MSNBC takes the Red Pill

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · November 11, 2016, 02:45:01 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Luciana · November 11, 2016, 02:56:04 AM

I really enjoy Joe Scarborough and Mark Halperin. Halperin has consistently said that Trump could still win, even if it was tough. Even telling people that a week is forever in the political world and people would rebound to Trump.

Great video though, and he's right. NY Times and Washington Post, as well as CNN, really showed their true faces this election cycle.

Stroud · November 13, 2016, 01:45:20 PM

Very great point in the video. They thought their candidate had such a high chance of winning, they brushed aside the rising popularity of Trump, which did ultimately hurt them. At least some journalists were able to see it happening.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · November 14, 2016, 08:35:03 AM

I always used to doubt the "liberal MSM" meme until recently. One of the few perks of this election, for me, is the media being exposed and having to reflect on its behavior. They decided Hillary would be our next President, that Trump didn't have a chance in hell of winning. They ran a rigorous campaign against the guy, with little regard for whether the Claim of the Week™ was even an honest one, or just grasping for straws, while underreporting issues damaging to Hillary such as her leaked emails.

I'm digressing here, but I'd also say the Trump campaign didn't respond properly either, at the least--they seemed to prefer revoking press access to events, instead of releasing official statements asking for retractions or corrections. It's bizarre to me that the Trump campaign didn't issue their own fact-checking of sorts, because that would have brought attention to specific instances of bias (Steph Molyneux did a better job of this than the Trump campaign ever did.)

But going back on topic here, I'm glad the media is forced to have an about-face. Hopefully their future coverage of a Trump presidency will be a bit more balanced.

Luciana · November 14, 2016, 09:02:01 AM

It was a lot of media against Trump, yeah. And MSNBC is obviously the Fox News tier of the left. Well, mostly.

Morning Joe though it pretty nice since the dude looking in the camera is a republican, and since I give it a watch before I head to classes in the morning, I do remember them constantly saying Trump was gonna do better than anyone expected in the primaries, and then come election they said it is narrow, but he has a chance.

Anyway, I think everyone thought he was gonna lose due to almost all sorts of media, Fox News included, relying on polls so much. But obviously people can lie about polls, not answer, or other variables.

Azendac · November 14, 2016, 12:14:17 PM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 14, 2016, 08:35:03 AM

I'm digressing here, but I'd also say the Trump campaign didn't respond properly either, at the least--they seemed to prefer revoking press access to events, instead of releasing official statements asking for retractions or corrections. It's bizarre to me that the Trump campaign didn't issue their own fact-checking of sorts, because that would have brought attention to specific instances of bias (Steph Molyneux did a better job of this than the Trump campaign ever did.)

That would give credibility to the meida, and imply that Trump has to answer to them and their demands, which goes against his campaign of running against the system.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · November 14, 2016, 12:25:06 PM

Quote from: Azendac on November 14, 2016, 12:14:17 PM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 14, 2016, 08:35:03 AM
I'm digressing here, but I'd also say the Trump campaign didn't respond properly either, at the least--they seemed to prefer revoking press access to events, instead of releasing official statements asking for retractions or corrections. It's bizarre to me that the Trump campaign didn't issue their own fact-checking of sorts, because that would have brought attention to specific instances of bias (Steph Molyneux did a better job of this than the Trump campaign ever did.)
That would give credibility to the meida, and imply that Trump has to answer to them and their demands, which goes against his campaign of running against the system.

I don't to see how setting the record straight by *pointing out the media's bias* is somehow playing into their game.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · November 14, 2016, 12:28:12 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · November 14, 2016, 01:02:29 PM

Quote from: Mr Deplorable on November 14, 2016, 12:28:12 PM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 14, 2016, 08:35:03 AM
I always used to doubt the "liberal MSM" meme until recently. One of the few perks of this election, for me, is the media being exposed and having to reflect on its behavior. They decided Hillary would be our next President, that Trump didn't have a chance in hell of winning. They ran a rigorous campaign against the guy, with little regard for whether the Claim of the Week™ was even an honest one, or just grasping for straws, while underreporting issues damaging to Hillary such as her leaked emails.
I'm actually currently writing an argumentative essay about this for my College Writing course. I was worried I'd have trouble coming up with enough content from popular sources, but the media meltdown after the election, and the subsequent finger-pointing and self-reflection among the media community has given me a ton of content to make use of.

The point I intend to make is that the for-profit mass media in this country has absolutely failed to keep the public well-informed in a nonpartisan manner. The fact that the media itself has started to agree with that sentiment is very encouraging. My original plan was to avoid any mention of the election at all, but now I feel like it's too relevant to the discussion to leave out.

There's a healthy discussion about the media going on now and I'm glad it's happening.

Quote

for-profit mass media in this country has absolutely failed to keep the public well-informed in a nonpartisan manner.

oh god especially this

You'd think with all the stuff that goes on in the world, the 24/7 news cycle, specifically the cable networks, would be able to find endless new topics to discuss. Instead, we'd get shit like 4 days (I made up that number but it's probably close to being accurate) of "what has 'grab them by the pussy' done to damage Trump's campaign?" (If you don't remember, CNN was particularly obsessed with the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 for a long time, too). I've learned more from 15 minutes on The Intercept than 15 hours of CNN.

I'm a bit more critical of statements of the news and public figures, too. Clinton incessantly made vague claims about WikiLeaks emails maybe being 'altered' to be fake, Donna Brazile claimed this more boldly, but the campaign itself never publicly denied or pointed to falsified emails. A solid link between Trump and Russia was one of the most egregious claims of this election cycle. There were so many variations of that lie that I can't be arsed to dig up all of them. Take any bombshell claim from 'anonymous qualified sources' with a few grains of salt.

Azendac · November 14, 2016, 01:05:33 PM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 14, 2016, 12:25:06 PM

Quote from: Azendac on November 14, 2016, 12:14:17 PM
Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 14, 2016, 08:35:03 AM
I'm digressing here, but I'd also say the Trump campaign didn't respond properly either, at the least--they seemed to prefer revoking press access to events, instead of releasing official statements asking for retractions or corrections. It's bizarre to me that the Trump campaign didn't issue their own fact-checking of sorts, because that would have brought attention to specific instances of bias (Steph Molyneux did a better job of this than the Trump campaign ever did.)
That would give credibility to the meida, and imply that Trump has to answer to them and their demands, which goes against his campaign of running against the system.
I don't to see how setting the record straight by *pointing out the media's bias* is somehow playing into their game.

Because he would be on the defensive reacting to them, instead of taking the initiative and making everyone react to him. He made the Mexican rapist comment at the very start precisely so that everyone in the world would be wondering what he'd do next.

big sponge · November 14, 2016, 01:08:03 PM

I'm trying to figure out what kind of timeline i'd have to have stumbled into for the Clintons to be considered liberal

Anonymous (User Deleted) · November 14, 2016, 01:09:05 PM

Quote from: Azendac on November 14, 2016, 01:05:33 PM

Because he would be on the defensive reacting to them, instead of taking the initiative and making everyone react to him.

I feel inclined to disagree. Playing defensive isn't necessarily weak; forcing a retraction or correction with facts on your side is some pretty strong pushback, and can make sure that the issue isn't settled to readers of that publication.

One thing hack reporters LOVE to do is run an article with a damaging headline and flawed premise, then quietly issue a correction at the bottom of the piece where no one will notice. Imagine the reckoning they'd have if the Trump campaign collected and published instances of this happening.

Azendac · November 14, 2016, 01:28:29 PM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 14, 2016, 01:09:05 PM

Quote from: Azendac on November 14, 2016, 01:05:33 PM
Because he would be on the defensive reacting to them, instead of taking the initiative and making everyone react to him.
I feel inclined to disagree. Playing defensive isn't necessarily weak; forcing a retraction or correction with facts on your side is some pretty strong pushback, and can make sure that the issue isn't settled to readers of that publication.

One thing hack reporters LOVE to do is run an article with a damaging headline and flawed premise, then quietly issue a correction at the bottom of the piece where no one will notice. Imagine the reckoning they'd have if the Trump campaign collected and published instances of this happening.

I'll be the first one to admit that factually defending himself is Trump's weakest skill by far. An argument could be made that he avoids details so that the media can't get a cycle out of saying "Trump's polciy on X is bad because...", take for example the time he claimed the Obama administration should have bombed mosul without telling anyone, instead of announcing it to the world weeks in advance. Everyone criticized him over it, but I don't think that's why he wat light on details. The fact that he only started talking policy points at the Arizona immigration speech, over a year and a half into the campaign, says to me that he put more value on his rhetorical abilities than anything else, and that he felt he could defer the facts to his team.

It's not that great to quote john oliver, but he did take a shot at Trump saying he got his facts "from the internet", which really sums up Trump's approach: Get the gist of what people are feeling, tell them you'll fix it, hire someone to make it work.