Hello group....my name is Opie... (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

From what I watch, the media rarely if ever discusses solutions to climate change. Almost all of the very limited time spent on climate change is devoted to reporting studies or facts on how bad it is, how screwed we are unless we do something soon. Then conservative talk radio hosts use this reporting, which they challenge as a hoax, as  proof that the media is biased against them. 

In recent months, it’s true that the Green New Deal has been mentioned on occasion. But usually only in terms of who is in favor and who is opposed. I have yet to see the news truly break it down and describe the details (such as there are) of that proposal, much less debate them. jon wrote earlier that the mainstream media “fawns” over the GND; I haven’t seen that at all. 

My overall impression is that, given the importance of climate change (it’s by far the single most pressing issue in the world today), the amount of limited attention given to it by the news media is pathetic. 

 

[jon_mx]

Maybe it’s just my media consumption but most of the things I saw or read about The Green New Deal were hit pieces on it.

Like the actual Green New Deal itself?

 

[timschochet]

One other point: of course media is not conservative.  By definition. 

Actually I disagree. 

While the mainstream media is sensationalist, it also tends to root strongly for the United States. This was more true after 9/11 and during the Iraq War, when all 3 networks had an American flag waving in the background at all times. But the jingoism is still present today, even if scaled back a little. 

For instance, you will never hear criticism of the United States military. No matter whether it is MSNBC, CNN, or Fox, our military rank and file are regarded, not as human beings, but as heroes with godlike qualities. They are never spoken of without veneration and admiration. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

jon wrote earlier that the mainstream media “fawns” over the GND; I haven’t seen that at all. 

They certainly described it as landmark and groundbreaking and all sorts of other complimentary adjectives.

 

[squistion]

In recent months, it’s true that the Green New Deal has been mentioned on occasion. But usually only in terms of who is in favor and who is opposed. I have yet to see the news truly break it down and describe the details (such as there are) of that proposal, much less debate them. jon wrote earlier that the mainstream media “fawns” over the GND; I haven’t seen that at all. 

I haven't seen it either and have no idea what the source or sources are for that claim.

 

[timschochet]

They certainly described it as landmark and groundbreaking and all sorts of other complimentary adjectives.

Really? Most of what I’ve heard on CNN has been pretty critical. Can you cite some sources? 

 

[moleculo]

all I know about the GND is how it's socialistic and going to turn us into Venezuela.

 

[Ilov80s]

Like the actual Green New Deal itself?

There are plenty of positive elements to the plan. I do not find it to be utter garbage or a joke.

 

[jon_mx]

There are plenty of positive elements to the plan. I do not find it to be utter garbage or a joke.

90 percent of the new green deal has nothing to do with climate change...income inequality, free education, garanteed jobs for all, free health care, elimination of sexual harassment and discrimination, trillions in road, bridges, high speed trains and other infrastructure ....IF climate change is the problem facing the future of the planet, we need to be working on that, not trying to fix every other ill in society.   It is beyond ridiculous to propose all that.   

 

[timschochet]

IF climate change is the problem facing the future of the planet 

Given your putting the first words in caps, I think it’s fair to ask if you’re skeptical that this is indeed the case? 

 

[timschochet]

90 percent of the new green deal has nothing to do with climate change...income inequality, free education, garanteed jobs for all, free health care, elimination of sexual harassment and discrimination, trillions in road, bridges, high speed trains and other infrastructure ....IF climate change is the problem facing the future of the planet, we need to be working on that, not trying to fix every other ill in society.   It is beyond ridiculous to propose all that.   

As to your first sentence: not necessarily. It could be argued that a world that successfully deals with climate change is going to be very different from our own and at the very least cause a lot of disruption in industry, jobs, everything. The “socialism” aspects of the Green New Deal are an attempt to deal with that disruption. I don’t agree with many of them, but they are all arguably related to climate change issues. 

 

[jon_mx]

Given your putting the first words in caps, I think it’s fair to ask if you’re skeptical that this is indeed the case? 

I am not sure where you get that.  In context, I am skeptical that they care about climate change as much as they care about socialism. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

trillions in road, bridges, high speed trains and other infrastructure .

Technically Trump just tried to roll this out, to the tune of $2.5 trillion, not Dems.

 

[jon_mx]

Technically Trump just tried to roll this out, to the tune of $2.5 trillion, not Dems.

Irrelevant.  I was pointing out things that are in the New Green Deal that are not related to reducing greenhouse gases.

 

[Zow]

Which chart?  The best source for grading media bias is here and they grade CBS as left-center. 

I went to their home page and they warn against “Fake News.”  C’mon, man. 

 

[Ilov80s]

90 percent of the new green deal has nothing to do with climate change...income inequality, free education, garanteed jobs for all, free health care, elimination of sexual harassment and discrimination, trillions in road, bridges, high speed trains and other infrastructure ....IF climate change is the problem facing the future of the planet, we need to be working on that, not trying to fix every other ill in society.   It is beyond ridiculous to propose all that.   

Well I think that has to do with it’s connection to the old new deal 

 

[jon_mx]

I went to their home page and they warn against “Fake News.”  C’mon, man. 

They rate about every possible site for news.   They lable numerous Christian sites as conspiracy sites.   They are not pulling a Trump and calling CNN fake news, they mean really fake news.   Not really a red flag.   Their ratings look pretty solid.  

 

[The Commish]

I went to their home page and they warn against “Fake News.”  C’mon, man. 

I've spent way too much time looking for groups...more than a normal person should....for my money adfontesmedia is the best bang for the buck, but it doesn't give a flattering picture of the extremes so there's generally pushback.....attack the messenger etc.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Really? Most of what I’ve heard on CNN has been pretty critical. Can you cite some sources? 

I dont really watch a lot of news network stuff. But if I search for "green new deal cnn" etc it appears you are right. 

I remembered making a comment in the AOC thread about some of the things I read. Huff post referred to it as landmark. So did business insider. New york times called it breathtaking.

Others have called it ambitious (even CNN). groundbreaking, etc. 

But if I look at the current articles I have to admit you are correct here and the tide has definitely turned it appears. 

 

[Ack88]

He did not. It’s not even close. This shows a basic lack of understanding of the history of the office and the coverage from the media. 

Hardly.

If you compare the coverage of Trump vs. Obama- the media was exponentially more critical of Trump. This is even true when O was a candidate.

 

[sho nuff]

Hardly.

If you compare the coverage of Trump vs. Obama- the media was exponentially more critical of Trump. This is even true when O was a candidate.

Because Trump has done exponentially more things worthy of criticism than Obama.  

 

[Ack88]

Because Trump has done exponentially more things worthy of criticism than Obama.  

Very much disagree. 

 

[timschochet]

Very much disagree. 

In order to prove your case, you have to provide specific examples of news reporting that is not only critical of President Trump but which is also factually inaccurate. Can you offer such evidence? 

 

[Zow]

Very much disagree. 

Would you agree that Trump has does more newsworthy things? 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Irrelevant.  I was pointing out things that are in the New Green Deal that are not related to reducing greenhouse gases.

I don’t think infrastructure is irrelevant to reducing greenhouse emissions, considering the specific types of infrastructure that can be considered, but it’s not a serious objection of the Trump administration as they are for it in or out of any NGD plan.

 

[urbanhack]

Hardly.

If you compare the coverage of Trump vs. Obama- the media was exponentially more critical of Trump. This is even true when O was a candidate.

Geee.  I wonder why?  Should we compare their Twitter feeds as well?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

garanteed jobs for all,

And again on this Trump is pushing out billions (20 bill?) to guarantee jobs and income for the farm sector personnel harmed by Trump’s tariffs. 

I do see your point but again this is a second thing that Trump and Cortez agree on in principle.

 

[Ilov80s]

Hardly.

If you compare the coverage of Trump vs. Obama- the media was exponentially more critical of Trump. This is even true when O was a candidate.

Those aren’t the only 2 Presidents in the history of our country.

 

[Ilov80s]

Very much disagree. 

Just look at what Trump has tweeted. There is no doubt Trump’s behavior is very much outside of the norm of modern Presidents. 

 

[sho nuff]

And again on this Trump is pushing out billions (20 bill?) to guarantee jobs and income for the farm sector personnel harmed by Trump’s tariffs. 

I do see your point but again this is a second thing that Trump and Cortez agree on in principle.

That one is super fun.  Basically we are paying twice for Trumps trade war.  As consumers as the tariffs get passed on to us...and as taxpayers as we bail the farmers out. 

 

[Ack88]

In order to prove your case, you have to provide specific examples of news reporting that is not only critical of President Trump but which is also factually inaccurate. Can you offer such evidence? 

I’ve put links in other threads. If you want to, I’d encourage you to look.  Also, I made no claim about accuracy. My original post is that the coverage of Trump was more negative, so no- I don't need to say any story was factually inaccurate. 

Here's a quick one:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negativ

 

[timschochet]

I’ve put links in other threads. If you want to, I’d encourage you to look. 

The ones I’ve seen are not examples of false or inaccurate reporting. 

 

[Ack88]

Just look at what Trump has tweeted. There is no doubt Trump’s behavior is very much outside of the norm of modern Presidents. 

I agree with you. It is.

That was not my point. My point was his media coverage has been persistently negative, even when he first announced.

 

[Ack88]

The ones I’ve seen are not examples of false or inaccurate reporting. 

You are misrepresenting my claim, which, if you look, was that he has more negative press coverage.

 

[timschochet]

You are misrepresenting my claim, which, if you look, was that he has more negative press coverage.

You stated that there is a bias. If the reporting is accurate, how can there be a bias? 

 

[Ack88]

Look at the link I posted above. 

 

[timschochet]

Look at the link I posted above. 

I’m very familiar with Byron York. He’s dishonest and this article is a perfect example of it. He’s dishonest because he gives you the impression that NBC has a bias against Trump, yet he doesn’t offer examples of false or inaccurate reporting. And this leads to the same question I just asked you: how can there be a bias if the reporting is accurate? It doesn’t matter how negative it is; if it’s accurate then that just means that Trump did a lot of negative things. The only way you can prove a bias is if the reporting is false. 

 

[Ilov80s]

I agree with you. It is.

That was not my point. My point was his media coverage has been persistently negative, even when he first announced.

Sure but it’s not like he was an unknown. He had a long and questionable history that immediately raised lots of red flags on his qualifications for the job. Any other person in any other year who had Trump’s track record would never have gotten anywhere in the GOP primary. The media treated him as a joke because he’s been a running national punchline for 25 years. The fact he won the primary and then the election is about the saddest reflection on what Americans have become as I can think of. 

 

[Ack88]

I’m very familiar with Byron York. He’s dishonest and this article is a perfect example of it. He’s dishonest because he gives you the impression that NBC has a bias against Trump, yet he doesn’t offer examples of false or inaccurate reporting. And this leads to the same question I just asked you: how can there be a bias if the reporting is accurate? It doesn’t matter how negative it is; if it’s accurate then that just means that Trump did a lot of negative things. The only way you can prove a bias is if the reporting is false. 

The example could not be more clear. If you don’t see that the media coverage of Trump is disproportionately negative, there’s nothing I can say that will convince you.

Byron York is an excellent writer.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I’ve put links in other threads. If you want to, I’d encourage you to look.  Also, I made no claim about accuracy. My original post is that the coverage of Trump was more negative, so no- I don't need to say any story was factually inaccurate. 

Here's a quick one:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negativ

I don’t think this is a bad point to raise but you should read the actual report.

>>A broadening of the scope of political coverage would require journalists to spend less time peering at the White House. Our analysis of news coverage of Trump’s first 100 days found that, except for his court-challenged immigration orders, the press paid only minimal attention to Trump’s executive orders. He issued a large number of them, covering everything from financial regulation to climate change. Collectively, these orders, immigration aside, accounted for less than 1 percent of Trump’s coverage, and rarely did a news report track an executive order into the agencies to see how it was being handled.

Since Trump’s inauguration, the press has been paying more attention to Main Street. But judging from the extent to which Trump’s voice has dominated coverage of his presidency, the balance is still off. More voices need to be aired.

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 have to be a tale of woe. America at the moment is a divided society in some respects, but it’s not a broken society and the divisions in Washington are deeper than those beyond the Beltway.

The lesson of the 2016 election has been taken to heart by many journalists. Since Trump’s inauguration, the press has been paying more attention to Main Street. But judging from the extent to which Trump’s voice has dominated coverage of his presidency, the balance is still off. More voices need to be aired. Trump might be good for ratings but he’s not the only voice worth hearing. Never have journalists fixated on a single newsmaker for as long as they have on Trump. If he sees journalists as his main opponents, one reason is that between Trump and themselves there’s not much air time for everyone else. Journalists need to resist even the smallest temptation to see themselves as opponents of government. It’s the competition between the party in power and the opposing party, and not between government and the press, that’s at the core of the democratic process.[35] When spokespersons for the opposing party get a mere 6 percent of the airtime, something’s amiss.<<

 

[timschochet]

The example could not be more clear. If you don’t see that the media coverage of Trump is disproportionately negative, there’s nothing I can say that will convince you.

Byron York is an excellent writer.

Let’s try again. 

You say that it is disproportionately negative. Is it accurate? If your answer is no, please provide specific examples (which up to this point neither you nor anyone else has been able to do.) If your answer is yes, please explain how accurate reporting can possibly be “disproportionate.” 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Guys he is almost convinced. Just a few more posts. 

 

[timschochet]

Guys he is almost convinced. Just a few more posts. 

Do you find my questions reasonable? 

 

[Ilov80s]

The example could not be more clear. If you don’t see that the media coverage of Trump is disproportionately negative, there’s nothing I can say that will convince you.

Byron York is an excellent writer.

I don’t even know how someone can argue against that? The only discussion would be why or is it well deserved.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Do you find my questions reasonable? 

You've asked the same question what 50 times?  You think you'll get the answer you want on the 51st?

 

[Ack88]

Let’s try again. 

You say that it is disproportionately negative. Is it accurate? If your answer is no, please provide specific examples (which up to this point neither you nor anyone else has been able to do.) If your answer is yes, please explain how accurate reporting can possibly be “disproportionate.” 

The article speaks for itself. If you don’t accept it, that’s your choice.

I think it is clear, you do not. I think Byron York is credible, you don’t. 

I’m not going to change your mind, nor are you, mine.  

 

[timschochet]

You've asked the same question what 50 times?  You think you'll get the answer you want on the 51st?

I haven’t gotten ANY answer yet. 

 

[timschochet]

The article speaks for itself. If you don’t accept it, that’s your choice.

I think it is clear, you do not. I think Byron York is credible, you don’t. 

I’m not going to change your mind, nor are you, mine.  

Yes the article speaks for itself. It offers no evidence of inaccurate reporting. Apparently that doesn’t matter to you. I don’t understand how accurate reporting can be “disproportionate” and you seem unable to explain it. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I haven’t gotten ANY answer yet. 

Maybe next time

 

[timschochet]

This is like when one my daughters says, “how come you’re always yelling at me? You never yell at (my sister)!”, and I say “that’s because your sister does her chores and keeps her room clean and you don’t.”  If Ack88 were there he’d say “I think you’re being disproportionately negative toward one of your daughters!”