In the past the links between the upper echelons of the two parties were just as strong, Bush and Kerry were distant cousins for instance. This isn't that unusual given that dynasties tend to develop even in democracies... the Nehrus for example. A few years ago two brothers headed up different parties in Japan!
Trump & Farage are insiders who have donned the outsiders gimmick. It is eminently understandable why their projects have been bought into by some social groups. Of course societies needed to change to meet future challenges (e.g. climate change, demographic changes), but the flavour we're getting will have a bitter aftertaste.
In the past the links between the upper echelons of the two parties were just as strong, Bush and Kerry were distant cousins for instance. This isn't that unusual given that dynasties tend to develop even in democracies... the Nehrus for example. A few years ago two brothers headed up different parties in Japan!
There does need to be legislative restrictions or even Amendments that will prevent dynasties forming, as that effectively creates a ruling class separate from the people.
Things have been friendly the last few pages, but since there are some new people in this thread, I should reiterate some of our existing policies for those who haven't heard them before:
1. Per the Site Rules, which everyone has agreed to follow by using the site, respectful behavior is a minimum requirement for posting in these forums. There is no opinion which can't be stated respectfully.
2. Personal attacks are forbidden. You can criticize ideas, trends, and political figures all you like, but your fellow forumites are off-limits.
3. If another poster is breaking the Site Rules, DO NOT attempt to fight it out in the thread. Send a personal message to a moderator or use the "Flag" feature in the lower left of the post in question to report it to the mods. We will handle the issue in private.
4. As long as you're following the Site Rules, you can voice whatever opinion you have. We have a surprisingly diverse range of opinions here, and we've kept the peace by making sure everyone involved shows respect for each other.
Most importantly, if things do get ugly, don't join in.
Spicer just banned CNN, NY times, LA times and others from the daily briefing. Too scared to face tough questions.
This is tyranny by the way
Curtailing these organization's is in fact the right move as they are private corporate entities having a stranglehold over communication with the White House, what Trump is doing is opening it up to the internet via Skype questions.
Because the Internet is actually the true 'Free Press' today, in fact the ideal goal is for the average american having a chance to ask the administration a question.
What is happening is that the traditional communication channels are being forcibly targeted by Trump and broken down for the newer communication channel of the internet, of course this helps Trump because the mainstream media has been so hostile to him he feel's he has to curtail and circumvent them.
Traditional media organizations are outraged because they are losing relevancy as we move towards the future.
CNN, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times are all online. The mainstream media isn't outraged by the rise of the Internet; they're riding the wave right now. The only Internet-related outrage I've heard from mainstream media is about random people in Eastern Europe generating ad revenue by fabricating viral news stories. That's what is meant by "fake news."
Non-mainstream media sources and Internet-based news groups are also private corporate entities. Buzzfeed and Breitbart ain't non-profits.
I don't think banning CNN from daily briefings constitutes tyranny, but I don't see how it serves the people by refusing to take questions from a news group that millions of people still watch regularly of their own free will. Scrutinizing the government is the media's most important job.
Wait, so then how do typos and the all-caps temper tantrums happen? Does Trump order his assistant to type a certain way, or are they just that stupid? OR trying to make Trump LOOK stupid?
Wait, so then how do typos and the all-caps temper tantrums happen? Does Trump order his assistant to type a certain way, or are they just that stupid? OR trying to make Trump LOOK stupid?
Could be a mixture of those things. His executive orders supposedly are pretty lousy with grammatical and spelling errors and so forth too and he's for sure not writing those himself.
He's not exactly surrounding himself with the best and brightest. Because those people see though his BS.
CNN, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times are all online. The mainstream media isn't outraged by the rise of the Internet; they're riding the wave right now. The only Internet-related outrage I've heard from mainstream media is about random people in Eastern Europe generating ad revenue by fabricating viral news stories. That's what is meant by "fake news."
Non-mainstream media sources and Internet-based news groups are also private corporate entities. Buzzfeed and Breitbart ain't non-profits.
I don't think banning CNN from daily briefings constitutes tyranny, but I don't see how it serves the people by refusing to take questions from a news group that millions of people still watch regularly of their own free will. Scrutinizing the government is the media's most important job.
That's what they're doing.
I agree with you that the media is supposed to be the watchdog but I also think they've been a bit derelict in that duty since at least the 80's if not a decade or so before. The whole Vietnam and Watergate thing gave them the impression that they can not only report the news but can shape opinion. Those were huge stories back then and I don't think they were wrong taking a stand on them but at the same time I think it gave them the impression that they can do the same thing for every issue no matter what every day people think about it. Not every issue is life or death and I think they've diluted their power quite a bit by not picking their battles better.
There are more than a couple major problem with today's news.
For one thing they often show crazy person and sane person and say okay there are two sides. An extreme example is say one person believes in killing people, one person doesn't there's two sides! As if these two views were equal.
But more commonly, an argument is 98% of climate scientists agree global warming is real scientific fact but they put on some nutjob not scientist guy and say OK this guy getting paid by the oil companies says it's not real, two sides! It would be better to share an opinion than trying to be neutral. So one problem is they try to be neutral not objective.
Spicer just banned CNN, NY times, LA times and others from the daily briefing. Too scared to face tough questions.
This is tyranny by the way
Curtailing these organization's is in fact the right move as they are private corporate entities having a stranglehold over communication with the White House, what Trump is doing is opening it up to the internet via Skype questions.
Because the Internet is actually the true 'Free Press' today, in fact the ideal goal is for the average american having a chance to ask the administration a question.
What is happening is that the traditional communication channels are being forcibly targeted by Trump and broken down for the newer communication channel of the internet, of course this helps Trump because the mainstream media has been so hostile to him he feel's he has to curtail and circumvent them.
Traditional media organizations are outraged because they are losing relevancy as we move towards the future.
No.
He is opening up to Skype questions so that the questions being asked are vetted first.
He can't vet left leaning organizations and their questions. He can do it for the news media who are deep in the Republican pockets however, (something you forgot to mention while you were criticizing relationships with the democratic party). He can only attack him, belittle them, then ban them from attending.
And fake news has nothing to do with it. If it did, FOX would have been banned from attending because of their Fake piece about Sweden that he fell for, and then broadcasted internationally during his rally. Smearing his perception of world affairs even more than what it already is.
He is opening up to Skype questions so that the questions being asked are vetted first.
He can't vet left leaning organizations and their questions. He can do it for the news media who are deep in the Republican pockets however, (something you forgot to mention while you were criticizing relationships with the democratic party). He can only attack him, belittle them, then ban them from attending.
And fake news has nothing to do with it. If it did, FOX would have been banned from attending because of their Fake piece about Sweden that he fell for, and then broadcasted internationally during his rally. Smearing his perception of world affairs even more than what it already is.
No.
There is no evidence that he is vetting questions before they are asked, thats pure speculation.
Nor did i say it was about 'fake news', Trump obviously feels the democratic aligned media are not fair to him so he is breaking up their hold over the news by allowing far more competitors into the press pool.
3. They are attacking predominantly online News organisations that are Right-Leaning 4. They are coordinating with political parties to go after online news organisations 5. There is attempts by Government to get popular online social media to restrict news
The 'Fake News' is an extremely interesting phenomenon, because this is what happened.
1. Obama and Hillary Clinton (ie the democrat apparatus) Started spreading the term Fake news to go after right-leaning online sites 2. The democrat leaning mainsteam media immediately echoed this term 3. Facebook and Google joined in stating they want to develop ways to restrict 'Fake News' on their platform by going after sites monetary revenue stream
"President Obama has publicly denounced the spread of fake news on Facebook and other social-media platforms, which he said could compromise democratic freedoms. "However, earlier this week both Facebook and Google — whose algorithms have also proved susceptible to fake news — announced plans to choke the ad revenues of fake news sights." http://time.com/4575981/barack-obama-fake-news-democracy-facebook/
Of course Mark Zuckerberg is well known to make statements like this such as when he was caught agreeing with Angela Merkel to do something to clamp down on criticism of the immigrant refugee crisis.
There is no evidence that he is vetting questions before they are asked, thats pure speculation.
If there is no vetting process, nothing is stopping someone from going on and making the procedure more of a debacle than it already is.
I wish I could find a link for you, but without vetting you'd end up with a John Tortorella incident when he was doing a press conference on Team USA in the recent World Cup of Hockey and internet trolls hogged up the line with fake organizations asking questions about jock straps and other silly hockey references.
The questions NEED to be vetted to prevent this, and a unbiased 3rd party needs to do the vetting. Recent actions by this administrations dictate that the vetting will not be done unbiasedly.
If there is no vetting process, nothing is stopping someone from going on and making the procedure more of a debacle than it already is.
There should not be a vetting process for questions because we already know that leads to control over what questions are asked.
Could this lead to more un-controlled questions were irrelevant questions are asked? absolutely, this is a necessary negative if we want free questions.
The best questions came from Town Hall's were random people got to ask the candidates questions (at least the ones who weren't staged).
Although at the moment the mainstream media hasn't exactly been asking questions that is greatly relevant to the American People, The only last relevant question for the American people was asked by Drudge whom wanted to know when Trump is going to lower taxes as he promised.
The Mainstream media has been asking ridiculous questions like 'why didn't you say specifically Jews when talking about the Holocaust'.
It amuses me greatly that it is Trump-supporting people who are asking Trump more relevant questions for the American people.
Nothing in there even talks about vetting questions in any form.
If your talking about Mercer, Mercer backed Ted Cruz against Donald Trump in the Primaries but when Donald Trump won the primary (and also election) they started back him, same with Sheldon.
And i'm not a supporter of Trump btw.
The family originally backed Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a more traditional conservative but one who, like Mr. Trump, is disliked by much of the party establishment. During the early phase of the campaign, Mr. Mercer donated $13 million to a super PAC supporting Mr. Cruz. In doing so, he broke with many peers in the elite donor world, who looked to candidates like Jeb Bush or Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.
The Mercers maintained close control over the group’s purse strings, installing Ms. Conway to oversee the group and coordinate with several other pro-Cruz groups, an unusual move for a super PAC. During the Republican primary, the group ran ads questioning Mr. Trump’s conservative credentials, hoping to outflank Mr. Trump.
Of all the politicians in this election, Donald Trump accepted the Least amount of money from corporations,because he actually made an effort not too and he could self-fund.
"There is attempts by Government to get popular online social media to restrict news"
The closest example I can think of is people (not legislation) calling on Facebook to place a notice on (not ban) "fake news." The idea was that Facebook would add an icon next to "fake news" articles saying that they hadn't been verified.
That example wouldn't be the government restricting news; it's consumers asking for Facebook to post a warning on unverified news reports--a warning that people are perfectly free to ignore. It's a nonbinding act by a nongovernment group; not a government restriction.
While it is clear Americans' trust in the media has been eroding over time, the election campaign may be the reason that it has fallen so sharply this year. With many Republican leaders and conservative pundits saying Hillary Clinton has received overly positive media attention, while Donald Trump has been receiving unfair or negative attention, this may be the prime reason their relatively low trust in the media has evaporated even more. It is also possible that Republicans think less of the media as a result of Trump's sharp criticisms of the press. Republicans who say they have trust in the media has plummeted to 14% from 32% a year ago...
Democrats' and independents' trust in the media has declined only marginally, with 51% of Democrats (compared with 55% last year) and 30% of independents (versus 33% last year) expressing trust. Over the past 20 years, Democrats have generally expressed more trust than Republicans in the media, although in 2000, the two parties were most closely aligned, with 53% of Democrats and 47% of Republicans professing trust.
The vast majority of the drop in trust comes from Republican Americans--and most of the decrease among them happened only in the past year, during the election:
Republican trust in the media each year: 2000: 47% 2015: 32% 2016: 14%
Democrat trust in the media each year: 2000: 53% 2015: 55% 2016: 51%
Independent trust in the media each year: 2000: 53% 2015: 33% 2016: 30%
Democratic trust has remained stable, and Independent trust has declined at a gradual pace. But Republican trust has varied wildly: During the Bush and Obama administrations, it took 15 years for Republicans' faith in the media to drop by 15%. But during the election, it took one year for that faith to drop by 18%.
I'm tempted to blame most of the mistrust on Trump's own statements. I don't think it's a coincidence that Republican trust in the media has deteriorated 15 times as fast since the Trump campaign began.
The best questions came from Town Hall's were random people got to ask the candidates questions (at least the ones who weren't staged).
Although at the moment the mainstream media hasn't exactly been asking questions that is greatly relevant to the American People, The only last relevant question for the American people was asked by Drudge whom wanted to know when Trump is going to lower taxes as he promised.
The Mainstream media has been asking ridiculous questions like 'why didn't you say specifically Jews when talking about the Holocaust'.
It amuses me greatly that it is Trump-supporting people who are asking Trump more relevant questions for the American people.
They may have asked the only questions relevant to YOU, or people of a like-mind. But to say that Drudge and Town Hall are the only people asking questions relevant to the "American People" assumes that the only true Americans are those who have conservative viewpoints. I am an American person, and I could care less when/if taxes or going to be lowered. On the other hand, I find it incredibly weird that this Administration goes out of it's way to avoid even answering basic softball questions about Anti-semitism.
But I have news for everyone, there is no "American people" and anyone trying to speak for this false construct is really doing nothing more than trying to make their viewpoint seem like it has massive popular support. I wish we'd just do away with the term, because, especially now in this climate, it truly is the most meaningless of phrases.
The closest example I can think of is people (not legislation) calling on Facebook to place a notice on (not ban) "fake news." The idea was that Facebook would add an icon next to "fake news" articles saying that they hadn't been verified.
That example wouldn't be the government restricting news; it's consumers asking for Facebook to post a warning on unverified news reports--a warning that people are perfectly free to ignore. It's a nonbinding act by a nongovernment group; not a government restriction.
I personally believe that there has been un-unprecedented Government interaction between social media owners with nation leaders on political matters, for example Angela Merkel asking Mark Zuckerberg to clamp down on anti-immigrant criticism.
Although Mark has made statements he would do something about it (which i disagree) i'll have to give him credit for not actually doing anything.
Democratic trust has remained stable, and Independent trust has declined at a gradual pace. But Republican trust has varied wildly: During the Bush and Obama administrations, it took 15 years for Republicans' faith in the media to drop by 15%. But during the election, it took one year for that faith to drop by 18%.
I'm tempted to blame most of the mistrust on Trump's own statements. I don't think it's a coincidence that Republican trust in the media has deteriorated 15 times as fast since the Trump campaign began.
Yes, the trust in the media can be seen to be broken down in partisan lies (ie democrats stable, republican dropped massively, independants dropping steadily).
Trump phenomena caused this sharp downward spike although the trend was always negative, but i believe the fault is in the mainstream media as it threw objective journalism out the window which Americans can see.
We've had more then a year where the daily front headlines is hyper-exaggeration over every single thing Donald Trump has done which has turned people off, and any legitimate criticism of Trump is gonna be lost in the noise.
The most interesting statistic is actually the Independents, and if Independents are also turned off significantly (them not being politically affiliated) i think the problem is with the media.
While it is clear Americans' trust in the media has been eroding over time, the election campaign may be the reason that it has fallen so sharply this year. With many Republican leaders and conservative pundits saying Hillary Clinton has received overly positive media attention, while Donald Trump has been receiving unfair or negative attention, this may be the prime reason their relatively low trust in the media has evaporated even more. It is also possible that Republicans think less of the media as a result of Trump's sharp criticisms of the press. Republicans who say they have trust in the media has plummeted to 14% from 32% a year ago...
Democrats' and independents' trust in the media has declined only marginally, with 51% of Democrats (compared with 55% last year) and 30% of independents (versus 33% last year) expressing trust. Over the past 20 years, Democrats have generally expressed more trust than Republicans in the media, although in 2000, the two parties were most closely aligned, with 53% of Democrats and 47% of Republicans professing trust.
The vast majority of the drop in trust comes from Republican Americans--and most of the decrease among them happened only in the past year, during the election:
Republican trust in the media each year: 2000: 47% 2015: 32% 2016: 14%
Democrat trust in the media each year: 2000: 53% 2015: 55% 2016: 51%
Independent trust in the media each year: 2000: 53% 2015: 33% 2016: 30%
Democratic trust has remained stable, and Independent trust has declined at a gradual pace. But Republican trust has varied wildly: During the Bush and Obama administrations, it took 15 years for Republicans' faith in the media to drop by 15%. But during the election, it took one year for that faith to drop by 18%.
I'm tempted to blame most of the mistrust on Trump's own statements. I don't think it's a coincidence that Republican trust in the media has deteriorated 15 times as fast since the Trump campaign began.
This is because the right-wing movement in this country has created a media apparatus that functions as it's own separate universe. It's a combination of FOX News, right-wing talk radio, and the internet. I've mentioned this before, but you could literally drive from San Francisco to Bangor or Seattle to Miami and NEVER (never) not be able to tune in Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. You might luck into one or two liberal stations on that trip. The conservative movement has invested in this media to the point that is saturates and takes over those that exist in it.
This is why I always laugh whenever anyone starts talking about Democrats/liberals and their "George Soros money". Look, I listen to a plethora of left-wing media, and believe me, they haven't seen any checks. Nearly all of them are listener-funded and barely scraping by. There is absolutely nothing resembling the right-wing talk radio dominance on the left.
Furthermore, FOX News is a deliberately right-wing station. MSNBC and CNN are NOT deliberately left-wing. MSNBC USED to be for a couple years in the Bush Administration, but they abandoned us long ago. Their first 3 hours of programming every morning is handed over to a former Republican Congressman.
This is why I always laugh whenever anyone starts talking about Democrats/liberals and their "George Soros money". Look, I listen to a plethora of left-wing media, and believe me, they haven't seen any checks. Nearly all of them are listener-funded and barely scraping by. There is absolutely nothing resembling the right-wing talk radio dominance on the left.
The owners and top anchors of left-leaning media have close political affiliations with the democrat party leadership.
Many Executives of left-leaning news networks are literally married or related to head advisors for the Democrat party, taking a look at the Clinton-Obama era.
ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron - Susan Rice (democrat National Security Advisor) married CBS President David Rhodes - Ben Rhodes (Obama's deputy national security adviser) Brother CNN President Virginia Moseley -Tom Nides (Hillary Deputy Secretary) married ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman - Jay Carney (Whitehouse Press Secretary) married ABC News, Univision reporter Jaffe - Katie Hogan (Obama Deputy Secretary) brother ABC Political head Anchor George Stephanopolos - Former Clinton head of Communication and White House as well.
And many more.
Furthermore the 'Right leading Media' was heavily split on Donald Trump.
Fox News has had a love-hate relationship with him until he became President, so much so that Trump called them out and refused to do the first debate in the primaries hosted by Fox News. Primarily because of Megan Kelly, Chris Wallace originally hated his Guts.
Sean Hannity always liked him, Bill O'Reilly has a past friendship with him, Megyn hated him.
On the radio, Savage liked Trump, Mark Levin HATED Trump because Levin supported Ted Cruz, Rush Limbaugh was just generally Republican as he supported Marco Rubio of all people.
National Review unanimously absolutely hated Donald Trump and this was the premier leading Conservative publication.
This is why I always laugh whenever anyone starts talking about Democrats/liberals and their "George Soros money". Look, I listen to a plethora of left-wing media, and believe me, they haven't seen any checks. Nearly all of them are listener-funded and barely scraping by. There is absolutely nothing resembling the right-wing talk radio dominance on the left.
The owners and top anchors of left-leaning media have close political affiliations with the democrat party leadership.
Many Executives of left-leaning news networks are literally married or related to head advisors for the Democrat party, taking a look at the Clinton-Obama era.
ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron - Susan Rice (democrat National Security Advisor) married CBS President David Rhodes - Ben Rhodes (Obama's deputy national security adviser) Brother CNN President Virginia Moseley -Tom Nides (Hillary Deputy Secretary) married ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman - Jay Carney (Whitehouse Press Secretary) married ABC News, Univision reporter Jaffe - Katie Hogan (Obama Deputy Secretary) brother ABC Political head Anchor George Stephanopolos - Former Clinton head of Communication and White House as well.
And many more.
Furthermore the 'Right leading Media' was heavily split on Donald Trump.
Fox News has had a love-hate relationship with him until he became President, so much so that Trump called them out and refused to do the first debate in the primaries hosted by Fox News. Primarily because of Megan Kelly, Chris Wallace originally hated his Guts.
Sean Hannity always liked him, Bill O'Reilly has a past friendship with him, Megyn hated him.
On the radio, Savage liked Trump, Mark Levin HATED Trump because Levin supported Ted Cruz, Rush Limbaugh was just generally Republican as he supported Marco Rubio of all people.
National Review unanimously absolutely hated Donald Trump and this was the premier leading Conservative publication.
And CNN has been long associated with bias for the Democrat Party, thats why it has long been known as the Clinton News Network.
I suppose that explains why they had Corey Lewandowski, Trump's initial campaign manager who assaulted a reporter (and a conservative reporter at that) on the payroll all through the campaign, including after video surfaced of him clearly still advising the campaign. It's long been known as the "Clinton News Network" because that's what Rush Limbaugh dubbed it in the '90s, possibly when he was high on illegally obtained oxycontin.
Yes, the National Review, the revered publication of William F. Buckley, a man held up as a paragon of conservative virtue, who just happend to oppose the Civil Rights Act.
I suppose that explains why they had Corey Lewandowski, Trump's initial campaign manager who assaulted a reporter (and a conservative reporter at that) on the payroll all through the campaign, including after video surfaced of him clearly still advising the campaign. It's long been known as the "Clinton News Network" because that's what Rush Limbaugh dubbed it in the '90s, possibly when he was high on illegally obtained oxycontin.
Yes, the National Review, the revered publication of William F. Buckley, a man held up as a paragon of conservative virtue, who just happend to oppose the Civil Rights Act.
Yes, CNN wanted more argumentation in their political punditry because they think thats what will sell so getting Corey seemed like a good idea since they might be able to get inside information.
It didn't work out for them because Corey just kept praising Trump, to the point CNN employee's wanted him removed and he then resigned.
And lol 'Corey assaulted a reporter' we have the video, Corey pulled her back when she got past the Secret Service, no one in the world think's thats 'assault'.
CNN is known as the Clinton News network because its coverage is heavily slanted in favour of her and the democrat party.
This is well acknowledged Since Donna Brazille as a CNN contributor gave inside info to Hillary Clinton to rig the debate for her against Bernie Sanders.
To put it another way, There is actual hard evidence of CNN interfering in the election in an unethical manner then there is from some Russian Conspiracy.
I suppose that explains why they had Corey Lewandowski, Trump's initial campaign manager who assaulted a reporter (and a conservative reporter at that) on the payroll all through the campaign, including after video surfaced of him clearly still advising the campaign. It's long been known as the "Clinton News Network" because that's what Rush Limbaugh dubbed it in the '90s, possibly when he was high on illegally obtained oxycontin.
Yes, the National Review, the revered publication of William F. Buckley, a man held up as a paragon of conservative virtue, who just happend to oppose the Civil Rights Act.
Yes, CNN wanted more argumentation in their political punditry because they think thats what will sell so getting Corey seemed like a good idea since they might be able to get inside information.
It didn't work out for them because Corey just kept praising Trump, to the point CNN employee's wanted him removed and he then resigned.
And lol 'Corey assaulted a reporter' we have the video, Corey pulled her back when she got past the Secret Service, no one in the world think's thats 'assault'.
CNN is known as the Clinton News network because its coverage is heavily slanted in favour of her and the democrat party.
This is well acknowledged Since Donna Brazille as a CNN contributor gave inside info to Hillary Clinton to rig the debate for her against Bernie Sanders.
For which she was promptly fired, unlike Lewandowski. I don't know what you mean by him "resigning". He was on the channel on the main panel on Election Night. I watched it with my own two eyes. And again, if anyone thinks Hillary Clinton knowing that there was going to be a question on the death penalty (as if she wouldn't be prepared for that question in the first place) thinks that swung even one vote in one primary, I don't know what to tell you. This idea that conservatives get to continue using Hillary Clinton as a foil 4 or 5 months after the election is laughable.
Again, this may be "well acknowledged" in the conservative media world, but liberals feel the exact opposite way about it. I also believe CNN is horrible, but for entirely different reasons.
For which she was promptly fired, unlike Lewandowski. I don't know what you mean by him "resigning". He was on the channel on the main panel on Election Night. I watched it with my own two eyes. And again, if anyone thinks Hillary Clinton knowing that there was going to be a question on the death penalty (as if she wouldn't be prepared for that question in the first place) thinks that swung even one vote in one primary, I don't know what to tell you. This idea that conservatives get to continue using Hillary Clinton as a foil 4 or 5 months after the election is laughable.
Again, this may be "well acknowledged" in the conservative media world, but liberals feel the exact opposite way about it. I also believe CNN is horrible, but for entirely different reasons. This idea that conservatives get to continue using Hillary Clinton as a foil 4 or 5 months after the election is
The American public thinks the media wants Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to win by an almost 10-to-1 margin, according to a new poll.
The Suffolk University/USA Today poll released Friday asks, "Who do you think the media, including major newspapers and TV stations, would like to see elected president: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?"
For which she was promptly fired, unlike Lewandowski. I don't know what you mean by him "resigning". He was on the channel on the main panel on Election Night. I watched it with my own two eyes. And again, if anyone thinks Hillary Clinton knowing that there was going to be a question on the death penalty (as if she wouldn't be prepared for that question in the first place) thinks that swung even one vote in one primary, I don't know what to tell you. This idea that conservatives get to continue using Hillary Clinton as a foil 4 or 5 months after the election is laughable.
Again, this may be "well acknowledged" in the conservative media world, but liberals feel the exact opposite way about it. I also believe CNN is horrible, but for entirely different reasons. This idea that conservatives get to continue using Hillary Clinton as a foil 4 or 5 months after the election is
The American public thinks the media wants Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to win by an almost 10-to-1 margin, according to a new poll.
The Suffolk University/USA Today poll released Friday asks, "Who do you think the media, including major newspapers and TV stations, would like to see elected president: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?"
Yes Americans generally feel the media was unfairly biased for Hillary against Trump.
1 in 4 Americans also believe the sun revolves around the Earth. But if we're going to do a poll duel, one taken 3 days ago shows Americans trust the media over Trump by a 52 to 37 margin.
1 in 4 Americans also believe the sun revolves around the Earth. But if we're going to do a poll duel, one taken 3 days ago shows Americans trust the media over Trump by a 52 to 37 margin.
Why are you changing the discussion to something else?
There is clear evidence of bias from much of the mainstream media of reporting, against Trump and for Hillary Clinton and this was the discussion you yourself wrote about.
We know for a fact that much of the democrat leaning news organizations have close ties to the Democrat party apparatus which clearly are conflicts of interest.
ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron - Susan Rice (democrat National Security Advisor) married CBS President David Rhodes - Ben Rhodes (Obama's deputy national security adviser) Brother CNN President Virginia Moseley -Tom Nides (Hillary Deputy Secretary) married ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman - Jay Carney (Whitehouse Press Secretary) married ABC News, Univision reporter Jaffe - Katie Hogan (Obama Deputy Secretary) brother ABC Political head Anchor George Stephanopolos - Former Clinton head of Communication and White House as well.
We have actual evidence of clearly ethical violations where CNN correspondence Donna Brazille rigged a debate for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders.
Finally, the perception in America is of a majority considering the Media was biased for Hillary against Trump.
1 in 4 Americans also believe the sun revolves around the Earth. But if we're going to do a poll duel, one taken 3 days ago shows Americans trust the media over Trump by a 52 to 37 margin.
Why are you changing the discussion to something else?
There is clear evidence of bias from much of the mainstream media of reporting, against Trump and for Hillary Clinton and this was the discussion you yourself wrote about.
We know for a fact that much of the democrat leaning news organizations have close ties to the Democrat party apparatus which clearly are conflicts of interest.
ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron - Susan Rice (democrat National Security Advisor) married CBS President David Rhodes - Ben Rhodes (Obama's deputy national security adviser) Brother CNN President Virginia Moseley -Tom Nides (Hillary Deputy Secretary) married ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman - Jay Carney (Whitehouse Press Secretary) married ABC News, Univision reporter Jaffe - Katie Hogan (Obama Deputy Secretary) brother ABC Political head Anchor George Stephanopolos - Former Clinton head of Communication and White House as well.
We have actual evidence of clearly ethical violations where CNN correspondence Donna Brazille rigged a debate for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders.
Finally, the perception in America is of a majority considering the Media was biased for Hillary against Trump.
Are there elements of the media that favour Trump? of course as i spelled out, Sean hannity, Savage, Tucker (honestly).
They pale in comparison to the ties that democrat news organisations have with Hillary Clinton and the democrat political party.
The discussion was about the media, Trump and (ostensibly, at least according to you) what the American people think. I do not see how the poll I posted doesn't fit into every single one of those categories. I'm not disputing the numbers of your poll, I'm saying just because any amount of people BELIEVE something is true doesn't make it so.
Also, there is no "Democrat" party. It's the Democratic Party. "Democrat Party" is a purposeful right-wing in-joke (once again, started by Limbaugh) that simply exists to piss off liberals.
Comments
When one investigates the ties that the upper leaders of the media organisations have, it is quite revealing.
Trump & Farage are insiders who have donned the outsiders gimmick. It is eminently understandable why their projects have been bought into by some social groups. Of course societies needed to change to meet future challenges (e.g. climate change, demographic changes), but the flavour we're getting will have a bitter aftertaste.
1. Per the Site Rules, which everyone has agreed to follow by using the site, respectful behavior is a minimum requirement for posting in these forums. There is no opinion which can't be stated respectfully.
2. Personal attacks are forbidden. You can criticize ideas, trends, and political figures all you like, but your fellow forumites are off-limits.
3. If another poster is breaking the Site Rules, DO NOT attempt to fight it out in the thread. Send a personal message to a moderator or use the "Flag" feature in the lower left of the post in question to report it to the mods. We will handle the issue in private.
4. As long as you're following the Site Rules, you can voice whatever opinion you have. We have a surprisingly diverse range of opinions here, and we've kept the peace by making sure everyone involved shows respect for each other.
Most importantly, if things do get ugly, don't join in.
I've tried it before, and it's not fun.
Because the Internet is actually the true 'Free Press' today, in fact the ideal goal is for the average american having a chance to ask the administration a question.
What is happening is that the traditional communication channels are being forcibly targeted by Trump and broken down for the newer communication channel of the internet, of course this helps Trump because the mainstream media has been so hostile to him he feel's he has to curtail and circumvent them.
Traditional media organizations are outraged because they are losing relevancy as we move towards the future.
Non-mainstream media sources and Internet-based news groups are also private corporate entities. Buzzfeed and Breitbart ain't non-profits.
I don't think banning CNN from daily briefings constitutes tyranny, but I don't see how it serves the people by refusing to take questions from a news group that millions of people still watch regularly of their own free will. Scrutinizing the government is the media's most important job.
That's what they're doing.
And there is a popular theory that he's barely literate in any case with a lot of evidence.
He's not exactly surrounding himself with the best and brightest. Because those people see though his BS.
For one thing they often show crazy person and sane person and say okay there are two sides. An extreme example is say one person believes in killing people, one person doesn't there's two sides! As if these two views were equal.
But more commonly, an argument is 98% of climate scientists agree global warming is real scientific fact but they put on some nutjob not scientist guy and say OK this guy getting paid by the oil companies says it's not real, two sides! It would be better to share an opinion than trying to be neutral. So one problem is they try to be neutral not objective.
He is opening up to Skype questions so that the questions being asked are vetted first.
He can't vet left leaning organizations and their questions. He can do it for the news media who are deep in the Republican pockets however, (something you forgot to mention while you were criticizing relationships with the democratic party). He can only attack him, belittle them, then ban them from attending.
And fake news has nothing to do with it. If it did, FOX would have been banned from attending because of their Fake piece about Sweden that he fell for, and then broadcasted internationally during his rally. Smearing his perception of world affairs even more than what it already is.
There is no evidence that he is vetting questions before they are asked, thats pure speculation.
Nor did i say it was about 'fake news', Trump obviously feels the democratic aligned media are not fair to him so he is breaking up their hold over the news by allowing far more competitors into the press pool. Yes they are in my opinion,the following things are happening in the media.
1. They are losing profit and viewership massively (this has been true for quite awhile, many are struggling to break even)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_newspapers
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/losing-money-and-losing-trust-the-crisis-of-modern-journalism/7679066
http://www.globalresearch.ca/mainstream-media-decline-are-fox-news-cnn-and-msnbc-losing-the-information-war/5375493
2. The trust in the mainstream media is at a historical low in America, because of the election.
Now, only about a third of the U.S. has any trust in the Fourth Estate, a stunning development for an institution designed to inform the public.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
3. They are attacking predominantly online News organisations that are Right-Leaning
4. They are coordinating with political parties to go after online news organisations
5. There is attempts by Government to get popular online social media to restrict news
The 'Fake News' is an extremely interesting phenomenon, because this is what happened.
1. Obama and Hillary Clinton (ie the democrat apparatus) Started spreading the term Fake news to go after right-leaning online sites
2. The democrat leaning mainsteam media immediately echoed this term
3. Facebook and Google joined in stating they want to develop ways to restrict 'Fake News' on their platform by going after sites monetary revenue stream
"President Obama has publicly denounced the spread of fake news on Facebook and other social-media platforms, which he said could compromise democratic freedoms.
"However, earlier this week both Facebook and Google — whose algorithms have also proved susceptible to fake news — announced plans to choke the ad revenues of fake news sights."
http://time.com/4575981/barack-obama-fake-news-democracy-facebook/
Of course Mark Zuckerberg is well known to make statements like this such as when he was caught agreeing with Angela Merkel to do something to clamp down on criticism of the immigrant refugee crisis.
"The Facebook CEO was overheard responding that "we need to do some work" on curtailing anti-immigrant posts about the refugee crisis. "Are you working on this?" Merkel asked in English, to which Zuckerberg replied in the affirmative before the transmission was disrupted."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.html
4. This term never caught on, until Trump used it against CNN and now it has become a popular derogatory term of the mainstream media.
Could this lead to more un-controlled questions were irrelevant questions are asked? absolutely, this is a necessary negative if we want free questions.
The best questions came from Town Hall's were random people got to ask the candidates questions (at least the ones who weren't staged).
Although at the moment the mainstream media hasn't exactly been asking questions that is greatly relevant to the American People, The only last relevant question for the American people was asked by Drudge whom wanted to know when Trump is going to lower taxes as he promised.
The Mainstream media has been asking ridiculous questions like 'why didn't you say specifically Jews when talking about the Holocaust'.
It amuses me greatly that it is Trump-supporting people who are asking Trump more relevant questions for the American people. Nothing in there even talks about vetting questions in any form.
If your talking about Mercer, Mercer backed Ted Cruz against Donald Trump in the Primaries but when Donald Trump won the primary (and also election) they started back him, same with Sheldon.
And i'm not a supporter of Trump btw.
The family originally backed Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a more traditional conservative but one who, like Mr. Trump, is disliked by much of the party establishment. During the early phase of the campaign, Mr. Mercer donated $13 million to a super PAC supporting Mr. Cruz. In doing so, he broke with many peers in the elite donor world, who looked to candidates like Jeb Bush or Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.
The Mercers maintained close control over the group’s purse strings, installing Ms. Conway to oversee the group and coordinate with several other pro-Cruz groups, an unusual move for a super PAC. During the Republican primary, the group ran ads questioning Mr. Trump’s conservative credentials, hoping to outflank Mr. Trump.
But the Mercers moved to support Mr. Trump after he won the nomination.
-https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/robert-mercer-donald-trump-donor.html?_r=0
Of all the politicians in this election, Donald Trump accepted the Least amount of money from corporations,because he actually made an effort not too and he could self-fund.
I didn't understand this part, though: The closest example I can think of is people (not legislation) calling on Facebook to place a notice on (not ban) "fake news." The idea was that Facebook would add an icon next to "fake news" articles saying that they hadn't been verified.
That example wouldn't be the government restricting news; it's consumers asking for Facebook to post a warning on unverified news reports--a warning that people are perfectly free to ignore. It's a nonbinding act by a nongovernment group; not a government restriction.
Republican trust in the media each year:
2000: 47%
2015: 32%
2016: 14%
Democrat trust in the media each year:
2000: 53%
2015: 55%
2016: 51%
Independent trust in the media each year:
2000: 53%
2015: 33%
2016: 30%
Democratic trust has remained stable, and Independent trust has declined at a gradual pace. But Republican trust has varied wildly: During the Bush and Obama administrations, it took 15 years for Republicans' faith in the media to drop by 15%. But during the election, it took one year for that faith to drop by 18%.
I'm tempted to blame most of the mistrust on Trump's own statements. I don't think it's a coincidence that Republican trust in the media has deteriorated 15 times as fast since the Trump campaign began.
Although at the moment the mainstream media hasn't exactly been asking questions that is greatly relevant to the American People, The only last relevant question for the American people was asked by Drudge whom wanted to know when Trump is going to lower taxes as he promised.
The Mainstream media has been asking ridiculous questions like 'why didn't you say specifically Jews when talking about the Holocaust'.
It amuses me greatly that it is Trump-supporting people who are asking Trump more relevant questions for the American people.
They may have asked the only questions relevant to YOU, or people of a like-mind. But to say that Drudge and Town Hall are the only people asking questions relevant to the "American People" assumes that the only true Americans are those who have conservative viewpoints. I am an American person, and I could care less when/if taxes or going to be lowered. On the other hand, I find it incredibly weird that this Administration goes out of it's way to avoid even answering basic softball questions about Anti-semitism.
But I have news for everyone, there is no "American people" and anyone trying to speak for this false construct is really doing nothing more than trying to make their viewpoint seem like it has massive popular support. I wish we'd just do away with the term, because, especially now in this climate, it truly is the most meaningless of phrases.
Although Mark has made statements he would do something about it (which i disagree) i'll have to give him credit for not actually doing anything. Yes, the trust in the media can be seen to be broken down in partisan lies (ie democrats stable, republican dropped massively, independants dropping steadily).
Trump phenomena caused this sharp downward spike although the trend was always negative, but i believe the fault is in the mainstream media as it threw objective journalism out the window which Americans can see.
We've had more then a year where the daily front headlines is hyper-exaggeration over every single thing Donald Trump has done which has turned people off, and any legitimate criticism of Trump is gonna be lost in the noise.
The most interesting statistic is actually the Independents, and if Independents are also turned off significantly (them not being politically affiliated) i think the problem is with the media.
This is why I always laugh whenever anyone starts talking about Democrats/liberals and their "George Soros money". Look, I listen to a plethora of left-wing media, and believe me, they haven't seen any checks. Nearly all of them are listener-funded and barely scraping by. There is absolutely nothing resembling the right-wing talk radio dominance on the left.
Furthermore, FOX News is a deliberately right-wing station. MSNBC and CNN are NOT deliberately left-wing. MSNBC USED to be for a couple years in the Bush Administration, but they abandoned us long ago. Their first 3 hours of programming every morning is handed over to a former Republican Congressman.
Many Executives of left-leaning news networks are literally married or related to head advisors for the Democrat party, taking a look at the Clinton-Obama era.
ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron - Susan Rice (democrat National Security Advisor) married
CBS President David Rhodes - Ben Rhodes (Obama's deputy national security adviser) Brother
CNN President Virginia Moseley -Tom Nides (Hillary Deputy Secretary) married
ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman - Jay Carney (Whitehouse Press Secretary) married
ABC News, Univision reporter Jaffe - Katie Hogan (Obama Deputy Secretary) brother
ABC Political head Anchor George Stephanopolos - Former Clinton head of Communication and White House as well.
And many more.
Furthermore the 'Right leading Media' was heavily split on Donald Trump.
Fox News has had a love-hate relationship with him until he became President, so much so that Trump called them out and refused to do the first debate in the primaries hosted by Fox News. Primarily because of Megan Kelly, Chris Wallace originally hated his Guts.
Sean Hannity always liked him, Bill O'Reilly has a past friendship with him, Megyn hated him.
On the radio, Savage liked Trump, Mark Levin HATED Trump because Levin supported Ted Cruz, Rush Limbaugh was just generally Republican as he supported Marco Rubio of all people.
National Review unanimously absolutely hated Donald Trump and this was the premier leading Conservative publication.
In the issue, 22 prominent conservatives write essays giving their reasoning, including William Kristol, Glenn Beck, Cal Thomas, Dana Loesch and Erick Erickson.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/national-review-against-trump-1.3414888
And CNN has been long associated with bias for the Democrat Party, thats why it has long been known as the Clinton News Network.
Yes, the National Review, the revered publication of William F. Buckley, a man held up as a paragon of conservative virtue, who just happend to oppose the Civil Rights Act.
It didn't work out for them because Corey just kept praising Trump, to the point CNN employee's wanted him removed and he then resigned.
And lol 'Corey assaulted a reporter' we have the video, Corey pulled her back when she got past the Secret Service, no one in the world think's thats 'assault'.
CNN is known as the Clinton News network because its coverage is heavily slanted in favour of her and the democrat party.
This is well acknowledged Since Donna Brazille as a CNN contributor gave inside info to Hillary Clinton to rig the debate for her against Bernie Sanders.
To put it another way, There is actual hard evidence of CNN interfering in the election in an unethical manner then there is from some Russian Conspiracy.
Again, this may be "well acknowledged" in the conservative media world, but liberals feel the exact opposite way about it. I also believe CNN is horrible, but for entirely different reasons.
The Suffolk University/USA Today poll released Friday asks, "Who do you think the media, including major newspapers and TV stations, would like to see elected president: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?"
Of the 1,000 adults surveyed, 75.9 percent answered Clinton, while just 7.9 percent picked Trump, the Republican nominee. Just more than 16 percent of respondents chose either "neither" or "undecided."
http://thehill.com/media/303552-poll-public-overwhelmingly-thinks-media-is-in-the-tank-for-clinton#.WBjCWjUuKQM.twitter
Therefore, not only do the slight majority of U.S. registered voters believe the media is biased in favor of Clinton, but 87% of voters who perceive any media bias believe that bias favors Clinton.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/197090/majority-voters-think-media-favors-clinton.aspx
Yes Americans generally feel the media was unfairly biased for Hillary against Trump.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2431
There is clear evidence of bias from much of the mainstream media of reporting, against Trump and for Hillary Clinton and this was the discussion you yourself wrote about.
We know for a fact that much of the democrat leaning news organizations have close ties to the Democrat party apparatus which clearly are conflicts of interest.
ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron - Susan Rice (democrat National Security Advisor) married
CBS President David Rhodes - Ben Rhodes (Obama's deputy national security adviser) Brother
CNN President Virginia Moseley -Tom Nides (Hillary Deputy Secretary) married
ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman - Jay Carney (Whitehouse Press Secretary) married
ABC News, Univision reporter Jaffe - Katie Hogan (Obama Deputy Secretary) brother
ABC Political head Anchor George Stephanopolos - Former Clinton head of Communication and White House as well.
We have actual evidence of clearly ethical violations where CNN correspondence Donna Brazille rigged a debate for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders.
Finally, the perception in America is of a majority considering the Media was biased for Hillary against Trump.
Of the 1,000 adults surveyed, 75.9 percent answered Clinton, while just 7.9 percent picked Trump, the Republican nominee. Just more than 16 percent of respondents chose either "neither" or "undecided."
http://thehill.com/media/303552-poll-public-overwhelmingly-thinks-media-is-in-the-tank-for-clinton#.WBjCWjUuKQM.twitter
Therefore, not only do the slight majority of U.S. registered voters believe the media is biased in favor of Clinton, but 87% of voters who perceive any media bias believe that bias favors Clinton.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/197090/majority-voters-think-media-favors-clinton.aspx
Are there elements of the media that favour Trump? of course as i spelled out, Sean hannity, Savage, Tucker (honestly).
They pale in comparison to the ties that democrat news organisations have with Hillary Clinton and the democrat political party.
Also, there is no "Democrat" party. It's the Democratic Party. "Democrat Party" is a purposeful right-wing in-joke (once again, started by Limbaugh) that simply exists to piss off liberals.