Bashing mainstream media - a legitimate election tactic?

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,665
Jared Kushner complained about CNNs panels being stacked against Trump and asked it's boss Jeff Zucker to change them but he refused, according to sources. But Kushner said that the Trump campaign made a deal with Sinclair to show Trump interviews without commentary. Sinclair has 250,000 viewers in Ohio compared to 30,000 for CNN. Sinclair owns a lot of regional channels and is seen as conservative-leaning.

Does the Trump election show the power of the media is in decline because of the internet, or does it show that bashing the media is a good campaign tactic? If so will we see more of it in Ireland and other western countries. And if so would such a tactic work over here - and will it continue to work for Trump? Is bashing the press legitimate in a western democracy or does it undermine it as liberals claim?

At many of his campaign rallies Trump points to the press and calls them "dishonest people". Just 32% of Americans polled recently trust the media, including 51% of Democrats, 14% of Republicans and 36% of Independents. A Quinnipiac poll during the campaign said 71% of people believed the media supported Hillary.
 


Supra

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
2,167
As Denzel Washingtons said 'don't read the papers you are uninformed, read the papers you are misinformed' then he did that jowl shake thing.

It's like thread here 'Israel are losing the battle in the media'.

Saying this is itself a media game or more accurately, propaganda. Regardless of the coverage in the media the media need to defend themselves adding fuel to the fire. Once you're explaining you are losing. If the media are defending themselves against Trump they automatically are seen as having a bias.

This doesn't mean what Trump or Israel said isn't true as there really isn't a truth. There can't be a truth with mass consumption.
 

captain obvious

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
1,884
Jared Kushner complained about CNNs panels being stacked against Trump and asked it's boss Jeff Zucker to change them but he refused, according to sources. But Kushner said that the Trump campaign made a deal with Sinclair to show Trump interviews without commentary. Sinclair has 250,000 viewers in Ohio compared to 30,000 for CNN. Sinclair owns a lot of regional channels and is seen as conservative-leaning.

Does the Trump election show the power of the media is in decline because of the internet, or does it show that bashing the media is a good campaign tactic? If so will we see more of it in Ireland and other western countries. And if so would such a tactic work over here - and will it continue to work for Trump? Is bashing the press legitimate in a western democracy or does it undermine it as liberals claim?

At many of his campaign rallies Trump points to the press and calls them "dishonest people". Just 32% of Americans polled recently trust the media, including 51% of Democrats, 14% of Republicans and 36% of Independents. A Quinnipiac poll during the campaign said 71% of people believed the media supported Hillary.
Traditional news media is dead. Which would be tragic but most people prefer to watch the X factor (or whatever). As a species I think we are doomed.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
"Payback time" ?????????????

Ireland's media is dominated by one tax non domicile billionaire.
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
22,670
Jared Kushner complained about CNNs panels being stacked against Trump and asked it's boss Jeff Zucker to change them but he refused, according to sources. But Kushner said that the Trump campaign made a deal with Sinclair to show Trump interviews without commentary. Sinclair has 250,000 viewers in Ohio compared to 30,000 for CNN. Sinclair owns a lot of regional channels and is seen as conservative-leaning.

Does the Trump election show the power of the media is in decline because of the internet, or does it show that bashing the media is a good campaign tactic? If so will we see more of it in Ireland and other western countries. And if so would such a tactic work over here - and will it continue to work for Trump? Is bashing the press legitimate in a western democracy or does it undermine it as liberals claim?

At many of his campaign rallies Trump points to the press and calls them "dishonest people". Just 32% of Americans polled recently trust the media, including 51% of Democrats, 14% of Republicans and 36% of Independents. A Quinnipiac poll during the campaign said 71% of people believed the media supported Hillary.
The idea of the 'mainstream media' is rapidly becoming a cliche to be filed away with 'all politicians are corrupt', and the cliche I love most - 'why can't they [politicians] all just agree on [insert issue] for once'.

It's nonsense spouted by people who don't really have the attention span to grasp politics & need world events simplifying for them.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
I find it sickening that we have such a poor partisan media.

RTE are a cabal, I do hope that the new DG has the ability and will to start addressing this. That my money is used to support the State broadcaster really irritates me.

We're small nation, and in this wee cabal everyone seems to know everyone and are even related to each other and/or the politicians. Incestious little hub that we are.

Real reporting somehow died a long time ago. Maybe it's too much like hard work? Fine journalists for example exposed the church. But the incestious relationships delayed exposing the abuse. The media and politicians remain too tight.

Journalists believe that their own opinions matter. They don't seem to be able to report fairly. We have a big chunk of the media owned by an Oligarch. And they spin for him and his pals.

The so called paper of record is a conservative bashing D4 rag that is so far up its own hole and so invested in one or two single issues that it'll not likely survive another decade.

RTE too have invested in one issue in particular, one broadcaster having multiple findings against him in relation to this one issue yet there's no sanction. Nope.

I use thejournal.ie for my news now, I have noticed errors in its reporting (it reported a case I was very familiar with incorrrctly) but at least it tries to think outside the box. Broadsheet too, it has its agenda, like most media outlets in Ireland unfortunately but is worth a look at.

So to top it off, the media isn't about journalism anymore (a few journalists excepted) but rather about effecting change, their change, what they want, what they believe we all want.

Sometimes I think it's depressing, in Ireland it's far more I've sided than any other English speaking country I can think of.

Then I remember some referendum results and I hat tip to Patrica McKenna, and think there's hope :)
 

Bubbleheaded

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2016
Messages
551
I posted the links below to another thread. Mainstream media has destroyed it's credibility in a rush to align itself with what it thought was the "winning side" in political discourse. What used to be the "papers of record" now routinely run stories that are, at best poorly researched, and more likely, downright lies. Bashing mainstream media is the only sensible tactic for any politician who is not part of the "right on" faction.

 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
I dont know where OP has been all his life, but I havent seen one election in the UK or the USA in which the MSM didnt come in for a bashing.

It has been axiomatic all my life that most of the press in the UK was biased against the British Labour Party, and even in the palmy days of Tony Blair's flirtation with Roop the Poop, the conclusion was that Murdoch was merely backing a winner - temporarily.

There is absolutely nothing new about the fact that most people rate estate agents, journalists and politicians as the least trustworthy occupations. What is new is the belief that something called "alternative media", for which read complete bloviators, is somehow more trustworthy.

These are all businesses at the end. They tell you what they think you want to hear or what someone else wants you to hear. That goes for Breitbart as much as The Guardian - with double knobs on.

"The only news is what someone doesnt want you to hear - everything else is just advertising", as the great press baron Lord Northcliffe put it in the 1930s.
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
22,670
These are all businesses at the end. They tell you what they think you want to hear or what someone else wants you to hear. That goes for Breitbart as much as The Guardian - with double knobs on.
A chief difference between the so called MSM & the likes of Jones is that there is a least some recourse to law and professional standards bodies with the MSM. I admit it may be far from perfect but at least it's something.

Whereas Breitbart & Jones can simply say any fact free thing they like with no worry of oversight or reprimand.
 

Ruadh

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
2,491
Its entirely rational to oppose Trump but the idea that this means we are to give the establishment fpress a pass is sickening.

The same press that falls over itself promoting the neo liberal order.
Bernie Sanders bashed the media because the media bashed Bernie. Legitimate to bash the media. What about bashing the Murdoch media. And if it's a media that wants "responsible" policies ?
Bash them all.
 

Franzoni

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
16,328
I dont know where OP has been all his life, but I havent seen one election in the UK or the USA in which the MSM didnt come in for a bashing.

It has been axiomatic all my life that most of the press in the UK was biased against the British Labour Party, and even in the palmy days of Tony Blair's flirtation with Roop the Poop, the conclusion was that Murdoch was merely backing a winner - temporarily.

There is absolutely nothing new about the fact that most people rate estate agents, journalists and politicians as the least trustworthy occupations. What is new is the belief that something called "alternative media", for which read complete bloviators, is somehow more trustworthy.

These are all businesses at the end. They tell you what they think you want to hear or what someone else wants you to hear. That goes for Breitbart as much as The Guardian - with double knobs on.

"The only news is what someone doesnt want you to hear - everything else is just advertising", as the great press baron Lord Northcliffe put it in the 1930s.
The OP believed Trump was going to drain the swamp....

The only thing he is draining is the board of Goldman Sachs and other organizations who are stacked with people that i've had to scrape better off my shoe for his administration....
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
A chief difference between the so called MSM & the likes of Jones is that there is a least some recourse to law and professional standards bodies with the MSM. I admit it may be far from perfect but at least it's something.

Whereas Breitbart & Jones can simply say any fact free thing they like with no worry of oversight or reprimand.

As far back as the 1930s, the hey-day of Lord
Northcliffe, a British Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, made a celebrated speech when he accused the press of exercising power without responsibility - "the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages."

He had no idea what the internet was going to bring. The fact is, no one has ever regarded the press as anything but compromised, except when the media publishes stories which reinforce their world view. All politicians, mainstream or fringe, campaign against the media, even when they are in bed with them.

The current internet media seems to have awarded itself a pass which is totally unearned. Take Exaro, that fount of lies about historical child abuse in high places. It has closed down now, but not after wreaking untold damage and costing the state a fortune in police investigations which went nowhere.

In general, we know who owns the conventional media and what their interests are. The internet media is completely opaque. Who knows who is really behind some of these news/discussion sites, and what their aims are?
 

Supra

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
2,167
I find it sickening that we have such a poor partisan media.

RTE are a cabal, I do hope that the new DG has the ability and will to start addressing this. That my money is used to support the State broadcaster really irritates me.

We're small nation, and in this wee cabal everyone seems to know everyone and are even related to each other and/or the politicians. Incestious little hub that we are.

Real reporting somehow died a long time ago. Maybe it's too much like hard work? Fine journalists for example exposed the church. But the incestious relationships delayed exposing the abuse. The media and politicians remain too tight.

Journalists believe that their own opinions matter. They don't seem to be able to report fairly. We have a big chunk of the media owned by an Oligarch. And they spin for him and his pals.

The so called paper of record is a conservative bashing D4 rag that is so far up its own hole and so invested in one or two single issues that it'll not likely survive another decade.

RTE too have invested in one issue in particular, one broadcaster having multiple findings against him in relation to this one issue yet there's no sanction. Nope.

I use thejournal.ie for my news now, I have noticed errors in its reporting (it reported a case I was very familiar with incorrrctly) but at least it tries to think outside the box. Broadsheet too, it has its agenda, like most media outlets in Ireland unfortunately but is worth a look at.

So to top it off, the media isn't about journalism anymore (a few journalists excepted) but rather about effecting change, their change, what they want, what they believe we all want.

Sometimes I think it's depressing, in Ireland it's far more I've sided than any other English speaking country I can think of.

Then I remember some referendum results and I hat tip to Patrica McKenna, and think there's hope :)
Journalists are now commentators and manipulators.
There are no more probing investigation but headline seeking robots.

Journalists now look at a situation, see a possible outcome and base their questions around that.

For example, a Journalist will go to a press conference and ask a Party Leader 'is it true that x Minister is opposed to your position on Y.
The response is then the headline (Party leader Denies....) and the question is accepted without any substance.
This is not journalism. It's manipulation. Any journalist worth their salt will investigate the story, notify party leader for a reply and judge if there is a public interest in it before publishing.

What we have no is laziness.
 

Spanner Island

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
23,974
People basically only want to hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe.

Truth doesn't come into it anymore... as there is always some internet troll site that will provide any interpretation of any 'news' or opinion that chimes with whatever opinion a reader already holds...

And so that's what's happening now... and is where people gravitate... to echo chambers that reflect their own already held thoughts and beliefs...

There will be a backlash against this new post truth madness that is in vogue at the moment and which is attempting to 'normalise' the bullsh!t it spews...

Just as soon as people get tired and bored of participating with the bullsh!tters and see some of the potential consequences of it... and accept the bullsh!t for what it is... because many of them do already know it's bullsh!t but for whatever reason (apathy, frustration, anger etc.) are prepared to go along with it for now as it's providing some short term satisfaction...
 
Last edited:

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,066
There is not one single news outlet mainstream or otherwise that does not reflect the bias of its owners, the MSM is fine for meta data, locations, death tolls and who the protagonists are , but as far their motives ,goals and allies are concerned ,we should probably take their opinions with shovels of salt.
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,397
There is not one single news outlet mainstream or otherwise that does not reflect the bias of its owners, the MSM is fine for meta data, locations, death tolls and who the protagonists are , but as far their motives ,goals and allies are concerned ,we should probably take their opinions with shovels of salt.
What they do have is lots of trained people, who are subject to scrutiny, something neophyte "citizen" journalists and bloggers are rarely held to.
 

Jack Walsh

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
9,807
Of course it's fair game, when has it not been?

However, when it is accompanied by a claim that Infowars and Breitbart are superior alternatives, the debate is quickly lost.

Its like taking your child out of a long respected boarding school over general concerns about clerical abuse and handing him over to Jimmy Savile
 

Spanner Island

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
23,974
Of course it's fair game, when has it not been?

However, when it is accompanied by a claim that Infowars and Breitbart are superior alternative the debate is quickly lost.

Its like taking your child out of a long respected boarding school over general concerns about clerical abuse and handing him over to Jimmy Savile
I like that analogy.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
Journalists are now commentators and manipulators.
There are no more probing investigation but headline seeking robots.

Journalists now look at a situation, see a possible outcome and base their questions around that.

For example, a Journalist will go to a press conference and ask a Party Leader 'is it true that x Minister is opposed to your position on Y.
The response is then the headline (Party leader Denies....) and the question is accepted without any substance.
This is not journalism. It's manipulation. Any journalist worth their salt will investigate the story, notify party leader for a reply and judge if there is a public interest in it before publishing.

What we have no is laziness.
Lazy and manipulative. I agree.

I just don't know how to change it.

I do sigh as an "RTE" "journalist" repeatedly says a murder victim was "known to Gardaí". The same faces trotted out to give their political spin.

I will give a hat tip to two journalists though, Justine McCarthy and Claire Byrne. McCarthy seems capable of seeing a number of sides while I have no idea where Byrnes politics lie, an indication of her ability.
 

Spanner Island

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
23,974
Lazy and manipulative. I agree.

I just don't know how to change it.

I do sigh as an "RTE" "journalist" repeatedly says a murder victim was "known to Gardaí". The same faces trotted out to give their political spin.

I will give a hat tip to two journalists though, Justine McCarthy and Claire Byrne.
Transparency, real accountability and real consequences is the only way things are going to improve.

As it is now everything is opaque and ambiguous and crap with individuals all too easily hiding behind 'systems' and institutions and companies and all sorts as they evade accountability for all sorts... and it's right across everything... from the church to the state to corporations... banks, auditors etc.

If society was structured in such a way that it drilled down to the individual on all things I suspect things would improve.

If there were no taxes other than income and VAT with multiple levels of each whereby individuals paid fair amounts of tax basd on what they earned (income) and bought (VAT) with all loopholes closed and where tough, unavoidable and punitive penalties for cheaters were in place... then I reckon things could improve...

If every citizen had to file an annual tax return - whether they're PAYE, self employed, on benefits/welfare etc. regardless... and if it was a simple transparent tax system (as it should be)... I reckon a lot of the bullsh!t that goes on could be cracked down on...

It's all about simplicity and transparency imo... because if things were simplified and transparent then the opportunities to be a cheating f***er would diminish and the likelihood of those who did cheat being caught would increase...

Imagine if whenever there was a f*** up in a hospital or at a crime scene or whatever... that the usual closing of ranks didn't occur and that there were procedures in place to ensure it didn't... and that lessons were actually learned and if anyone was found to be criminally negligent they suffered appropriate sanction etc... and... well... we'd be in a much better place than we are now...

Sadly in Ireland despite people claiming they want things cleaned up... they don't vote that way or demand these things from those who attain power... and so the same auld sh!t goes on and on and on and on etc.
 
Last edited:


New Threads

Most Replies

Top