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

[werepossum]

Are you talking about Between 2003 and 2009?. The Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

Yup. The Bushies got caught doing Hillary light, conducting official government business (including some arguably classified subjects) on their RNC political servers. Those were gone because their server routinely deleted old messages, which is fine for political crap but verbotten for official government business. So rather than pay professionals to sanitize the servers, they turned over the servers AND all the backup tapes. As they should have done; otherwise there's no way to know we've recaptured all the official government business.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/white.house.emails/

Computer technicians have recovered about 22 million Bush administration e-mails that the Bush White House had said were missing, two watchdog groups that sued over the documents announced Monday.

The e-mails date from 2003 to 2005, and had been "mislabeled and effectively lost," according to the National Security Archive, a research group based at George Washington University. But Melanie Sloan, executive director of the liberal-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said it could be years before most of the e-mails are made public.

If you're determined to see conspiracy around every corner then no possible argument or set of facts will convince you. Doesn't seem like a very rational position to stake out.

Surely the rational position is to be eternally surprised when the same thing happens every election. Coincidence!

I don't know where you are getting these numbers. If Fox news grabs a majority share of 20% of viewers because there are dozens of news stations, that doesn't mean the other 80% of viewers are getting "pure liberal claptrap" fed into their brain.

This is poor understanding of numbers. Fox obviously isn't the only conservative rag, either. A lot of the actual audience for news is down simply because people don't actually watch the news. A 20% share for Fox doesn't mean those other 80% of viewers are watching some other news. It means some of them are, and some of them are watching cat videos or Andy Griffith reruns. It also seems that more and more people are depending on radio and the online blogosphere for their "news." I don't think I have to tell you that the radio-based news broadcasts are predominantly conservative. The sociopaths that seem to have captured dependable audiences with their conspiracy-based blogs also seem to dominate the online news presence...but I'm really just assuming there based on what I've seen. It could simply be that the extreme minority of people (ultra right-wing sociopaths like OroooORoroOO and spidey or leftist commie pinkos like, I dunno, Dave?) are just the loudest.

I wonder if there is any data here?

I just used your numbers - I thought they were for news consumption, not raw ratings share. No way in hell does Fox News get 20% of all cable television. As for radio, there are lots of conservative commentators, but most radio news outlets I've heard are either radio wings of television networks (ABC News Radio is particularly good, or used to be anyway) or NPR.

 

[zinfamous]

I just used your numbers - I thought they were for news consumption, not raw ratings share. No way in hell does Fox News get 20% of all cable television. As for radio, there are lots of conservative commentators, but most radio news outlets I've heard are either radio wings of television networks (ABC News Radio is particularly good, or used to be anyway) or NPR.

they certainly don't--but I was talking about cable news share. I think it is much higher, no? I think their 20%+ is for all news outlets at 2 prime timeslots. Or something like that.

 

[Muse]

All negative though. You think our news organizations colluding with a political campaign is a good thing?

If the drumpfs weren't such douches, the media would treat them better. It's impossible for them to spin their fuhrer positively. How do expect the media to do it? You call it collusion, I call it sanity.

The media's job is to frame reality, not pretend that the two campaigns are equal.

Pense's job is just as tough. He accepted the VP nomination, his Wheaties aren't tasting so good these days.

 

[agent00f]

If the drumpfs weren't such douches, the media would treat them better. It's impossible for them to spin their fuhrer positively. How do expect the media to do it? You call it collusion, I call it sanity.

The media's job is to frame reality, not pretend that the two campaigns are equal.

Pense's job is just as tough. He accepted the VP nomination, his Wheaties aren't tasting so good these days.

I'm pretty sure Trump can shoot or rape someone in the middle of 5th Ave and these "fair and balanced" clowns expect conservative talking heads to blame everyone but Trump.

 

[woolfe9998]

All negative though. You think our news organizations colluding with a political campaign is a good thing?

The media is not obliged to write about the candidates in a faux "balanced" manner where they say equal numbers of good and bad things about each candidate. Trump gets a lot of negative coverage because he says lots of stupid and/or offensive things. In fact, this idea of faux balance is something the media actually follows to some degree. It should not. If 100% of everything negative comes from one candidate, than that is how the coverage should be. Of course, it's never that one sided. And the coverage has not been that one-sided in this election. Clinton has taken her lumps as well. She just doesn't deserve as many.

Of course, there is another reason for so much focus on Trump. His controversial remarks sell newspapers and bolster ad revenues. Another aspect of the media you appear not to understand well at all.

Also, the negative coverage is very likely why he won the primaries. The fact that it is hurting him now in the general election is to be expected. He could have avoided it if he'd stopped acting like a douche when the general election cycle hit, but he didn't.

But hey, Trump bears no responsibility for his own behavior, right? He's a victim of the media who reports the things he actually says. How dare they report what he says.

So let's just go and attack the media, again. And the pollsters. And elections officials. And whatever other institutions we want the public top have no faith in because that will bolster the political fortunes of the right.

 

[nickqt]

Yup. The Bushies got caught doing Hillary light, conducting official government business (including some arguably classified subjects) on their RNC political servers. Those were gone because their server routinely deleted old messages, which is fine for political crap but verbotten for official government business. So rather than pay professionals to sanitize the servers, they turned over the servers AND all the backup tapes. As they should have done; otherwise there's no way to know we've recaptured all the official government business.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/white.house.emails/



Surely the rational position is to be eternally surprised when the same thing happens every election. Coincidence!


I just used your numbers - I thought they were for news consumption, not raw ratings share. No way in hell does Fox News get 20% of all cable television. As for radio, there are lots of conservative commentators, but most radio news outlets I've heard are either radio wings of television networks (ABC News Radio is particularly good, or used to be anyway) or NPR.

BOTHSIDESDOIT™ YOU GUYS!

Seriously though!!!

BOTHSIDESDOIT™!!111!1