Why is it bad the "Mainstream Media" went after Trump?

The job of the press (media) is to protect the US from abuses of power by government officials. The idea is that a free press operates as a check on the power of the government. The best example of this is the media going after Hilary Clinton's emails. And before you start, yes the media went after Clinton's emails and is arguably one of the reasons she lost in 2016. President Trump did a lot of corrupt stuff throughout his tenure as President. The media called him out since day one, and it appears in hindsight the media was right to do so. A person who loves the people who attacked capital hill isn't fit for office. So then why is it bad that the Media went after Trump so hard? Look at Twitter as an example. Twitter is a media company that decided to ban Trump after years of violations of policy by Trump. The media did it's job in holding the government accountable. So why not have this standard for Trump with CNN, MSNC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc?

 

To a fascist, the media is not a pillar of democracy, but a tool to be used by demagogues and despots.

 

When the media lies to do it, it's bad. Pretty simple concept. My 11 year-old can understand it.

 

If go with Fox if I had to pick between just those two. A recent Rasmussen survey concluded Fox viewers were more informed than both CNN and MSNBC viewers.

 

Yet they are silent now so.,.

 

A survey where it's likely that most of the responders were republicans no doubt. As I've said before, if it's in print the trumpers will believe it.

 

Indeed. They do the same for every president, as well they should. Trump alone carried on like a raging narcissist in response to it.

 

That makes no sense, lol.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/19/survey-fox-viewers-better-informed-cnn-msnbc-viewe/

 

And who does Rasmussen survey? Online voluntary polls and robocalls ( hint: activists answer online polls and robocalls, your fans ) and landlines ( hint, mostly seniors, who tend to be republican ) so I'll file this in the circular reasoning file.

 

Rasmussen is considered an 'outlier' polling outfit

Makes perfect sense, considering:

Who does Rasmussen survey? Online voluntary polls and robocalls ( hint: activists answer online polls and robocalls, your fans ) and landlines ( hint, mostly seniors, who tend to be republican ) so I'll file this in the circular reasoning file.

 

There is nothing wrong with the media reporting on anything a president does as long as it is news and turthful. If it is political propaganda then not so much.

 

Absolutely go after Trump's policies and actions when warranted. However, their obtuse obsession of attacking Trump and everything he did without regard for how it benefited America and Americans was damaging and uncalled for. It's what has rightly earned them the name 'enemy of the people'.

 

Uh, they had to survey MSNBC and CNN viewers, too, so your logic there is faulty.

 

Provide the link to that claim, please.

From Rasmussen's methodology page:

Calls are placed to randomly-selected phone numbers

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology


Rasmussen uses random numbers to robocall land lines, and they have online surveys.

That means only the demographic that responds to robocalls from landlines and volunteers or online surveys.

Both tend to be more activist type people, tend to be older, and older activist people tend to be republican.

Their surveys and polls are considered 'outlier' because of their methodology.

 

It's very different thing to tell people the facts of what transpired, not tell them (or worse fabricate stories) what to believe.

The current media is terribly bad at manipulating coverage and providing information to draw conclusions rather than present the facts. Journalism has failed and turned activist.

That's a problem. A huge one.

 

The fact that you pick sides when it comes to the media tells me you have gobbled it all up and they get you.

I don't trust any of them.

But you keep on pretending that your side is superior. They got you exactly where they want you.

 

You realize that to compare MSNBC and CNN viewers to Fox viewers, you have to survey some MSNBC and CNN viewers, right?

 

Your logic forgets their methodology.

You can ask if the person answering the robocall is a MSNBC / CNN viewer, or a Fox viewer.

Right?

And you can ask the same question on volunteer online surveys, right?

But the fact remains that for that type of survey, the persons answering robocalls and online surveys TEND to be 'activist' types, TEND to be older, and that group TENDS to be republican. See? The demographic is NOT "MSNBC or FOX viewers' The demographic is 'people who respond to robocalls and volunteer online surveys' and that demographic has more republicans in it than dems.

You've made the assumption that they called a list of MSNBC watchers, and another list of FOX watchers.

That's now how they do it.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology
Calls are placed to randomly-selected phone numbers


"Calls'" are 'robocalls', they state this on the website.

But, even if my statement 'tend to be republican', even if that is incorrect, what is indisputable is the demographic that would answer a robocall and a voluntary online survey cannot possibly mirror accurately the public at large.

I"ll never answer a robocall and a rarely take the time to answer some online survey. I'll never be in that demographic, and so will a lot of people. So, for that demographic, what do we know about them?

We know they are not like most people that is certain.

 

I didn't make that assumption, lol. I just said that in order to do a comparison, some of the respondents need to be MSNBC or CNN viewers to have the data to do the comparison.

 

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology
Calls are placed to randomly-selected phone numbers


"Calls'" are 'robocalls', they state this on the website.

But, even if my statement 'tend to be republican', even if that is incorrect, what is indisputable is the demographic that would answer a robocall and a voluntary online survey cannot possibly mirror accurately the public at large.

I"ll never answer a robocall and a rarely take the time to answer some online survey. I'll never be in that demographic, and so will a lot of people. So, for that demographic, what do we know about them?

We know they are not like most people that is certain.

What makes sense to me is that that demographic are more activist types and that group tends to be republican, and older.

That is why Rasmussen is considered an 'outlier' polling outfit.

And what were the survey questions, anyway? Hmmm?

Let's see 'em.

 

Your baseless opinion is noted.

 

We just have a book published by two journalists about how Trump staged a coup. So not silent on that front. Or do you mean the children in cages under President Biden... who are being reported on by MSM?

Right but to see such hatred against the media for doing their job.

So then how do you disguish between an accidental fib that gets caught and corrected once vs a systemic problem.

Prove it, and even then... so what? The media might have gotten something wrong about Trump and lied about it. But even the media can still have justification if it's part of a larger goal.

 

MSM = Fake News and Fake News is anti-democratic.

"After Davis publicly backtracked from the claims, the New York Post and the Washington Post outed him as their confirming source and published apologies from Davis, a lawyer and communications expert who became well known for his work for Bill Clinton. The original CNN story — broadcast during Chris Cuomo’s prime-time show and written by Jim Sciutto, Marshall Cohen, and Watergate reporting legend Carl Bernstein — said that Davis had “declined to comment.” His involvement in the story, on so-called “background,” has not been previously reported."
BUZZFEED, Lanny Davis Says He Was A Source For CNN’s Trump Tower Story,
Davis, Michael Cohen’s lawyer and spokesperson, said he also regrets lying about his involvement in the story on CNN last week., By Steven Perlberg,
Last updated on August 27, 2018, at 10:21 p.m. ET.

 

When is the press going to protect us from this abuse of power?




They seem pretty OK with it.

 

Of course "journalists" are OK with it if they want to keep their phony baloney jobs.

"Science in the instances of both business publicity and totalitarian propaganda is
obviously only a surrogate for power. The obsession of totalitarian movements with
"scientific" proofs ceases once they are in power. The Nazis dismissed even those scholars who were willing to serve them, and the Bolsheviks use the reputation of their scientists for entirely unscientific purposes and force them into the role of charlatans."
THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM, By Hannah Arendt, Meridian Books, Cleveland, New York, 1958.
https://archive.org/stream/TheOriginsOfTotalitarianism/The-Origins-of-Totalitarianism_djvu.txt