Transition funds - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Transition funds (/thread-20863.html)

---

RE: Transition funds - 82 Card - 11-16-2020

(11-16-2020, 12:39 PM)Mick Wrote:  

(11-16-2020, 08:00 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote:  For the longest time, MSM aired all of Trump's lie-filled propaganda "briefings" and never said he "lies", using weird code for it, and nicer sounding synonyms like "falsehoods".  Now they simply cut off his anti-election screeds and say he lies.  Most investigative news organizations are simply overloaded because of the sheer quantity of bullshit going on in this Administration.  When things are put together retrospectively, the honest readers will see the sheer amount of lunacy as well as the GOP enablers that swept it under the rug.  I still can't get my head wrapped around the fact that he said, right before the elections, that COVID-19 was essentially no big deal and going away and the media would stop talking about it after the elections.  That alone, and his golfing while we have record outbreaks, would be sufficient to undermine previous presidents.  But because we're so used to the degree and amount of his bullshit, it's like a frog in a pot with the water slowly reaching boiling.

I could literally type two dozen other things Trump's administration has done off the top of my head that would've been massive scandals in other presidencies.  Any news organization that thoroughly investigates and publishes on all of it would, by default, seem like they are incredibly biased against Trump because it would drown out most other news.

Harvard's Kennedy School seems to think the media focused on the negative re: Trump.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=ab6d830a9d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085

Trump was covered far more negatively than other presidents:

---

(11-16-2020, 08:00 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote:  For the longest time, MSM aired all of Trump's lie-filled propaganda "briefings" and never said he "lies", using weird code for it, and nicer sounding synonyms like "falsehoods".  Now they simply cut off his anti-election screeds and say he lies.  Most investigative news organizations are simply overloaded because of the sheer quantity of bullshit going on in this Administration.  When things are put together retrospectively, the honest readers will see the sheer amount of lunacy as well as the GOP enablers that swept it under the rug.  I still can't get my head wrapped around the fact that he said, right before the elections, that COVID-19 was essentially no big deal and going away and the media would stop talking about it after the elections.  That alone, and his golfing while we have record outbreaks, would be sufficient to undermine previous presidents.  But because we're so used to the degree and amount of his bullshit, it's like a frog in a pot with the water slowly reaching boiling.

I could literally type two dozen other things Trump's administration has done off the top of my head that would've been massive scandals in other presidencies.  Any news organization that thoroughly investigates and publishes on all of it would, by default, seem like they are incredibly biased against Trump because it would drown out most other news.

Just want to make sure I understand you correctly -- your thesis is that the mainstream media held back with respect to Trump?

You left out the part where the media just turned over the microphone to Trump and his acolytes. From the same web page:

---

RE: Transition funds - DocSavage87 - 11-16-2020

(11-16-2020, 12:39 PM)Mick Wrote:  

(11-16-2020, 08:00 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote:  For the longest time, MSM aired all of Trump's lie-filled propaganda "briefings" and never said he "lies", using weird code for it, and nicer sounding synonyms like "falsehoods".  Now they simply cut off his anti-election screeds and say he lies.  Most investigative news organizations are simply overloaded because of the sheer quantity of bullshit going on in this Administration.  When things are put together retrospectively, the honest readers will see the sheer amount of lunacy as well as the GOP enablers that swept it under the rug.  I still can't get my head wrapped around the fact that he said, right before the elections, that COVID-19 was essentially no big deal and going away and the media would stop talking about it after the elections.  That alone, and his golfing while we have record outbreaks, would be sufficient to undermine previous presidents.  But because we're so used to the degree and amount of his bullshit, it's like a frog in a pot with the water slowly reaching boiling.

I could literally type two dozen other things Trump's administration has done off the top of my head that would've been massive scandals in other presidencies.  Any news organization that thoroughly investigates and publishes on all of it would, by default, seem like they are incredibly biased against Trump because it would drown out most other news.

Harvard's Kennedy School seems to think the media focused on the negative re: Trump.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=ab6d830a9d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085

Trump was covered far more negatively than other presidents:

---

(11-16-2020, 08:00 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote:  For the longest time, MSM aired all of Trump's lie-filled propaganda "briefings" and never said he "lies", using weird code for it, and nicer sounding synonyms like "falsehoods".  Now they simply cut off his anti-election screeds and say he lies.  Most investigative news organizations are simply overloaded because of the sheer quantity of bullshit going on in this Administration.  When things are put together retrospectively, the honest readers will see the sheer amount of lunacy as well as the GOP enablers that swept it under the rug.  I still can't get my head wrapped around the fact that he said, right before the elections, that COVID-19 was essentially no big deal and going away and the media would stop talking about it after the elections.  That alone, and his golfing while we have record outbreaks, would be sufficient to undermine previous presidents.  But because we're so used to the degree and amount of his bullshit, it's like a frog in a pot with the water slowly reaching boiling.

I could literally type two dozen other things Trump's administration has done off the top of my head that would've been massive scandals in other presidencies.  Any news organization that thoroughly investigates and publishes on all of it would, by default, seem like they are incredibly biased against Trump because it would drown out most other news.

Just want to make sure I understand you correctly -- your thesis is that the mainstream media held back with respect to Trump?

Yes, I think they held back.  I think the media does not know how to deal with flagrant liars like Trump who have violated just about every norm as well as crossed into illegal actions, not just the ones that have Trump as "Individual One".  Your graph of the "negative tone" is exactly what I mean when an Administration does so many heinous actions that simply covering what they are doing is considered "negative": Lying about the virus, hosting super-spreader events, preventing contact tracing, claiming to have won an election and also saying it's fraudulent before/during/after election day, being unable to find parents for separated children, the resignations of career DOJ because of politicization of DOJ actions, resignations of an incredible # of Trump Admin appointees/staff and what they said afterwards, use of force in clearing Lafayette Park area for a photo op, etc -- and that's just this year. 

And we conveniently exclude Fox and OAN from MSM even though their viewership is now on par, and they would give Pravda a run for their money.  (Although Fox News, not the talking heads, is similar to others in coverage.)  So a large % of "mainstream" media available to the population is very pro-Trump.

---

RE: Transition funds - oregontim - 11-16-2020

(11-16-2020, 08:00 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote:  Trump was covered far more negatively than other presidents:

---

FWIW, I don't think the graphic above proves bias in any way. I think it's a reflection of the actual source facts. Like what must have been for coverage of, say, Hitler vs. Churchill. A fair press would naturally be 80/20 on a man known for narcissism, lies, the bullying, the abuse, the disregard for country and constitution ... I think the chart above proves that the media were bending over backwards to be factual.

The 80:40 comparison with Obama, for example ...compare Obama's record and public persona to Trump's. 

Then more negative for Bush also fits reality ... not that 9/11 was his fault, but it was his watch, and then the invasion of Iraq, reports of torture. His lower skill level with ad-hoc public speaking, etc.

And Clinton, negative too, a reflection of another impeachment, his character issues, etc.

So your chart shows professional reporting, not bias. IMO.

---