Media

[BigRedBuster]

I have criticized the media in this country many times and still do. I still believe the media is more dangerous in how they do business than any one person in Washington. That's why I found this article very interesting.

 

The Rise of Trump Shows the Danger and Sham of Compelled Journalistic “Neutrality”

 

I do believe the media has played a major part in the rise of Trump but not necessarily the way the author of this article states. I do believe the media has played a major part in the rise of Trump. But, for different reasons.

He claims that the problem is that corporate media is forced to stay neutral therefore they won't criticize appropriately political candidates and their actions.

 

I happen to believe it is just the opposite. Our problem is that most of our media is bought and paid for by political parties therefore they will overly criticize and make up stories or promote made up stories about the other side while doing nothing but promoting and basically being an infomercial for the party that they support.

Then, people just sit and watch or listen to the media that agrees with them and the extremes become more and more extreme.

 

 

[zoogs]

I'm not sure where to draw the line between media being 'bought and sold' and media outlets that have their own political preferences. I don't really think neutrality is the issue, though I haven't read the article. Who apart from NPR is really forced to stay neutral?

 

I mean, Trump has been gone after roundly and in the strongest possible terms from so many corners. It has little effect, because his supporters aren't the kind of people who tend to care. I think Trump is an exceptional television personality, and he's recognized and capitalized on forces of nativism and national insecurity, as well as our consumption of politics as theater. He'd be a great reality TV star or a cable news talking head.

[Moesker]

 

Then, people just sit and watch or listen to the media that agrees with them and the extremes become more and more extreme.

 

 

Huge problem. And its not just with politics. Its that way with religion, truck brands, college football teams, etc.

[TGHusker]

I think Cruz is claiming that Trump has received up to $200 million in free advertisement from all of the media coverage of him. He has manipulated the media to respond to his every word. Why does the media do so? Because of ratings - big ratings = big money for big media. As long as they can string out this Trump event, the more money for them. They have a vested interest in seeing Trump succeed not because of a political alliance but because Trump = money to them. Now they may have a political agenda in this: If Trump secures the nomination look for the media outlets to all of a sudden finding their research divisions and dig up everything they can to throw against Trump to help Hillary get elected.

[zoogs]

 

Then, people just sit and watch or listen to the media that agrees with them and the extremes become more and more extreme.

 

Huge problem. And its not just with politics. Its that way with religion, truck brands, college football teams, etc.

 

Oh, yeah. That's very well said, BRB. Some degree of echo chamber is hard to avoid.

 

TG, I was reading the 538 blog last night and I believe the figure they threw around was over $1bn. I mean, shock value occupies the news and Trump plays to that. There's substance, too, but this has been so attention-grabbing it's become impossible to avoid.

 

And I'd argue that there is nothing manufactured about Trump's support base. They're real and they were bound to be activated sooner or later. It would have taken some media collusion to try and bury it in the hopes of taking away the movement's legs, and I doubt it would have really worked.

[cornographic]

The media, CNN especially, has fueled the rise of Trumpf, whose shills they parade out 24/7 during this cycle, to deny, lie, obfuscate, and defend Trumpf at all costs. It's a pain in the ass. Katrina Pierson, Kayleigh Mcenany, Scottie Hughes are the main offenders. Fox has actually been pushing back against Trumpf, favoring the more Establishment guys. Fox has also been giving Bernie some love, since they don't see him as a real threat and they hate Hillary.

 

 

 

 

 

Another thing I hate about the MSM, is that ~85% of the women reporters, etc are blonde! Like they have more female blondes on these shows--Fox, CNN, especially-- than an Aryan cheerleading squad. Somebody tell me why, please, why so many blondes?!

[cornographic]

I think Cruz is claiming that Trump has received up to $200 million in free advertisement from all of the media coverage of him. He has manipulated the media to respond to his every word. Why does the media do so? Because of ratings - big ratings = big money for big media. As long as they can string out this Trump event, the more money for them. They have a vested interest in seeing Trump succeed not because of a political alliance but because Trump = money to them. Now they may have a political agenda in this: If Trump secures the nomination look for the media outlets to all of a sudden finding their research divisions and dig up everything they can to throw against Trump to help Hillary get elected.

Yep, tv is all about selling audiences to corporations and their ads. The bigger the audience, the more ad profits.... Hence, spectacle, hence Trumpf.

[TheBigRed1]

 

I think Cruz is claiming that Trump has received up to $200 million in free advertisement from all of the media coverage of him. He has manipulated the media to respond to his every word. Why does the media do so? Because of ratings - big ratings = big money for big media. As long as they can string out this Trump event, the more money for them. They have a vested interest in seeing Trump succeed not because of a political alliance but because Trump = money to them. Now they may have a political agenda in this: If Trump secures the nomination look for the media outlets to all of a sudden finding their research divisions and dig up everything they can to throw against Trump to help Hillary get elected.

Yep, tv is all about selling audiences to corporations and their ads. The bigger the audience, the more ad profits.... Hence, spectacle, hence Trumpf.

 

We do not have a "free press" anymore, it is a "corporate owned press" and it has been that way for some time and just because it is giving a lot of coverage to Trump does not mean it is for him rather by and large it is anti-Trump.

[BigRedBuster]

The media, CNN especially, has fueled the rise of Trumpf, whose shills they parade out 24/7 during this cycle, to deny, lie, obfuscate, and defend Trumpf at all costs. It's a pain in the ass. Katrina Pierson, Kayleigh Mcenany, Scottie Hughes are the main offenders. Fox has actually been pushing back against Trumpf, favoring the more Establishment guys. Fox has also been giving Bernie some love, since they don't see him as a real threat and they hate Hillary.

 

 

 

 

 

Another thing I hate about the MSM, is that ~85% of the women reporters, etc are blonde! Like they have more female blondes on these shows--Fox, CNN, especially-- than an Aryan cheerleading squad. Somebody tell me why, please, why so many blondes?!

But yet you posted 50/50.

[Enhance]

I have criticized the media in this country many times and still do. I still believe the media is more dangerous in how they do business than any one person in Washington. That's why I found this article very interesting.

 

The Rise of Trump Shows the Danger and Sham of Compelled Journalistic “Neutrality”

 

I do believe the media has played a major part in the rise of Trump but not necessarily the way the author of this article states. I do believe the media has played a major part in the rise of Trump. But, for different reasons.

 

He claims that the problem is that corporate media is forced to stay neutral therefore they won't criticize appropriately political candidates and their actions.

 

I happen to believe it is just the opposite. Our problem is that most of our media is bought and paid for by political parties therefore they will overly criticize and make up stories or promote made up stories about the other side while doing nothing but promoting and basically being an infomercial for the party that they support.

 

Then, people just sit and watch or listen to the media that agrees with them and the extremes become more and more extreme.

I have a considerable issue with people lumping "the media" into one overpowering conglomerate, as if all police, lawyers, accountants and grocery clerks fall into a similar cohesive unit, as well.

 

They don't.

 

The vast majority of journalists, whether on TV or the paper, are hard-working and honest people doing everything they can to share stories and report. It is an incredibly thankless job, one that people just can't and will never understand unless they physically do it. Consider the fact that a significant amount of reporters, who are just getting into the business, are making in the realm (or less than) $20,000 a year. Many of them work hard and dedicate themselves to their craft, while simultaneously (and routinely) receiving nothing but hatred and scrutiny from idiots with an opinion and a keyboard. And CNN, CBS and whatever other networks we all watch are not the media in it's entirety, though they do make up some of the most influential groups.

 

Now, "the media" has it's sour and unacceptable traits. Many outlets are influenced by big money. Many do have agendas they push. Many are also caught between a rock and a hard place of maintaining 'journalistic integrity' while being influenced. The national networks come off as untrustworthy. The media has made, in my opinion, considerable mistakes in recent history with their coverage. Ideas that may have sounded good in theory, but in practice, were horrific.

 

I don't say all this to any one person, nor am I asking you take pity on journalists. They knew what they signed up for. But, when people lump "the media" into one all-powerful entity, they're lumping a lot of honest people into unfair niches, both your local reporter and the 20-year vet. So, before placing blame on "the media," consider your own inadequacies and shortcomings. Consider the fact that there are literally hundreds of news outlets out there, and if any of you only pay attention to what one outlet is saying, that's as much your problem as it is anyone else's.

[Danny Bateman]

 

I have criticized the media in this country many times and still do. I still believe the media is more dangerous in how they do business than any one person in Washington. That's why I found this article very interesting.

 

The Rise of Trump Shows the Danger and Sham of Compelled Journalistic “Neutrality”

 

I do believe the media has played a major part in the rise of Trump but not necessarily the way the author of this article states. I do believe the media has played a major part in the rise of Trump. But, for different reasons.

 

He claims that the problem is that corporate media is forced to stay neutral therefore they won't criticize appropriately political candidates and their actions.

 

I happen to believe it is just the opposite. Our problem is that most of our media is bought and paid for by political parties therefore they will overly criticize and make up stories or promote made up stories about the other side while doing nothing but promoting and basically being an infomercial for the party that they support.

 

Then, people just sit and watch or listen to the media that agrees with them and the extremes become more and more extreme.

I have a considerable issue with people lumping "the media" into one overpowering conglomerate, as if all police, lawyers, accountants and grocery clerks fall into a similar cohesive unit, as well.

 

They don't.

 

The vast majority of journalists, whether on TV or the paper, are hard-working and honest people doing everything they can to share stories and report. It is an incredibly thankless job, one that people just can't and will never understand unless they physically do it. Consider the fact that a significant amount of reporters, who are just getting into the business, are making in the realm (or less than) $20,000 a year. Many of them work hard and dedicate themselves to their craft, while simultaneously (and routinely) receiving nothing but hatred and scrutiny from idiots with an opinion and a keyboard. And CNN, CBS and whatever other networks we all watch are not the media in it's entirety, though they do make up some of the most influential groups.

 

Now, "the media" has it's sour and unacceptable traits. Many outlets are influenced by big money. Many do have agendas they push. Many are also caught between a rock and a hard place of maintaining 'journalistic integrity' while being influenced. The national networks come off as untrustworthy. The media has made, in my opinion, considerable mistakes in recent history with their coverage. Ideas that may have sounded good in theory, but in practice, were horrific.

 

I don't say all this to any one person, nor am I asking you take pity on journalists. They knew what they signed up for. But, when people lump "the media" into one all-powerful entity, they're lumping a lot of honest people into unfair niches, both your local reporter and the 20-year vet. So, before placing blame on "the media," consider your own inadequacies and shortcomings. Consider the fact that there are literally hundreds of news outlets out there, and if any of you only pay attention to what one outlet is saying, that's as much your problem as it is anyone else's.

 

 

Great post, Enhance. I know that the major media outlets all have their own distinct owners and thus we probably know what their agenda is.

 

But on the whole, it's important that we're all diligent and analytical about the media we consume. Don't just lap something up. The onus is on YOU to try to decipher whatever bias may be inherent in whatever you're reading, or seeing, or hearing, and try to filter it out as best you can.

 

Almost all media can be consumed. But you've got to be smart about it, consider what you're actually taking in, and whatever underlying agenda there may be (or not be).

[BigRedBuster]

 

I have criticized the media in this country many times and still do. I still believe the media is more dangerous in how they do business than any one person in Washington. That's why I found this article very interesting.

 

The Rise of Trump Shows the Danger and Sham of Compelled Journalistic “Neutrality”

 

I do believe the media has played a major part in the rise of Trump but not necessarily the way the author of this article states. I do believe the media has played a major part in the rise of Trump. But, for different reasons.

 

He claims that the problem is that corporate media is forced to stay neutral therefore they won't criticize appropriately political candidates and their actions.

 

I happen to believe it is just the opposite. Our problem is that most of our media is bought and paid for by political parties therefore they will overly criticize and make up stories or promote made up stories about the other side while doing nothing but promoting and basically being an infomercial for the party that they support.

 

Then, people just sit and watch or listen to the media that agrees with them and the extremes become more and more extreme.

I have a considerable issue with people lumping "the media" into one overpowering conglomerate, as if all police, lawyers, accountants and grocery clerks fall into a similar cohesive unit, as well.

 

They don't.

 

The vast majority of journalists, whether on TV or the paper, are hard-working and honest people doing everything they can to share stories and report. It is an incredibly thankless job, one that people just can't and will never understand unless they physically do it. Consider the fact that a significant amount of reporters, who are just getting into the business, are making in the realm (or less than) $20,000 a year. Many of them work hard and dedicate themselves to their craft, while simultaneously (and routinely) receiving nothing but hatred and scrutiny from idiots with an opinion and a keyboard. And CNN, CBS and whatever other networks we all watch are not the media in it's entirety, though they do make up some of the most influential groups.

 

Now, "the media" has it's sour and unacceptable traits. Many outlets are influenced by big money. Many do have agendas they push. Many are also caught between a rock and a hard place of maintaining 'journalistic integrity' while being influenced. The national networks come off as untrustworthy. The media has made, in my opinion, considerable mistakes in recent history with their coverage. Ideas that may have sounded good in theory, but in practice, were horrific.

 

I don't say all this to any one person, nor am I asking you take pity on journalists. They knew what they signed up for. But, when people lump "the media" into one all-powerful entity, they're lumping a lot of honest people into unfair niches, both your local reporter and the 20-year vet. So, before placing blame on "the media," consider your own inadequacies and shortcomings. Consider the fact that there are literally hundreds of news outlets out there, and if any of you only pay attention to what one outlet is saying, that's as much your problem as it is anyone else's.

 

Obviously, I am not talking about your run of the mill local reporters. If that was not clear, that's my mistake.

I'm talking about the national media where if those local reporters just getting into the industry will have to compromise much of what they learned in college to get ahead. I'm talking about places in the industry where it is clear the management and ownership of the news outlet have agendas and they will push that agenda because there is an audience that will lap it up.

 

In my mind, this has corrupted the media industry in a way that allows people to wallow in the cess pool of crap that agrees with their preconceived ideas of the world. It doesn't open up people to new ideas or a differing opinion that may make their view of the world a little more clear and real.

[Enhance]

 

 

I have criticized the media in this country many times and still do. I still believe the media is more dangerous in how they do business than any one person in Washington. That's why I found this article very interesting.

 

The Rise of Trump Shows the Danger and Sham of Compelled Journalistic “Neutrality”

 

I do believe the media has played a major part in the rise of Trump but not necessarily the way the author of this article states. I do believe the media has played a major part in the rise of Trump. But, for different reasons.

 

He claims that the problem is that corporate media is forced to stay neutral therefore they won't criticize appropriately political candidates and their actions.

 

I happen to believe it is just the opposite. Our problem is that most of our media is bought and paid for by political parties therefore they will overly criticize and make up stories or promote made up stories about the other side while doing nothing but promoting and basically being an infomercial for the party that they support.

 

Then, people just sit and watch or listen to the media that agrees with them and the extremes become more and more extreme.

I have a considerable issue with people lumping "the media" into one overpowering conglomerate, as if all police, lawyers, accountants and grocery clerks fall into a similar cohesive unit, as well.

 

They don't.

 

The vast majority of journalists, whether on TV or the paper, are hard-working and honest people doing everything they can to share stories and report. It is an incredibly thankless job, one that people just can't and will never understand unless they physically do it. Consider the fact that a significant amount of reporters, who are just getting into the business, are making in the realm (or less than) $20,000 a year. Many of them work hard and dedicate themselves to their craft, while simultaneously (and routinely) receiving nothing but hatred and scrutiny from idiots with an opinion and a keyboard. And CNN, CBS and whatever other networks we all watch are not the media in it's entirety, though they do make up some of the most influential groups.

 

Now, "the media" has it's sour and unacceptable traits. Many outlets are influenced by big money. Many do have agendas they push. Many are also caught between a rock and a hard place of maintaining 'journalistic integrity' while being influenced. The national networks come off as untrustworthy. The media has made, in my opinion, considerable mistakes in recent history with their coverage. Ideas that may have sounded good in theory, but in practice, were horrific.

 

I don't say all this to any one person, nor am I asking you take pity on journalists. They knew what they signed up for. But, when people lump "the media" into one all-powerful entity, they're lumping a lot of honest people into unfair niches, both your local reporter and the 20-year vet. So, before placing blame on "the media," consider your own inadequacies and shortcomings. Consider the fact that there are literally hundreds of news outlets out there, and if any of you only pay attention to what one outlet is saying, that's as much your problem as it is anyone else's.

 

Obviously, I am not talking about your run of the mill local reporters. If that was not clear, that's my mistake.

I'm talking about the national media where if those local reporters just getting into the industry will have to compromise much of what they learned in college to get ahead. I'm talking about places in the industry where it is clear the management and ownership of the news outlet have agendas and they will push that agenda because there is an audience that will lap it up.

 

In my mind, this has corrupted the media industry in a way that allows people to wallow in the cess pool of crap that agrees with their preconceived ideas of the world. It doesn't open up people to new ideas or a differing opinion that may make their view of the world a little more clear and real.

 

I appreciate your perspective, and I had a feeling you were referring mainly to the national outlets/websites that are prevalent, particularly due to election coverage.

 

Again, I definitely didn't want to seem like I was attacking you in particular. It's just when people say "the media," they are intentionally/unintentionally lumping every single reporter, producer, anchor and news director into one gigantic pool. It's just not fair to those people. I also know that there are plenty of honest, hard-working people that do their job to the best of their ability, even in the national outlets.

 

To your second point, I think i'll reference dudeguyy's perspective when I say it really is up to us - the consumer - to wade through the information presented to us. For example, if someone almost solely relies on Fox News for their information because it aligns with their own perspective, I don't look at that as media corruption. Does it bother me that Fox News is particularly conservative? Yes (and that's coming from a registered Republican). However, it equally bothers me that someone out there is sitting in front of the T.V. lapping it all up and then not even bothering to seek out another opinion.

 

So, yes, I think many news outlets could strive to be more fair and balanced, so to speak. They could also do a better job offering different sides of a debate. But, I also think the consumer bears responsibility for the mess as well. The media and the consumer are one flowing ecosystem that works off one another and both are responsible to each other.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

I have criticized the media in this country many times and still do. I still believe the media is more dangerous in how they do business than any one person in Washington. That's why I found this article very interesting.

 

The Rise of Trump Shows the Danger and Sham of Compelled Journalistic “Neutrality”

 

I do believe the media has played a major part in the rise of Trump but not necessarily the way the author of this article states. I do believe the media has played a major part in the rise of Trump. But, for different reasons.

 

He claims that the problem is that corporate media is forced to stay neutral therefore they won't criticize appropriately political candidates and their actions.

 

I happen to believe it is just the opposite. Our problem is that most of our media is bought and paid for by political parties therefore they will overly criticize and make up stories or promote made up stories about the other side while doing nothing but promoting and basically being an infomercial for the party that they support.

 

Then, people just sit and watch or listen to the media that agrees with them and the extremes become more and more extreme.

I have a considerable issue with people lumping "the media" into one overpowering conglomerate, as if all police, lawyers, accountants and grocery clerks fall into a similar cohesive unit, as well.

 

They don't.

 

The vast majority of journalists, whether on TV or the paper, are hard-working and honest people doing everything they can to share stories and report. It is an incredibly thankless job, one that people just can't and will never understand unless they physically do it. Consider the fact that a significant amount of reporters, who are just getting into the business, are making in the realm (or less than) $20,000 a year. Many of them work hard and dedicate themselves to their craft, while simultaneously (and routinely) receiving nothing but hatred and scrutiny from idiots with an opinion and a keyboard. And CNN, CBS and whatever other networks we all watch are not the media in it's entirety, though they do make up some of the most influential groups.

 

Now, "the media" has it's sour and unacceptable traits. Many outlets are influenced by big money. Many do have agendas they push. Many are also caught between a rock and a hard place of maintaining 'journalistic integrity' while being influenced. The national networks come off as untrustworthy. The media has made, in my opinion, considerable mistakes in recent history with their coverage. Ideas that may have sounded good in theory, but in practice, were horrific.

 

I don't say all this to any one person, nor am I asking you take pity on journalists. They knew what they signed up for. But, when people lump "the media" into one all-powerful entity, they're lumping a lot of honest people into unfair niches, both your local reporter and the 20-year vet. So, before placing blame on "the media," consider your own inadequacies and shortcomings. Consider the fact that there are literally hundreds of news outlets out there, and if any of you only pay attention to what one outlet is saying, that's as much your problem as it is anyone else's.

 

Obviously, I am not talking about your run of the mill local reporters. If that was not clear, that's my mistake.

I'm talking about the national media where if those local reporters just getting into the industry will have to compromise much of what they learned in college to get ahead. I'm talking about places in the industry where it is clear the management and ownership of the news outlet have agendas and they will push that agenda because there is an audience that will lap it up.

 

In my mind, this has corrupted the media industry in a way that allows people to wallow in the cess pool of crap that agrees with their preconceived ideas of the world. It doesn't open up people to new ideas or a differing opinion that may make their view of the world a little more clear and real.

 

I appreciate your perspective, and I had a feeling you were referring mainly to the national outlets/websites that are prevalent, particularly due to election coverage.

 

Again, I definitely didn't want to seem like I was attacking you in particular. It's just when people say "the media," they are intentionally/unintentionally lumping every single reporter, producer, anchor and news director into one gigantic pool. It's just not fair to those people. I also know that there are plenty of honest, hard-working people that do their job to the best of their ability, even in the national outlets.

 

To your second point, I think i'll reference dudeguyy's perspective when I say it really is up to us - the consumer - to wade through the information presented to us. For example, if someone almost solely relies on Fox News for their information because it aligns with their own perspective, I don't look at that as media corruption. Does it bother me that Fox News is particularly conservative? Yes (and that's coming from a registered Republican). However, it equally bothers me that someone out there is sitting in front of the T.V. lapping it all up and then not even bothering to seek out another opinion.

 

So, yes, I think many news outlets could strive to be more fair and balanced, so to speak. They could also do a better job offering different sides of a debate. But, I also think the consumer bears responsibility for the mess as well. The media and the consumer are one flowing ecosystem that works off one another and both are responsible to each other.

 

OH....I completely agree that this is mostly consumer driven. Taking your example, Foxnews would not have the power to have people sit in front of them and do nothing but consume what they want them to hear if the consumer would wake up and say...."Hmmmm....maybe I should go seek out someone else's opinion on that"

 

For the most part, the population is lazy in that regard. Having various news outlets that pander to various preconceived ideas enables that laziness and exacerbates the problem.