinction, as Fox News represents the right leaning MSM; their viewer numbers have them as a larger body than CNN--how would they not be the true MSM?) lulled many Clinton supporters into a false sense of security. The post-election meltdowns by people who claimed they did not vote directly as a result of this false security, while anecdotal, points directly at that narrative. And even if you allow that CNN reports on left leaning issues in a positive light while decrying conservative viewpoints, and Fox reports on right leaning issues positively while pointing out the issues in progressive topics, one cannot use them as direct opposition to each other, as neither tends to focus both on the positives and negatives in an issue in a way that could be considered equal. Equal airtime doctrines have also caused a negative skew, but that is another topic altogether.

mikeash 10y ago

I saw a ton of liberals yelling at the DNC. Before the election, they were upset that they mistreated Bernie. After the election, they were upset that it handed the victory to Trump. It has faded away, but that's only because more important things are going on. Trump is an immediate threat to the nation in ways the DNC could never be.

williamle8300 10y ago
How is Trump an immediate threat? I'm really curious. All of his policies are about protecting American interests, and rebuilding America's manufacturing complex. If you're referring to the Immigration EO... please read it first. It's a really well-written bill. For those curious about whether it was a religious discrimination see this pie chart of the Muslims that are excluded[1]. The goal of the EO is to mitigate the influx of refugees from states that foment anti-Western ideals. It just happens to be this group are radicalized, and violent Islamic people. [1] https://i.redditmedia.com/09_97z77yJ2MRBOVMVYvkcVEi66uJI5KSwwqQNj7FGo.png?w=1024&s=97db18b42aa36517285f9405330f011a https://i.redditmedia.com/09_97z77yJ2MRBOVMVYvkcVEi66uJI5KSw...
- cirath 10y ago
  Trump is a more long term threat due to the long term fallout and international perception of the United States as a result of his actions. Yes, his Immigration related EO does not affect nearly as many people as the rhetoric would indicate -- but what it does do is prevent travel to the United States for some 22,000 persons (and counting) at the very least while, by consensus, not really being likely to prevent entry to actual terrorists. It is not that the bill is truly discriminatory, just that it is likely to be ineffective in its aims while damaging international credibility of America as a land of inclusion (or, to rely on imagery from the plaque of the Statue of Liberty, a golden door, to accept your tempest-tossed refuse). Second, while his threat of 20% tariffs on importation from Mexico may seem like it originally promotes "buying local", there are several long term ramifications. First, construction materials and machinery [1] for American factories will ultimately increase the price of American produced goods as a result of this measure. Second, this bill will, directly and immediately, grant China greater bargaining power--with the United States. Thirdly, it causes Mexico to negotiate more aggressively with its local neighbors and with overseas partners, potentially closing trade avenues altogether with America. Ultimately, it boils down to one thing: Trump's measures appear to be reactionary, with little view for long term fallout, international reputation, and future trade relations with partners that are not directly related to his current target (eg: trade relations with Mexico deteriorating, giving China greater negotiating power). [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-does-the-u-s-import-from-mexico-a-whole-lot/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-does-the-u-s-import-from-me...

serge2k 10y ago

> I'm a Trump supporter so take this with a grain of salt. Immediately predict lame rhetoric about how bad the media is. > When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News). Oh right, the bastion of correct reporting, fucking Fox News. Questioning Obama's birth certificate. Warning about his terrorist fist jabs. Rightly admonishing him for asking for Dijon Mustard. > As a litmus test... the fact that almost every liberal in America is yelling at Trump more than they're yelling at the DNC The current president vs something that happened 8 months ago. > doubled-down on Hillary the loss wasn't just technical––it was a landslide[1] It wasn't a fucking landslide. 13th closest election in history by electoral college, massive loss in the popular vote. This is why Trump supporters need a fucking reality check and should maybe try some of that mainstream media. You are hooked on his propaganda and lies.

williamle8300 10y ago
First, tell me the numbers for electoral votes. I would consider that a landslide. Second, Obama's birth certificate was forged[1]. I'm not saying he wasn't born in America, but anyone with Photoshop and how layers work knows that the document was doctored. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/15/sheriff-joe-arpaio-probe-proves-obama-birth-certificate-fake/95500958/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/15/she...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > First, tell me the numbers for electoral votes. I would consider that a landslide Then you don't understand what a landslide, electoral or otherwise, is. Of the post-WWII elections, virtually all were bigger wins, electorally, the exception being both of George W. Bush's elections, Nixon's 1968 election, and Kennedy's 1960 election. Actually, while WWII is often used as a breakpoint for considering modern elections, the same is true if you extend the timeframe to post-WWI.
  - williamle8300 10y ago
    You may not consider 232 (CLINTON) -– 306 (TRUMP) a landslide but I certainly do.

jotux 10y ago

>the loss wasn't just technical––it was a landslide 1984 Reagan/Mondale, Reagan gets 59% of the popular vote and 98% of the electoral college -- that is a landslide. Trump getting 46% of the popular vote and 56% of the electoral college sure doesn't seem like a landslide.

mcphage 10y ago

> doubled-down on Hillary the loss wasn't just technical––it was a landslide Is this your first election? Consider even just the last one: Obama vs. Romney. Obama performed far worse than he did in his previous election, and it was absolutely no landslide. Maybe 2008 was a landslide, but not 2012. Yet in 2012 Obama won more electoral votes than Trump (332 instead of 304), and won the popular vote by 3.9%, instead of losing it by 2.1%. Trump won, yes, but the idea that it was a landslide is patently foolish, and makes the rest of your message weaker. If you're so easily misled on the details, why would I have any confidence in your bigger picture?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]