6 ms·

That's because Trump is a conservative and conservatives have been losing trust in the media for a long time. https://news.gallup.com/poll/219824/democrats-con

That's because Trump is a conservative and conservatives have been losing trust in the media for a long time. https://news.gallup.com/poll/219824/democrats-confidence-mass-media-rises-sharply-2016.aspx?g_source=MEDIA&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles https://news.gallup.com/poll/219824/democrats-confidence-mas... Do you really need evidence US media is anti-Trump? Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him? From what I recall they all went for Hillary, there was even one paper (the USA Today?) that had never endorsed a candidate before and they went for Hillary.

moorhosj 8y ago
==That's because Trump is a conservative== Based on what criteria? ==Do you really need evidence US media is anti-Trump? Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him?== Is the second part actually evidence of the first part or does it simply reinforce your prior belief? Can you name any candidate in history who was gifted more free screen-time or print-space by US media?
- repolfx 8y ago
  Hmm. Are you arguing Trump is not a conservative? He ran under a Republican banner and has many classically conservative policies. As for the latter paragraph, are you implying news outlets simply sell screen-time and print-space? How can the media "gift" coverage? Their job is to report what's happening and things said and done by a presidential candidate is clearly news. And yes of course the abundance of newspapers openly stating they wanted his opponent to win is evidence of being anti-Trump: that's basic logic.
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    ==and has many classically conservative policies.== Please expand on this statement. From my perspective, I see someone who supports tariffs, closed borders, increased debt, increased spending, handouts for specific industries ("picking winners and losers"), vilification of law enforcement, and more. These all go directly against traditionally "conservative" principles. ==are you implying news outlets simply sell screen-time and print-space== How do you think the media makes money as a business? They are called advertisements, typically one must pay for them. In Trump's case, they covered him non-stop free of charge, essentially gifting him free advertising. ==And yes of course the abundance of newspapers openly stating they wanted his opponent to win is evidence of being anti-Trump== Endorsements are done by editorial boards, which are distinct from journalists. The TV journalists gave Trump air time by not only showing all of his rallies, but showing the empty podium before the rallies. Meanwhile the rallies of Hillary Clinton were not covered in the same breathless way. The Washington Post wrote an entire article about it and estimated it at $2 billion[1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/03/15/the-medias-2b-gift-to-trump/?utm_term=.d7f76a89d23f https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/03/1...
  - lobotryas 8y ago
    I would argue that Trump is an opportunist. For evidence: see his extensive dealings with the Clintons and Democrats in the 90s and early 2000s.
bjourne 8y ago
Yes I need evidence. Especially since you claim it is obvious that "the Media" is anti-Trump it shouldn't be hard for you to bring forward that evidence. > Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him? No! You are not allowed to turn the tables on me. You are the one that should show that "the Media" is anti-Trump, I shouldn't have to prove that it isn't.
- farboggle 8y ago
  I think the newspaper endorsements line was meant to be evidence, but I'll flesh it out a little. Of the 100 largest-circulation newspapers in the US, 57 endorsed Clinton while only 2 endorsed Trump. Of the top 50 papers, two gave no endorsement, two endorsed "not Trump", and one endorsed Johnson. The other 45 directly endorsed Clinton, with zero endorsing Trump. So: when traditional journalists and editors at major newspapers took explicit positions on the election, they almost all opposed Trump. This is obviously a different question than "is the media conservative or liberal?", "is the non-editorial coverage at major news organizations generally anti-Trump?", or "are news organizations employing a partisan agenda in their decisions about how to cover Trump? The first one of those questions is relatively easy to answer: according to an Indiana University survey of 1080 journalists in broadly 'traditional' roles, 7% identify as Republicans, compared to 28% who identify as Democrats. The number identifying as Republicans has also been falling faster than the number identifying as Democrats in equivalent prior surveys. The second one is more open ended, but I think we can at least sketch the outlines of an answer. Intuitively, I would propose that cable television leans left with one obvious exception, while local news and television stations are much more scattered - and less dependent on the views of their journalists, since they often have purchased content and partisan owners like Sinclair. Factually, the Shorenstein Center at Harvard finds that in the first 100 days of the Trump administration, news coverage of Trump was 80% negative. They find that CNN and NBC were most negative, while even Fox was 52% negative. The third is so open-ended that I can't imagine discussing it without agreeing on a bunch of specific standards for evidence and discussion, because it requires deciding where objective coverage of badness stops and partisanship starts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_... http://archive.news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-american-journalist-key-findings.pdf http://archive.news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-ame... https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-fi...

moorhosj 8y ago

==That's because Trump is a conservative== Based on what criteria? ==Do you really need evidence US media is anti-Trump? Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him?== Is the second part actually evidence of the first part or does it simply reinforce your prior belief? Can you name any candidate in history who was gifted more free screen-time or print-space by US media?

repolfx 8y ago
Hmm. Are you arguing Trump is not a conservative? He ran under a Republican banner and has many classically conservative policies. As for the latter paragraph, are you implying news outlets simply sell screen-time and print-space? How can the media "gift" coverage? Their job is to report what's happening and things said and done by a presidential candidate is clearly news. And yes of course the abundance of newspapers openly stating they wanted his opponent to win is evidence of being anti-Trump: that's basic logic.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  ==and has many classically conservative policies.== Please expand on this statement. From my perspective, I see someone who supports tariffs, closed borders, increased debt, increased spending, handouts for specific industries ("picking winners and losers"), vilification of law enforcement, and more. These all go directly against traditionally "conservative" principles. ==are you implying news outlets simply sell screen-time and print-space== How do you think the media makes money as a business? They are called advertisements, typically one must pay for them. In Trump's case, they covered him non-stop free of charge, essentially gifting him free advertising. ==And yes of course the abundance of newspapers openly stating they wanted his opponent to win is evidence of being anti-Trump== Endorsements are done by editorial boards, which are distinct from journalists. The TV journalists gave Trump air time by not only showing all of his rallies, but showing the empty podium before the rallies. Meanwhile the rallies of Hillary Clinton were not covered in the same breathless way. The Washington Post wrote an entire article about it and estimated it at $2 billion[1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/03/15/the-medias-2b-gift-to-trump/?utm_term=.d7f76a89d23f https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/03/1...
- lobotryas 8y ago
  I would argue that Trump is an opportunist. For evidence: see his extensive dealings with the Clintons and Democrats in the 90s and early 2000s.

bjourne 8y ago

Yes I need evidence. Especially since you claim it is obvious that "the Media" is anti-Trump it shouldn't be hard for you to bring forward that evidence. > Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him? No! You are not allowed to turn the tables on me. You are the one that should show that "the Media" is anti-Trump, I shouldn't have to prove that it isn't.

farboggle 8y ago
I think the newspaper endorsements line was meant to be evidence, but I'll flesh it out a little. Of the 100 largest-circulation newspapers in the US, 57 endorsed Clinton while only 2 endorsed Trump. Of the top 50 papers, two gave no endorsement, two endorsed "not Trump", and one endorsed Johnson. The other 45 directly endorsed Clinton, with zero endorsing Trump. So: when traditional journalists and editors at major newspapers took explicit positions on the election, they almost all opposed Trump. This is obviously a different question than "is the media conservative or liberal?", "is the non-editorial coverage at major news organizations generally anti-Trump?", or "are news organizations employing a partisan agenda in their decisions about how to cover Trump? The first one of those questions is relatively easy to answer: according to an Indiana University survey of 1080 journalists in broadly 'traditional' roles, 7% identify as Republicans, compared to 28% who identify as Democrats. The number identifying as Republicans has also been falling faster than the number identifying as Democrats in equivalent prior surveys. The second one is more open ended, but I think we can at least sketch the outlines of an answer. Intuitively, I would propose that cable television leans left with one obvious exception, while local news and television stations are much more scattered - and less dependent on the views of their journalists, since they often have purchased content and partisan owners like Sinclair. Factually, the Shorenstein Center at Harvard finds that in the first 100 days of the Trump administration, news coverage of Trump was 80% negative. They find that CNN and NBC were most negative, while even Fox was 52% negative. The third is so open-ended that I can't imagine discussing it without agreeing on a bunch of specific standards for evidence and discussion, because it requires deciding where objective coverage of badness stops and partisanship starts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_... http://archive.news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-american-journalist-key-findings.pdf http://archive.news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-ame... https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-fi...