Media collusion with the Clinton campaign is not good for our Democracy

[senseamp]

The media didn't elect the nominee. there is no such thing as right / left wing journalism. If they report from a position of bias the are no longer journalistic and just mere propoganda. If the actual journalists dug a little deeper perhaps Trump wouldn't be candidate, but I doubt it.

As I've said on here many times he's been nominated not based on his policy's or qualifications, but rather the fact that he's a bull in a china shop. They want to destroy Washington is the nuts and bolts of it. That's why he's been teflon to anything he's said or done - it doesn't matter.

What you said applies to journalism.
Fox is not just journalism though, it's primarily commentary and opinion. There was nothing stopping them from weighing in and giving their opinion that Trump was unfit. After he called Mexicans rapists, for example.

 

[Jhhnn]

He's using a Stones song again, against their wishes...

Probably not Sympathy for the Devil which would be entirely appropriate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBecM3CQVD8

 

[senseamp]

Hillary would have been disqualified by the media before she even did or said any of the crazy stuff Trump has. Just having 5 kids from 3 different men would have been enough.
Think about it.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Probably not Sympathy for the Devil which would be entirely appropriate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBecM3CQVD8

I'd think "Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man" would be the most apt.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm just curious OP, where do you normally get your news from? Also, what critical thinking did you do when you created this thread?

 

[UglyCasanova]

I'm just curious OP, where do you normally get your news from? Also, what critical thinking did you do when you created this thread?

Normally from various forums (so a variety of links there) NYT, the Atlantic, NPR, and PBS.

Your second question is childish.

 

[MongGrel]

Probably not Sympathy for the Devil which would be entirely appropriate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBecM3CQVD8

It was, actually.

 

[nickqt]

Share your delusions with the group.

#LibruulMedia

 

[Jhhnn]

It was, actually.

Gawd. He's rubbing the rubes' noses right in it & they still can't catch on.

 

[woolfe9998]

No explanation should be required for why there is so much negative attention in the media toward Trump. It has to do with Trump. Did Mitt Romney get this much negative media attention? John McCain? You can argue back and forth about whether the coverage of those past elections was fair or not, but it's obvious that Trump is generating way more negative coverage than basically any past candidate in history, because he says controversial things that get people riled up and the media just eats it up.

It's been a great election season for the news media. I guaranty the ratings, subscriptions and ad clicks are WAY up. This past weekend alone must have been the highest rated few days in recent history. It's been a real bonanza.

When the news media is a shareholder owned business, we don't need theories of political bias to explain their sensationalistic behavior. It unparsimonious to insist on any other motive apart from the simple, obvious one. It also suggests naive ignorance as to what truly motivates practically everything in this society.

 

[Perknose]

There's plenty, read up.

[...]

The article that includes most of the campaign's edits: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/magazine/re-re-re-reintroducing-hillary-clinton.html?_r=1

I just read the rather long article above from the link you provided as evidence backing your assertion of media collusion with the Clinton campaign. You probably put it forth as such because of its title, "Re-Re-Re-Reintroducing Hillary Clinton."

Christ, man, but you are unforgivably lazy.

Not only does the article not prove anything of the sort, it shows, in excruciating detail, the exact fucking opposite!

The article outlines the adversarial relationship between the press and the Clinton campaign.

You should seriously read past the headlines of what you link to. You should be embarrassed. Are you?

 

[ivwshane]

I just read the rather long article above from the link you provided as evidence backing your assertion of media collusion with the Clinton campaign. You probably put it forth as such because of its title, "Re-Re-Re-Reintroducing Hillary Clinton."

Christ, man, but you are unforgivably lazy.

Not only does the article not prove anything of the sort, it shows, in excruciating detail, the exact fucking opposite!

The article outlines the adversarial relationship between the press and the Clinton campaign.

You should seriously read past the headlines of what you link to. You should be embarrassed. Are you?

Hence my questioning of how much critical thinking did he put into his original post.

The answer, of course, is that he didn't do any critical thinking.

 

[ivwshane]

Normally from various forums (so a variety of links there) NYT, the Atlantic, NPR, and PBS.

Your second question is childish.

You get your news from forums? Wow! You don't need to answer my other question because you already, inadvertently, answered it. The answer is; you don't do much in the way of critical thinking.

 

[agent00f]

Regardless of how you feel about the candidates the media collusion with the Clinton campaign as evidenced by all of the recent email dumps should be worrisome for all of us. We rely on journalist to be our government watchdogs, and their independence is critical to a fully functioning democracy. There's been plenty come out that shows some of our leading news organizations being a bit too cozy with Clinton staffers, given this how can they adequately fulfill their role as watchdogs?

News outlets should present one view against sexual assault and another for sexual assault, and then your lot can decide which is best for a fully functioning democracy.

Any news which only presents one side of the case just shows their bias for clinton.

 

[ivwshane]

News outlets should present one view against sexual assault and another for sexual assault, and then your lot can decide which is best for a fully functioning democracy.

Any news which only presents one side of the case just shows their bias for clinton.

The sad thing about your comment is that that is currently what the media does. It treats both sides of an issue equally and leaves it up to the viewer/reader to figure what viewpoint is actually factual.

 

[werepossum]

I agree with the OP that it is troublesome. I also agree with Lopri that it's gradually becoming less of an issue as more people abandon the alphabets.

Besides the many times "mainstream" journalists get caught colluding with the Democrats and each other (but I repeat myself) to target Republicans, look at NBC holding the Trump tape until October when they can do the most damage to both Trump and the GOP. The "mainstream" media IS the Democrats' October surprise. This has been true since at least Bush. Remember CBS' and Rather's "first in a series" "news reports" which turned out to be laughably badly forged, to the point that the other "news reports" were canceled and Democrats were forced to fall back on "fake but accurate" claims? There aren't enough scare quotes to qualify that shit.

Given today's widespread media sources and the fact that we have wikileaks hackers and quite possibly the Russian government trying to do the same to the Democrats, I can't get too worked up about a situation that has existed for my entire adult life. When it's forged documents, sure. When it's the candidate's own words, sure seems fair to me.

 

[trenchfoot]

Those folks that own all of these media outlets, well, they have their personal agendas that they pursue through their ownership.

It's pretty obvious that that's their main reason for owning the media: to control the content in such a way that it serves their personal agendas. Sure, garnering profits from their ventures are important, but maintaining the revenue stream to perpetuate their influence over the masses is the most important priority I would think.

Their sponsors also buy air time to support the agendas of those owners. It's then up to the viewers/listeners/readers to be aware of this biased content and filter/consolidate it all to find the facts of the matter.

The problem with that though is some folks only listen to what they want to hear in order to support and affirm their preconceived notions. They disregard the rest, facts be damned. They don't want to know the ugly truth, they just want confirmation and affirmation.

And that's exactly what these owners of media outlets rely on to keep their audiences tuned in and their ratings up.

Every single true research scientist must surely shake their collective heads in dismay over this type of "search for the truth".

 

[werepossum]

Those folks that own all of these media outlets, well, they have their personal agendas that they pursue through their ownership.

It's pretty obvious that that's their main reason for owning the media: to control the content in such a way that it serves their personal agendas. Sure, garnering profits from their ventures are important, but maintaining the revenue stream to perpetuate their influence over the masses is the most important priority I would think.

Their sponsors also buy air time to support the agendas of those owners. It's then up to the viewers/listeners/readers to be aware of this biased content and filter/consolidate it all to find the facts of the matter.

The problem with that though is some folks only listen to what they want to hear in order to support and affirm their preconceived notions. They disregard the rest, facts be damned. They don't want to know the ugly truth, they just want confirmation and affirmation.

And that's exactly what these owners of media outlets rely on to keep their audiences tuned in and their ratings up.

Every single true research scientist must surely shake their collective heads in dismay over this type of "search for the truth".

Well said. I'm guessing that even the most political of owners/managers would rein in any journalist who seriously harmed the bottom line, as we saw with Rather. Fortunately for the libs, they can have it all this season.

 

[K1052]

Besides the many times "mainstream" journalists get caught colluding with the Democrats and each other (but I repeat myself) to target Republicans, look at NBC holding the Trump tape until October when they can do the most damage to both Trump and the GOP.

NBC News sat on it for a whole four days while they talked to their lawyers (as the parent company has been previously sued by Trump) for an ok while simultaneously taping a segment relating the news. They thought they could break the story when they wanted but somebody at NBC got fed up with the delay and leaked to the WP who promptly stole NBC's thunder. I don't see collusion just two different corporate structures at work weighing potential litigation risk , one overly beaurcpatic and cautious (NBC) and one that doesn't give any fucks (WP).

 

[cbrunny]

Regardless of how you feel about the candidates the media collusion with the Clinton campaign as evidenced by all of the recent email dumps should be worrisome for all of us. We rely on journalist to be our government watchdogs, and their independence is critical to a fully functioning democracy. There's been plenty come out that shows some of our leading news organizations being a bit too cozy with Clinton staffers, given this how can they adequately fulfill their role as watchdogs?

Hmm, good points. I wonder what Fox News and Breitbart have to contribute to this totally worthwhile topic.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Newsflash: Trump blast's media for reporting things he says. The media shouldn't feel obligated to give "equal treatment" to two people when one is spewing bullshit 24/7.

Just think of the bright side OP...If Trump gets elected, he'll work to shut down the "media" he doesn't like

 

[sportage]

Look...
The email dump has been pretty boring news.
No smoking gun. No Hillary groping male intern dicks.
Not even one granny on granny lesbian affair.
Just a little bit of Hillary double talk between banks and then to the electorate.
Nothing that would warrant an investigation.
At worst, this is simply politics as usual.
And if you think Donald Trump or Mike Pence are above politics as usual, boy have they fooled you.

So, we have Hillary that might be a little more cozy with the banks and wall street than we thought she might be, and then we have Donald Trump that "absolutely will" use the full power of the US government, the IRS, the justice department, the CIA as well as the FBI to go after and lock up anyone that opposes a president Donald Trump.

So....? Which of the two evils should we prefer?
A society where the banks still possess a lot of power?
Or, a dictatorship where you, me, fellow republicans, democrats, members of the press, members of the media will be arrested, jailed, and sent off to some Vladimir Putin prison over in the Soviet Union?
So I ask again, which of the two evils?

Want we do know is... if Hillary is elected she will be hounded day in and day out by republican controlled house and senate hearings not to mention endless republican appointed independent investigators.

And if Donald is elected president, no senate or house investigation or independent investigator because president Trump would simply LOCK EM UP.

So....? Which is it?
A bad granny? Or a tyrant dictator?

And besides, considering how Putin wants to determine the outcome of this election, who really knows whether these emails are accurate or.... complete fabrication? Especially considering their source.
That source being a traitor that was given political asylum by a communist country ran by a dictator that murders homosexuals, reporters, and all political opponents.

Be very careful who you side with....
And before you get in too deep, I would first check and make sure Putin will grant you the same political asylum opportunities should you become an undesirable US citizen caught in a president Donald Trump world.
You never really know.....
A friend of president Trump today, and an enemy on the run tomorrow.
You really never know....

 

[nathanddrews]

It's a pointless rabbit hole to debate which candidate is more ethical or holds higher moral ground. IMO, I don't even need to know about or care about scandals or morality to make a decision. To me this is a simple matter of:

One candidate that absolutely believes in thrusting big government regulation and intervention upon the free market and the continued affront to American liberty and State rights via judicial activism.

vs

One candidate that absolutely believes in free enterprise, nationalism over globalism, and law and order.

Of course, whether either candidate can carry out those beliefs is an entirely different scenario. Thankfully we do live in a democratic republic and can elect other leaders to cockblock or support other branches of government. We aren't voting for an emperor, despite the hubris that is often on display.

 

[fskimospy]

Mostly negative, my bad. You dodged my question - care to contribute?

This is inaccurate, for much of the campaign Trump's coverage was overwhelmingly positive according to empirical research into it.

 

[fskimospy]

There's plenty, read up. I certainly encourage anyone to go through the emails themselves to make up their own minds.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213
The article that includes most of the campaign's edits: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/magazine/re-re-re-reintroducing-hillary-clinton.html?_r=1

This is common practice for all political campaigns and for all political parties. They all employ large groups of people for the specific purpose of handling journalists and working to change the content of stories to be more favorable. Go look for media relations jobs for the parties, that's the whole point of what they do.

If this is your evidence of media collusion it is extremely weak.