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

[parasaurolophus]

Do you find my questions reasonable? 

I wasnt trying to criticize you. I was just making a joke. I dont think you're being unreasonable at all, and you know if i did think that i would tell you. 

 

[Ack88]

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. 

Again, as you seem to enjoy purposefully misrepresenting my initial assertion, I made no claim regarding accuracy. I find it interesting you keep going back there. 

I claimed that Trump’s coverage was disproportionately negative. The article cited a Harvard study that shows this.

You choose not to accept the article. That’s your choice. 

 

[dkp993]

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

Stealthycat is right there too in the gun thread.  PF putting in work, changing hearts and minds.  

 

[dkp993]

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.  

Can we put this as the subtitle for the PF header.  Pretty much perfectly describes every thread here.  

The Political Forum

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

 

[timschochet]

Again, as you seem to enjoy purposefully misrepresenting my initial assertion, I made no claim regarding accuracy. I find it interesting you keep going back there. 

I claimed that Trump’s coverage was disproportionately negative. The article cited a Harvard study that shows this.

You choose not to accept the article. That’s your choice. 

Do you understand that when you use the word “disproportionate”, that means it’s unfair? 

For example: if Donald Trump did negative things 93% of the time, and the news reporting is negative 93% of the time, that would be a proportionate percentage, not a disproportionate percentage. Does this make sense? 

 

[moleculo]

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. 

Not to speak for @Ack88, bit if the media underreports positive things, it can be accurate and disproportionally negative.

 

[timschochet]

Not to speak for @Ack88, bit if the media underreports positive things, it can be accurate and disproportionally negative.

That’s fair, but then you’ve still got to prove it. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

That’s fair, but then you’ve still got to prove it. 

No he doesn’t.  It’s a message board relax. 

 

[Ack88]

Not to speak for @Ack88, bit if the media underreports positive things, it can be accurate and disproportionally negative.

Thank you. 

Trump has given PLENTY of negative grist for the reporting mill. I'm the last person who thinks he is above reproach- like any elected leader, he should be called out.

The issue is exactly the above, many media sources simply omit positive developments. This act of omission creates the disproportion.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You choose not to accept the article. That’s your choice. 

You’re citing a study, not an article which discusses the article. Maybe look at the study and accept its conclusions if you’re going to rely on it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It must be the height of irony to complain about biased editoriaization in journalism and then point to an article which cherry picks from a study with much larger conclusions. You want fair and decent journalism? Start using your own mind to analyze each piece on its own merits.

 

[timschochet]

Thank you. 

Trump has given PLENTY of negative grist for the reporting mill. I'm the last person who thinks he is above reproach- like any elected leader, he should be called out.

The issue is exactly the above, many media sources simply omit positive developments. This act of omission creates the disproportion.

Can you cite examples of positive developments which many media sources have chosen to omit? 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.<<

@Ack88this is the study you’re pointing to, yes?

 

[Ack88]

Can you cite examples of positive developments which many media sources have chosen to omit? 

Can you show me where sources like CNN or MSNBC provide credit to Trump for lowering taxes for the majority of Americans, extremely low unemployment rates for all, and historically low unemployment rates for African-American and Hispanic-Americans?

 

[sho nuff]

Can you show me where sources like CNN or MSNBC provide credit to Trump for lowering taxes for the majority of Americans, extremely low unemployment rates for all, and historically low unemployment rates for African-American and Hispanic-Americans?

Why would a source credit him for the unemployment numbers?

 

[Ack88]

Why would a source credit him for the unemployment numbers?

Ummm. just maybe because they are the lowest for multiple demographic groups in 49 years?

 

[sho nuff]

Ummm. just maybe because they are the lowest for multiple demographic groups in 49 years?

By following a long term trend of going down?  Is there something specific he did to lower them that wasn’t reported?

Are you going to keep ignoring Saints’ posts to you?

 

[Ack88]

By following a long term trend of going down?  Is there something specific he did to lower them that wasn’t reported?

Are you going to keep ignoring Saints’ posts to you?

Simple question: Are unemployment rates lower now than they were under Obama?

 

[Hawkeye21]

Simple question: Are unemployment rates lower now than they were under Obama?

What specifically did Trump do to make that happen?

 

[knowledge dropper]

This thread really got hijacked over the weekend.  I believe the OP and intent was to discuss the election reactions like this:

Back on track

 

[sho nuff]

Simple question: Are unemployment rates lower now than they were under Obama?

I’ve already answered that they are lower based on the context of what I’ve said.  Care to address what I said? Or saints?

 

[sho nuff]

This thread really got hijacked over the weekend.  I believe the OP and intent was to discuss the election reactions like this:

Back on track

Well if he is just discussing and celebrating those reactions then he would be considered to be trolling by the mods...do you wish to do that as well?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

All Trump, All the Time

Until the early 1960s, news coverage of national politics divided rather evenly between Congress and the president.[11] That situation began to shift in 1963, the year that the broadcast television networks expanded their evening newscasts to 30 minutes and hired the correspondents and camera crews needed to produce picture-driven news. With a national audience, the networks focused their coverage on the president who, in any case, was easier than Congress to capture on camera. Newspapers followed suit and, ever since, the president has received more coverage in the national press than all 535 members of Congress combined.[12] The White House’s dominance has been such that, on national television, the president typically accounts for roughly one-eighth of all news coverage.[13]

Even by that standard, Trump’s first 100 days were a landmark.[14] On national television, Trump was the topic of 41 percent of all news stories—three times the usual amount.[15] It was also the case that Trump did most of the talking (see Figure 1). He was the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of his coverage. Members of the administration, including his press secretary, accounted for 11 percent of the sound bites. Other Republicans, including Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, accounted for 4 percent. Altogether, Republicans, inside and outside the administration, accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency.

For their part, Democrats did not have a large voice in Trump’s coverage, accounting for only 6 percent of the sound bites. Participants in anti-Trump protests and demonstrations accounted for an additional 3 percent.

The media have been fascinated by Trump since the first days of his presidential candidacy. Our studies of 2016 presidential election coverage found that Trump received more news coverage than rival candidates during virtually every week of the campaign.[16] The reason is clear enough. Trump is a journalist’s dream. Reporters are tuned to what’s new and different, better yet if it’s laced with controversy. Trump delivers that type of material by the shovel full. Trump is also good for business.[17]News ratings were slumping until Trump entered the arena.  Said one network executive, “[Trump] may not be good for America, but [he’s] damn good for [us].

@Ack88 - this is the study you're citing, right?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This thread really got hijacked over the weekend.  I believe the OP and intent was to discuss the election reactions like this:

Back on track

Same guy - Grillarino - running that link also posted this, an homage to Oswald Mosley.

@knowledge dropper - maybe consider your sources.

 

[knowledge dropper]

Well if he is just discussing and celebrating those reactions then he would be considered to be trolling by the mods...do you wish to do that as well?

That’s not trolling.  I believe this thread was directed at Trump supporters and how 11/8/16 impacted them.  The fact the thread has been overrun by Trump haters made it devolve like most other PSF threads.  

 

[sho nuff]

That’s not trolling.  I believe this thread was directed at Trump supporters and how 11/8/16 impacted them.  The fact the thread has been overrun by Trump haters made it devolve like most other PSF threads.  

You think it’s not trolling to post videos to mock a group of people hoping to get a reaction from others?

The thread was a troll job from the first post.

 

[Ack88]

Why would a source credit him for the unemployment numbers?

So, any CNN or MSNBC examples come to mind?

 

[sho nuff]

So, any CNN or MSNBC examples come to mind?

Probably...on my phone I’m not going to search old articles.

Any actual reason he should be credited for it?  Are you ever going to answer any question?

 

[knowledge dropper]

You think it’s not trolling to post videos to mock a group of people hoping to get a reaction from others?

The thread was a troll job from the first post.

Then why are you adding to the thread?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Then why are you adding to the thread?

You think it's adding to the thread or the forum by posting a link from a self-avowed fascist?

 

[sho nuff]

Then why are you adding to the thread?

I’m discussing the ongoing conversation in the thread.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The article cited a Harvard study that shows this.

Presidents are more than the main focus of U.S. reporters. Presidents are also their main target. Although journalists are accused of having a liberal bias, their real bias is a preference for the negative.[22] News reporting turned sour during the Vietnam and Watergate era and has stayed that way.[23] Journalists’ incentives, everything from getting their stories on the air to acquiring a reputation as a hard-hitting reporter, encourage journalists to focus on what’s wrong with politicians rather than what’s right.[24] Once upon a time, the “honeymoon” period for a newly inaugurated president included favorable press coverage.[25] That era is now decades in the past. Today’s presidents can expect rough treatment at the hands of the press, and Donald Trump is no exception (see Figure 4). 

- This is the study you're pointing to, right?

 

[timschochet]

Can you show me where sources like CNN or MSNBC provide credit to Trump for lowering taxes for the majority of Americans, extremely low unemployment rates for all, and historically low unemployment rates for African-American and Hispanic-Americans?

The tax bill was heavily covered by the news media. The employment numbers, which come out monthly, are the leading headline on the Friday morning when they come out and the number one story. The unemployment rates for minorities are also discussed at the same time. 

Now as far as giving Trump credit: I’m not sure it’s the role of the news reporters to evaluate the news to that extent. Nonetheless, the opinion shows certainly do discuss it and often there is a debate about how much credit to give Trump. The opinion shows on CNN and MSNBC are slanted to the left, so the arguments made on those shows are more often anti-Trump (though there are exceptions) however, opinion shows are not the same. 

None of this answers my question. You wrote that the media omits reporting certain news. I asked for concrete examples. 

 

[Ack88]

The tax bill was heavily covered by the news media. The employment numbers, which come out monthly, are the leading headline on the Friday morning when they come out and the number one story. The unemployment rates for minorities are also discussed at the same time. 

Now as far as giving Trump credit: I’m not sure it’s the role of the news reporters to evaluate the news to that extent. Nonetheless, the opinion shows certainly do discuss it and often there is a debate about how much credit to give Trump. The opinion shows on CNN and MSNBC are slanted to the left, so the arguments made on those shows are more often anti-Trump (though there are exceptions) however, opinion shows are not the same. 

None of this answers my question. You wrote that the media omits reporting certain news. I asked for concrete examples. 

It's funny- you ask me for a source, I provide one.

I ask you for a source, none is provided.

Interesting.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's funny- you ask me for a source, I provide one.

You are totally ignoring and misrepresenting your own source.

 

[sho nuff]

It's funny- you ask me for a source, I provide one.

I ask you for a source, none is provided.

Interesting.

You have been asked many things and keep ignoring direct questions choosing only to ask more questions.

 

[Ack88]

Probably...on my phone I’m not going to search old articles.

Any actual reason he should be credited for it?  Are you ever going to answer any question?

I've answered many if you follow this thread. You, on the other hand, have not.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Can you show me where sources like CNN or MSNBC provide credit to Trump for lowering taxes for the majority of Americans, extremely low unemployment rates for all, and historically low unemployment rates for African-American and Hispanic-Americans?

DJT deserves absolutely no credit for the things you listed:

Lowering taxes for the majority of americans? This is not a fact. He doesn't deserve credit for something that's false or untrue.

Low unemployment rates across the racial spectrum? The only credit he deserves here is that he didn't destroy the trajectory it had been on for over 6 years.

One you didn't mention - the economy? Again, he only deserves credit for not screwing it up yet. He's done absolutely nothing to ensure it sustains its boom.

If he eventually does do something that actually deserves credit I trust it will be reported as such by the media.

 

[Ack88]

You have been asked many things and keep ignoring direct questions choosing only to ask more questions.

If you follow the conversation between Tim and I- you see this is not true.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

You have been asked many things and keep ignoring direct questions choosing only to ask more questions.

This is an ironic post

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Negative stories also consist of stories where an event, trend, or development reflects unfavorably on the actor. Examples are the stories that appeared under the headlines “President Trump’s approval rating hits a new low”[9] and “GOP withdraws embattled health care bill, handing major setback to Trump, Ryan.”

@Ack88if you were a journalist, how would you handle these stories?

 

[timschochet]

It's funny- you ask me for a source, I provide one.

I ask you for a source, none is provided.

Interesting.

Your source didn’t answer any of the specific questions I asked. 

Here is an NBC report (CNBC but cited by MSNBC) about last months strong jobs report and how good the economy is doing): 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/05/03/nonfarm-payrolls-april-2019.html

 

[sho nuff]

If you follow the conversation between Tim and I- you see this is not true.

I’ve followed the thread and noticed you’ve not answered what I’ve asked and have completely ignored Saints posts to you and  where I’ve asked why you are doing that.

So could you please state why Trump should be given credit for the unemployment numbers and try addressing what Saints has said?

 

[Ack88]

DJT deserves absolutely no credit for the things you listed:

Lowering taxes for the majority of americans? This is not a fact. He doesn't deserve credit for something that's false or untrue.

Low unemployment rates across the racial spectrum? The only credit he deserves here is that he didn't destroy the trajectory it had been on for over 6 years.

One you didn't mention - the economy? Again, he only deserves credit for not screwing it up yet. He's done absolutely nothing to ensure it sustains its boom.

If he eventually does do something that actually deserves credit I trust it will be reported as such by the media.

I actually feel bad for the perpetually aggrieved Trump haters in this thread. No amount of positive economic news can cut through your disdain. The fact remains, despite all of your protestations, that the economy, as measured by economic growth and low unemployment, is in a great place. Those are facts. Sorry is these facts get in the way of your opinions.

 

[knowledge dropper]

You think it's adding to the thread or the forum by posting a link from a self-avowed fascist?

The video I posted was one of many clean compilations/montages of election night reactions.  I don’t have the time to obsess and research the source of the actual video editing.  Was anything in the video false?

 

[Pickle Rody]

I actually feel bad for the perpetually aggrieved Trump haters in this thread. No amount of positive economic news can cut through your disdain. The fact remains, despite all of your protestations, that the economy, as measured by economic growth and low unemployment, is in a great place. Those are facts. Sorry is these facts get in the way of your opinions.

You seem challenged. I said nothing about how great unemployment and the economy are doing. Simply that just because they're doing so well doesn't preclude attaching credit to DJT. He's done nothing to earn it. The only credit he deserves is for not screwing things up. Period. I acknowledge they're doing great right now but not because DJT did anything to ensure it would happen.

 

[knowledge dropper]

I’ve followed the thread and noticed you’ve not answered what I’ve asked and have completely ignored Saints posts to you and  where I’ve asked why you are doing that.

So could you please state why Trump should be given credit for the unemployment numbers and try addressing what Saints has said?

Why do this?  SID is a big boy.  

 

[Opie]

We still watching (or listening to) Jimmy Dore?

 

[Ack88]

I’ve followed the thread and noticed you’ve not answered what I’ve asked and have completely ignored Saints posts to you and  where I’ve asked why you are doing that.

So could you please state why Trump should be given credit for the unemployment numbers and try addressing what Saints has said?

I'll make it as simple as I can:

Unemployment is at historic lows. (Sub 4%)

For African-American and Hispanic Americans it has never been lower.

If people are working, they are earning. 

You choose not give Trump any credit. That's your choice.

I choose to give him some credit. No amount of links that I post will change you mind, which is fine.

 

[Ack88]

You seem challenged. I said nothing about how great unemployment and the economy are doing. Simply that just because they're doing so well doesn't preclude attaching credit to DJT. He's done nothing to earn it. The only credit he deserves is for not screwing things up. Period. I acknowledge they're doing great right now but not because DJT did anything to ensure it would happen.

Then you and I will agree to disagree.