Politics Trump’s Right: His Media Coverage Is Mostly Negative

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
“character and leadership”
We don't need a poll to recognize he lacks the above phrase. thB2PBBMTI.jpg
 
Denny Crane said:
I think the news coverage drives the approval ratings. No, I don't "think" it, I'm sure of it.
Click to expand...
Trump is doing just fine driving down his approval ratings on his own. One tweet at a time. Media doesn't have to report shit, slanted or not. His whole existence speaks for itself.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I imagine the counter-argument is that receiving welfare benefits is voluntary, so it's not unreasonable to place prerequisites on the distribution thereof.

Honestly, the fiscal argument against drug-testing for benefits is much more compelling.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Last edited:
This story has changed since yesterday, when the headline was "committee hasn't ruled out collusion."

CNN ran with that headline all day yesterday, repeating it on air like a broken record.

Yet, the truth is the committee hasn't proven a negative (which is near impossible) - that there was no collusion. The committee has interviewed at least 100 people, including all 7 who were in that meeting with the Russian lawyer, and reviewed thousands of documents, if not tens of thousands or more. They've found not even a "hint of collusion." Not a whiff.

Isn't the really big and important news that they've interviewed and reviewed documents and haven't found even a hint of collusion?


I'll give credit where credit is due. CNN has it right in their WWW article (but not on TV). Compare these news sources/headlines:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/politics/mark-warner-richard-burr-russia-investigation/index.html

Hill Russia investigators: Committee still searching for 'any hint of collusion'

(CNN)Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said Wednesday that the panel "has more work to do" to determine whether there was collusion between Russian officials and Donald Trump's team during last year's presidential election.

"The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion," Burr said at a Capitol Hill news conference, standing alongside the committee's top Democrat, Mark Warner of Virginia.​


http://thehill.com/policy/national-...rs-collusion-still-open-part-of-investigation

Intel leaders: Collusion still open part of investigation

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...g-christopher-steeles-dossier-trum/731126001/

Senate Intelligence Committee still investigating possible collusion between Trump campaign and Russia

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-open-issue-senate-panel-chiefs-idUSKBN1C92G3

Russia-Trump campaign collusion an 'open' issue: Senate panel chiefs
 
^^^ From the reuters article, 11th paragraph:

“The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion,” Burr said. “Now, I‘m not even going to discuss initial findings because we haven’t any. We’ve got a tremendous amount of documents still to go through.”

He said the panel has conducted more than 100 interviews lasting more than 250 hours in its nine-month-old probe, and “we currently have booked for the balance of this month 25 additional interviews.”

Those who have already come before committee members or investigators include the president’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and social media executives such as officials from Twitter Inc (TWTR.N)
 
Or better yet. The panel announced they hit a wall in its investigation of the "Trump Dossier" and cannot give it any credability.
 
The Professional Fan said:
Trump is doing just fine driving down his approval ratings on his own. One tweet at a time. Media doesn't have to report shit, slanted or not. His whole existence speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Funny how you repeat the media narrative.



One tweet at a time.
 
While this is a right leaning news source, I find the argument interesting. CNN is making it look like there were ads targeted at Michigan and Wisconsin that had to be coordinated with someone sophisticated enough to strategize those buys.

See #7 and #8. You won't see the Truth on CNN.

#9 confirms what I've written before - that the amount of these buys were really small.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...out-those-russia-facebook-ads/article/2636711

The latest excitement in the Trump-Russia investigation is a set of Facebook ads linked to Russia, about 3,000 in all, that some of the president's adversaries hope will prove the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election.

"A number of Russian-liked Facebook ads specifically targeted Michigan and Wisconsin, two states crucial to Donald Trump's victory last November," CNN reported on Wednesday, attributing the information to four sources "with direct knowledge of the situation."

...

Put aside whether Michigan and Wisconsin were in fact "crucial" to Trump's victory. (He would still have won the presidency even if he had lost both.) The theory is that Russians could not have pulled off such "highly sophisticated" targeting by themselves and therefore may have had help from the Trump campaign or its associates.

But is that the whole story? Not according to a government official familiar with the Facebook ads, who offers a strikingly different assessment. What follows is from the official and from public statements by Facebook itself:

1) Of the group of 3,000 ads turned over to Congress by Facebook, a majority of the impressions came after the election, not before. Indeed, in a news release Monday, Facebook said 56 percent of the ads' impressions came after the 2016 vote.

2) Twenty-five percent of the ads were never seen by anybody. (Facebook also revealed that Monday.)

3) Most of the ads, which Facebook estimates were seen by a total of 10 million people in the United States, never mentioned the election or any candidate. "The vast majority of ads run by these accounts didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate," Facebook said in a Sept. 6 news release.

4) A relatively small number of the ads -- again, about 25 percent -- were geographically targeted. (Facebook also revealed that on September 6.)

5) The ads that were geographically targeted were all over the map. "Of those that were targeted, numerous other locales besides Michigan and Wisconsin, including non-battleground states like Texas, were targeted," the government official familiar with the ads said, via email.

6) Very few ads specifically targeted Wisconsin or Michigan. "Of the hundreds of pre-election ads with one or more impressions, less than a dozen ads targeted Michigan and Wisconsin combined," the official said.

7) By and large, the ads targeting Michigan and Wisconsin did not run in the general election. "Nearly all of these Michigan and Wisconsin ads ran in 2015 and also ran in other states," the official said.

8) The Michigan and Wisconsin ads were not widely seen. "The majority of these Wisconsin and Michigan ads had less than 1,000 impressions," the official said.

9) The Michigan and Wisconsin ads (like those everywhere else) were low-budget. "The buy for the majority of these Michigan and Wisconsin ads (paid in rubles) was equivalent to approximately $10," the official said.

10) The ads just weren't very good. The language used in some of the ads "clearly shows the ad writer was not a native English speaker," the official said. In addition, the set of ads turned over by Facebook also contained "clickbait-type ads that had nothing to do with politics." And in general, the official's view is that the ads simply were not terribly sophisticated, contrary to how they have been portrayed.

None of this proves anything about the Facebook part of the Trump Russia affair. It doesn't prove there was no collusion, and it certainly doesn't prove there was. But it does suggest this particular set of ads might not be a very big deal.
 
Right leaning source.

http://freebeacon.com/columns/pop-goes-liberal-media-bubble/

Pop Goes the Liberal Media Bubble

Column: Trump drives the mainstream media to abandon the pretense of objectivity


For years, reporters were content to obscure their ideological dogmas and partisan goals behind the pretense of objectivity and detachment. Though the Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN practiced combat journalism against conservatives and Republicans, they did so while aspiring to professional standards of facticity and fairness, and applying, every now and then, scrutiny to liberals and Democrats worthy of investigation.

Donald Trump changed that, of course. He is so unusual a figure, and his behavior so outlandish, that his rise precipitated a crisis in a profession already decimated by the collapse of print circulation and advertising dollars. The forces that brought Trump to power are alien to the experience of the men and women who populate newsrooms, his supporters unlike their colleagues, friends, and neighbors, his agenda anathema to the catechism of social liberalism, his career and business empire complex and murky and sensational. Little surprise that journalists reacted to his election with a combination of panic, fear, disgust, fascination, exhilaration, and the self-affirming belief that they remain the last line of defense against an emerging American autocracy. Who has time for dispassionate analysis, for methodical research and reporting, when the president's very being is an assault on one's conception of self, when nothing less than the future of the country is at stake? Especially when the depletion of veteran editors, the relative youth and inexperience of political and congressional reporters, and the proliferation of social media, with its hot takes and quips, its groupthink and instant gratification, makes the transition from inquiry to indignation all too easy.

There is still excellent journalism. I would point, for starters, to the work on charter flights that led to the resignation of Tom Price. But the overall tone of coverage of this president and his administration is somewhere between the hysterical and the lunatic. Journalists are trapped in a condition of perpetual outrage, seizing on every rumor of discontent and disagreement, reflexively denouncing Trump's every utterance and action, unable to distinguish between genuinely unusual behavior (the firing of Comey, the tenure of Anthony Scaramucci, the "fine people on both sides" quip after Charlottesville) and the elements of Trump's personality and program that voters have already, so to speak, "priced in." Supposedly authoritative news organizations have in one case taken up bizarre mottoes, like "Democracy Dies In Darkness," and in another acted passive-aggressively by filing Trump stories under "entertainment," only to re-categorize the material as news with the disclaimer (since dropped) that Trump is "a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, and birther." The mode of knee-jerk disgust not only prevents the mainstream media from distinguishing between the genuinely interesting stories and the false, partisan, and hackwork ones. It also has had the effect of further marginalizing print and broadcast journalists from middle America.
 
After months of making the claim that a meeting between Trump Jr and a Russian lawyer is proof of collusion...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/09/politics/russia-trump-tower-meeting-new-documents/index.html

Russians' lawyer says new documents show Trump Tower meeting not about dirt on Clinton

(CNN)An attorney for the Russian billionaire who allegedly pushed for the June 2016 meeting between senior members of Trump's team and a Russian lawyer says he has documents showing the meeting wasn't really about dirt on Hillary Clinton.

An email exchange and talking points provided to CNN are the latest indication of how some of the meeting participants plan to make their case about why the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. did not amount to collusion between Russian officials and the Trump campaign.

The new information stands in contrast with the initial email pitching the meeting to Trump Jr., which promised damaging information on Clinton.

The emails provided to CNN between Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and publicist Rob Goldstone -- who arranged the meeting with Trump Jr. -- show Veselnitskaya asked the morning of the meeting for a Russian-American lobbyist to be added because of his knowledge of the Magnitsky Act, the legislation that put in place US sanctions discussed at the meeting.

And a five-page talking points memo also provided to CNN shows Veselnitskaya's case to repeal the Magnitsky Act to improve US-Russia relations, with a passing reference to a possible financer of Clinton's campaign.

The June 2016 meeting with Trump Jr., President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has attracted intense interest because Trump Jr. was told he would get damaging information on Clinton amid allegations of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.


http://www.cnn.com/profiles/pamela-brown-profile
 
Project Veritas. Take it for what it's worth. If the edited the videos so piece together words to make these NYT people say things they never came close to saying, then this is fake news.

Otherwise, it fits quite well with what is observed.

https://breaking.projectveritas.com/NYTimes1.html

Nick Dudich, Audience Strategy Editor for NYT Video, Says the Times Slants Anti-Trump News to the Front Page, "Oh, we always do."

Claims to Be "Gatekeeper" for New York Times Videos: "My imprint is on every video we do."

Worked for Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Campaigns

Admits He Won't Be Objective, "That's why I'm here [at the NYT]."

NYT Ethical Handbook: "Journalists... must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times."

Says Former FBI Director James Comey Is His Godfather, "I should have recused myself"

Dudich's Family Members Deny Comey Claim

(NEW YORK) - Project Veritas has released a video of the New York Times video gatekeeper Nicholas Dudich, who was caught on hidden-camera boasting of his lack of journalistic ethics. Dudich, who serves as Audience Strategy Editor, displays a lack of integrity throughout the video, manages videos which go "on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram" for the Times.

While talking about being objective at the Times, Dudich replies candidly, "No I'm not, that's why I'm here."

Dudich considers himself an important player at the New York Times, telling the Project Veritas Journalist "my voice is on... my imprint is on every video we do."

Dudich goes on to explain what he might do to target President Trump:

"I'd target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric...

"Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott... So a lot of the Trump brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his business and you start shutting it down, or they're hacking or other things. He cares about his business more than he cares about being President. He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do something incredibly illegal, which he would have to."
When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the anti-Trump stories make it to the front, he replied, "Oh, we always do."

As stated in the NYT Ethical Handbook, the goal of the New York Times is to "cover the news as impartially as possible." It continues in Section 62:

"Journalists have no place on the playing field of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times."

Before working at the Times, Dudich worked on the political campaigns of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

In 2016, he was recruited to work for the Clinton campaign:

"So I have that background, so when Clinton in 2016... they needed a volunteer strategist to do video... well, they needed someone to help them do video, and how to make it heartfelt, for Clinton."

He even had to quit his job in journalism in order to work for the Clinton campaign: "I had to leave my job at Fusion ABC to then take a job at Upworthy where I wasn't deemed a journalist anymore to be able to work for the Clinton campaign."

Dudich explains how his activism motivated him to re-engage in the news business: "Like, after the Clinton campaign, I'm like, no I need to get back into news and keep doing shit because, like, this isn't going to change."

Nicholas Dudich also told the undercover journalist bizarre stories about his personal connection to the FBI and his previous excitement as part of Anti-Fa.

"Yeah, I used to be an Anti-Fa punk once upon a time." he told the undercover journalist. "So, I had fun. They'd start s**t, I'm like, I get to hit you. I'm so excited."

He also claims that James Comey, former Director of the FBI, asked him to join Anti-Fa: "I joined that stuff for them [the FBI]. I was an asset... So it was intelligence gathering, seeing if they were [sic], what their agenda was, whether they're a threat or not."

"How'd you meet Comey?" asked the Project Veritas journalist. "He's my godfather," Dudich explained. "My dad and mom knew him and his wife for a really long time."

"Well the Comey hearing, I should have recused myself, but I'm not ever telling anybody there [at the Times] that I have a tie with that or else I don't know if they can keep me on."

According to the NYT Ethical Handbook, Section 107:

"Staff members may not write about people to whom they are related by blood or marriage or with whom they have close personal relationships, or edit material about such people or make news judgements about them."

His father claims that the family does not know Comey. "Yeah, he's embellishing. I don't know why he would say that... Yeah, I don't know why... he's not James Comey's godson. I don't even know James Comey."

When told that his father said he doesn't know Comey, Dudich changes his story:

Dudich: "He's not my Godfather."

Undercover Journalist: "Then why did you say that?"

Dudich: "Eh, I don't know... It's a good story."

"The fact remains that Nick Dudich lies and he's a gatekeeper at the New York Times." says Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe, "And that fact should be worrisome to the bosses at the paper of record. Who else are they letting spread misinformation in their name?

This is a continuation of Project Veritas's American Pravda series, which began with a three-part expose on CNN in June.
 
Seems like a reasonable place to post about this, though we have a Puerto Rico thread, too.

CNN has been silent about Puerto Rico for days. But now it's 24/7 blasting Trump for his handling of Puerto Rico's crisis. They keep trotting out this woman, Carmen Yulin Cruz, the mayor of San Juan. All the woman does is whine, whine, whine. She doesn't meet with any of the 15,000 US personnel there to provide aid and relief and complains there's no help.

It's obvious why CNN gives the woman so much air time - she bashes Trump and that fits their narrative.

However, the woman is more unpopular in her own city as mayor than Trump is nationwide. About half as popular/approval rating. Close to congress territory. This is before the hurricane, so it's not a reflection of how awful a job she's doing in handling that.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/p...juan-s-mayor-carmen-yul-n-cruz-target-n806216

While Cruz has found popularity in some corners of her city, an El Nuevo Día survey of 1,000 Puerto Ricans conducted in May found that 24 percent of respondents approved of her performance, while 46 percent disapproved. The majority found her to be irresponsible after she pushed for a national strike in May against looming austerity measures, according to the poll.
 
Denny Crane said:
Seems like a reasonable place to post about this, though we have a Puerto Rico thread, too.

CNN has been silent about Puerto Rico for days. But now it's 24/7 blasting Trump for his handling of Puerto Rico's crisis. They keep trotting out this woman, Carmen Yulin Cruz, the mayor of San Juan. All the woman does is whine, whine, whine. She doesn't meet with any of the 15,000 US personnel there to provide aid and relief and complains there's no help.

It's obvious why CNN gives the woman so much air time - she bashes Trump and that fits their narrative.

However, the woman is more unpopular in her own city as mayor than Trump is nationwide. About half as popular/approval rating. Close to congress territory. This is before the hurricane, so it's not a reflection of how awful a job she's doing in handling that.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/p...juan-s-mayor-carmen-yul-n-cruz-target-n806216

While Cruz has found popularity in some corners of her city, an El Nuevo Día survey of 1,000 Puerto Ricans conducted in May found that 24 percent of respondents approved of her performance, while 46 percent disapproved. The majority found her to be irresponsible after she pushed for a national strike in May against looming austerity measures, according to the poll.
Click to expand...
Fake poll. They only interviewed Rednecks. All Trump types.
 
Media busted again.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/12/john-kelly-schools-white-house-press-corps/

John Kelly schools doltish press corps

Gen. John Kelly stepped to the podium in the White House briefing room and delivered a bare-bottom, wire-brush, red-rash public spanking of the political press Thursday — the likes of which we have never seen in the age of modern media. Except, perhaps, every single time President Trump addresses the media or hurls fiery bolts of Twitter lightning in their general direction.

But as mere mortals go — even the U.S. Marine general variety — Mr. Kelly’s was a virtuoso performance.

Blunt where bluntness was needed. Elegant where elegance was warranted. And throughout, incredibly funny and brutally scathing, even in his kindness.


“You need to develop better sources,” he told reporters flatly, without a hint of gaiety. Nervous laughter from the assembled press corps.

Ordinarily, military generals are not called on to give journalism lectures. But you don’t have to be an expert in journalism to know how utterly ridiculous these people have gotten, “reporting” about made-up squabbles between people inside the administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top