BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Well, the public believes the media is biased. So it would seem like their reporting regarding President Trump needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

A recent Harvard study of media coverage in the first 100 days shows major media sources were overwhelming negative about President Trump. CNN and NBC 93% negative, CBS 90% negative, NYTimes 87% negative, WashPost 83% negative, WSJ 70%, and Fox 52% negative. Stories concerning President Trump's fitness for office ran WashPost 96% negative, NYTimes 87% negative, CNN 82% negative, NBC 80% negative, Fox 33% negative.

So it's perfectly fair to question the objectivity of news outlets that are so negative about President Trump.

As a comparison, President Trumps has received overall something like 70% negative reporting, President Obama about 70% positive, President Bush 57% negative, and President Clinton 60% negative.

This is a link to the study https://shorensteinc...first-100-days/

There are several passages in the summary/conclusions that seem apropos.

"Nonetheless, the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump's contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his Presidency."

"At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it. The public's low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press's watchdog role. ... The nation's watchdog has lost much of its bite and won't regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties"

"Journalists would also do well to spend less time in Washington and more time in places where policy intersects with people's lives. If they had done so during the Presidential campaign, they would not have missed the story that keyed Trump's victory -- the fading of the American dream for millions of ordinary people. Nor do all such narratives need to be a tale of woe. America at the moment is a divided society in some respects, but not a broken society and the divisions in Washington are deeper than those outside the Beltway."

But beyond the bias, one has to ask what was the hard information the sources for the story saw that made them make their claims. Was there a verbatim transcript of the meeting or just a summary based on some meeting notes they were basing their comments on? With the American attendees asserting nothing inappropriate was said, anything other than a verbatim transcript would seem pretty iffy for upholding the source's assertions.

What bothers me about media is that i've seen more news lately about kathy griffin and covfefe than about kabul, north korea, philippines and russia. Trump truly managed to turn his presidency into a reality show and now we forget to switch channels.

Are you of the opinion that news organizations don't falsify their reports?

Well, the public believes the media is biased. So it would seem like their reporting regarding President Trump needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

A recent Harvard study of media coverage in the first 100 days shows major media sources were overwhelming negative about President Trump. CNN and NBC 93% negative, CBS 90% negative, NYTimes 87% negative, WashPost 83% negative, WSJ 70%, and Fox 52% negative. Stories concerning President Trump's fitness for office ran WashPost 96% negative, NYTimes 87% negative, CNN 82% negative, NBC 80% negative, Fox 33% negative.

So it's perfectly fair to question the objectivity of news outlets that are so negative about President Trump.

As a comparison, President Trumps has received overall something like 70% negative reporting, President Obama about 70% positive, President Bush 57% negative, and President Clinton 60% negative.

This is a link to the study https://shorensteinc...first-100-days/

There are several passages in the summary/conclusions that seem apropos.

"Nonetheless, the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump's contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his Presidency."

"At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it. The public's low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press's watchdog role. ... The nation's watchdog has lost much of its bite and won't regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties"

"Journalists would also do well to spend less time in Washington and more time in places where policy intersects with people's lives. If they had done so during the Presidential campaign, they would not have missed the story that keyed Trump's victory -- the fading of the American dream for millions of ordinary people. Nor do all such narratives need to be a tale of woe. America at the moment is a divided society in some respects, but not a broken society and the divisions in Washington are deeper than those outside the Beltway."

But beyond the bias, one has to ask what was the hard information the sources for the story saw that made them make their claims. Was there a verbatim transcript of the meeting or just a summary based on some meeting notes they were basing their comments on? With the American attendees asserting nothing inappropriate was said, anything other than a verbatim transcript would seem pretty iffy for upholding the source's assertions.

What bothers me about media is that i've seen more news lately about kathy griffin and covfefe than about kabul, north korea, philippines and russia. Trump truly managed to turn his presidency into a reality show and now we forget to switch channels.

Can someone tell me how dismantling Dodd-Frank is making American better for Main Street, because I can definitely see how it benefits Wall Street? It creates an atmosphere ripe for another financial market crash! The news sharks should have provided frenetic, repeated and continuous coverage of this programming change.

The media have missed the real story. Donald Trump is a Sunni Muslim, How else to explain his dumping of our historical ties with Europe to embrace Saudi Arabia?

http://www.politico....dd-frank-000197

Dodd-Frank hurts small community banks. They can't afford to devote 3 floors
of lawyers for compliance. Small businesses are having difficulties obtaining
loans.

The Financial Crisis Commission concluded AIG failed and was rescued by the government primarily because its enormous sales of credit default swaps were made without putting up the initial collateral, setting aside capital reserves, or hedging its exposure – a profound failure in corporate governance, particularly its risk management practices. AIG's failure was possible because of the sweeping deregulation of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, including credit default swaps, which effectively eliminated federal and state regulation of these products, including capital and margin requirements that would have lessened the likelihood of AIG's failure.

What historical ties with Europe has he dumped? Certainly the Paris Accord is not considered historical. TPP never came into existence. We are still part of NATO. Exactly what has he dumped?

Certainly the Paris Accord is not considered historical.

So your answer to the FBI investigating members of the Trump campaign regarding Russia is that it is a conspiracy between the media and the intelligence agencies of multiple countries to bring down "the outsider" and put in his place a career politician of the far right? You are right to question why the FBI sat on the information about Trump while at the same time releasing information about HC that materially affected the election but is almost certainly less relevant in terms of criminal/moral wrongdoing. But that is another storyline entirely from the large-scale plotting you seem to have in mind.

Today I watched an interview of an Iowa Trump support who claimed that the more "people like Rachel Maddow and Kathy Griffin attack" the more entrenched becomes the support of Trump.

Is it only me that hears this as a quite juvenile-like thinking pattern? It comes across to me as the same thing as spurning your parents' choice of friends for you and instead hang out with the bikers or hoods or whatever else happens to be the in thing at that time.

Trump campaign rallies have had the feel of a reality talk show before a live studio audience rather than an opportunity to rally supporters behind his specific policy proposals. But the reason this erratic, reality talk show style of leadership has put Trump in the lead in the GOP primaries is because his style taps into a powerful emotion: Anger.

'I think the thing that’s most notable about Trump’s leadership style is anger,' says Dr. Gail Saltz, psychiatrist. 'There is something about his angry message and the vociferousness with which he imparts it that has really resonated up until at least this point.'

Saltz says there are a few physiological reasons for this. The first is identification. 'It’s the psychic defense mechanism of identification. When they have a candidate who is primarily resonating not just anger, but blaming specific others for what they’re angry about, it is reassuring. It is always reassuring to people who are very angry and frustrated to feel there is someone at fault and therefore, someone one could pinpoint and make a change so that whatever is making you angry could stop.'

As for who is at fault: Anyone from Obama to Mexicans, according to Trump. And while it’s sometimes easy to dismiss Trump supporters’ anger as out of control, especially given the violent antics at some of his rallies, Saltz says there are plenty of people who are naturally more aggressive than others–-and Trump’s style plays out that aggression."

'Biologically, some people are more aggressive. They are more in touch with angry feelings. Anger is not only acceptable to them but is a, let’s say a manly way of expressing themselves,' she says. 'The goal of each of these candidates is to get their primary voters to come out and vote. To do that you have to emotionally stir them a pretty fair amount. You have to galvanize them. Anger is a high-valence emotion as opposed to, says, comfort or the like. [Trump’s] leadership style has tapped into a big enough sector that feel very angry about their current lot in life—those which may or may not have someone to blame, but who will seek someone to blame. That’s very appealing.' --Michael Grothaus, The Psychology Behind Why People Support Certain Candidates

Personally, It think you are too smart to continue to believe the BS you are repeating. You are claiming the media is proactive rather than reactive - but the stories the media covers are after the fact. Their analysis of their stories is opinion. But Trump has created his own negative publicity; the media just reported what he says and does.

Your complaint is about the analysis they offer - you think it is biased.

In the "democratic age" news and information have been transformed. The way politics is covered has changed radically. Papers don't "report" news, they quite often present it according to their preferences and prejudices. The growth of columnists has led to the birth of a "Commentariat". It contains a few excellent and analytical minds, but all too often reasonable, balanced voices are drowned out by journalists who seem untainted by facts or deeper knowledge but replace this with gleefully presented prejudices.

A lot of modern political journalism ignores context and complexity, presenting everything in black and white, while the nature of politics most of the time is a balancing act between contradictory interests and demands. No surprise, then, that politicians are losing control over the political agenda. The much-maligned spin doctor was an attempt to win back the initiative. It failed a long time ago.

News has become more superficial and sensational. The need for images and pictures is greater than ever. News is too often degenerating into "disastertainment". See https://www.theguard...ticsandthemedia for additional information.

Give Angela a call and ask her. She seems to have a pretty good grasp of the situation.

I have had difficulty following the Trump logic. But once we accept that he is a Sunni Muslim, his actions make sense. He cozies up to Sunni Saud Arabia, he misses no chance to express his contempt for Europe, he demonizes Shiite Iran. If the previous president had done this, surely Trump would have declared him to be a Muslim. Oh. Right. He already did that.

Trump is a disaster. The overwhelmingly negative slant of the news is simply because they are reporting facts.

http://www.politico....dd-frank-000197

Dodd-Frank hurts small community banks. They can't afford to devote 3 floors
of lawyers for compliance. Small businesses are having difficulties obtaining
loans.