Re: We are all Slave now.
 

The press does not do that at all. It attacks him. For good reason. I follow the news sparingly, but even in that limited exposure, almost every story you see about Trump is negative.

Again, there's intent and there's effect. Two different things.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

It had zero impact on the elections. The blue wave has come in almost exactly as forecast.

The Ds were never going to win the Senate. That was silly dreaming.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Again, you're out of your depth. They trend left and it is reflected in much of their work.

It's not even debated among journalists themselves.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Breitbart and Infowars are reactions to the hatred of Bush from 2000-2008.

Where isn't the Left batshit? Read MSNBC for a few minutes at any hour of the day. Read CNN's coverage of Trump. Read WaPo's coverage of Trump. They've elevated this buffoon to an extinction level event.

The list of cuckoo pants left wing media outlets is huge. Are they as nakedly full of shit as Breitbart and Infowars? Hell no. (Actually, I don't think Breitbart can even be lumped in with Infowars as it's opinion slanted as news, while Infowars is simply unhinged insanity.) But are they frothing "the sky is falling" Trump paranoia vehicles? Absolutely. Batshit fucking crazy. Everything's a Russian conspiracy, everywhere there's corruption... It's the boy who cried wolf on a trainload of steroids... and meth.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Stop frothing.

CNN operates on an athletic approach to politics. They have lots of batshit Trumpers on to argue with folks from the left side, but they are definitely a "both sides" reporting vehicle. CNN is responsible for people like Kayleigh McEnany and Jeffrey Lord. The Trumpers on CNN just get beaten down pretty regularly because... well, they're Trumpers. They're trying to argue batshit crazy positions.

MSNBC is definitely for liberals looking for confirmation bias, and it's a loop that covers about two stories a day. But MSNBC, unlike all the conservative places you've identified, is fact based - they do things like correct errors when they happen. And they try to bring over people like Megyn Kelly from Fox, those people just never seem to be able to function in a fact-based world very well.

None of this is batshit. As to Russian conspiracy theories -- well, I would say there clearly was Russian interference of some sort and we have a president working hard to avoid dealing with the issue. That's not frothing, though if I repeat it constantly it does get a bit tedious.

You, on the other hand, are a frother. You get very excited about this stuff.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

That's total bullshit. To begin with, Breitbart did not exist until 2007 and Infowars pre-dates the 2000 election. Both had followings but did not drive mainstream news cycles until candidate Trump started to amplify them. If anything, their rise was driven by racist backlash to Obama's presidency.

You've read these batshit things already, so please share some.

I mean, there's intelligence services, experienced prosecutors and a grand jury alleging a Russian conspiracy, so doesn't sounds so batshit to me.

I'm starting to think it's reality you think is batshit.

Fucking Ridiculous
 

Why you people are arguing about the media's treatment of Trump is beyond me. Objectively speaking, he is a fucking know-nothing, racist moron who isn't interested in learning anything, makes every single decision based on whether someone likes him or the result will somehow line his pocket, and is generally completely corrupt and unfit for office. Of course the coverage is negative. Everything he does is negative. You cannot report on him objectively and not have 100% of your coverage be completely negative. Jesus Christ.

TM

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

That's nonsense. Op-ed and analysis aside, because those are not news, coverage tends to focus on what the President and Administration has said, and reaction to it. For example, here is the top story right now on CNN. It's not a negative story. It presents what has happened fairly objectively, treating what the President says as the news, and questioning him only obliquely. Consider the last paragraph:

Citing promised Saudi investment in the US that could generate jobs and military contracts worth billions, even as he inflated their worth, Trump said that "if we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries and very happy to acquire all of this newfound business."

So this repeats Trump's fatuous claims about the benefits of Saudi investment, and the qualifier "even as he inflated their worth" does little to undercut it. Anyone with a brain knows that Trump is just bullshitting here, and anyone who has paid attention to him suspects that he is carrying water for the Saudis for other reasons, but CNN only alludes to all that and then devotes most of the paragraph to just repeating what Trump says.

If you think that's a negative story, you have a radically different understanding of what that means than the rest of the world does. The whole story is essentially about what the White House says.

Only if you assume pervasive, epic, enduring incompetence. A sports fan can simultaneously be convinced that the refs are biased against his team even though it keeps wining. That's what you sound like.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

You're being an idiot. I have talked on this board for *years* about the systemic biases in the media business, one of which is that individual reporters tend to center-left and to live in large media markets on the coast. That's only one of the many biases, and far from the most important -- that's what I keep saying, and you keep missing it because you apparently can't even imagine that there might be anything else that systematically affects the way the media covers politics.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Find me a CNN news story from the last day for which this is true.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Where the line between Don Lemon's and Jake Tapper's news reporting and opinion? They've become quite "Foxy," I'd say.

Trump lied there, of course. But was his inflation an aim of the story? No. It's another story. The insertion of that little dig exposes the bias of the author. It's subtle, but again, this is how Fox did it (back when they gave a shit about appearing unbiased).

The allusion is the most effective way of sending the message. If you want a judge to pay unique attention to a salacious point, footnote it. See also: David Foster Wallace.

It's no one story. Watch Outfoxed sometime. The cheerleading for (or bias and contempt for) an administration is conveyed best through little quips and allusions here and there. It's a consistent drip, drip, drip process. Fox did it with Obama's Administration relentlessly. CNN isn't acting in nearly as much bad faith, and Trump provides enough bad copy that his words alone are often enough to create negative bias, but it's there. It's so obvious I can watch ten minutes of it in the lobby at a doctor's office and see the obvious bias displayed.

I'd say CNN is more effective in creating bias than MSNBC. MSNBC is obvious and hamfisted. Maddow and O'Donnell, much like Olbermann, are alienating because they think the audience misses their very obvious points. Hence, they over-explain and over-emphasize every negative point, as if they see something every else doesn't. I think that grates on people.

Intent vs effect once more. My only dog in this hunt is to advise you that if you think the media does not have a general left bias, you need meds. The effect of that bias, and how it manifests itself in their reporting, is a different issue.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...sts-ncna895471

https://www.allsides.com/blog/yes-cn...s-shifted-left

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

You said something half-moronic: That the media is not generally working against Trump, and that it is actually unwittingly helping him.

The latter is true. I agree with you. The former is dead wrong. The overwhelming majority of media absolutely works against Trump. They just do it ineffectively, or in a manner that actually works against their intent.

We half agree. Where you're being moronic, I deviate. On the other half, 2.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I don't usually watch TV news, so I don't know.

What you say here is totally fucked up, and completely consistent with the way you miss the big issue in front of your nose. The lead story is about what the White House said about Saudi Arabia. In your view, whether or not what the White House said is true -- that's "another story." That's a choice, and it shows a "bias" (not overtly political, but with political consequences) on the part of the media that is much more important than the bias you ascribe to the authors. Indeed, I suspect you don't know who Nicole Gaouette and Kaitlan Collins are or anything about them -- you are just accustomed to the notion that if they say something factual that reflects poorly on the White House, they must be biased. This is a conservative talking point that you have heard many times through the mainstream media, which dutifully shares it with you. It's not a "dig." Whether or not the President is saying something that is actually true would seem to be objectively important question that people should want to know the answer to, but you essentially are saying that the press serves as a stenographer if it shares that information. No wonder you think the press is biased. You have completely internalized Republican talking points.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

If by "working against him" you mean that they have some abstract interest in the truth instead of just reporting what would please him, they are obviously working against him.