ADVERTISEMENT

Let's Play "Media"!

Which came first, though, Trump's declaration of war on the media, or the media slant to the left?

Probably every president since George Washington thought the media was unfair to them. But nobody until Trump was so openly hostile (though Nixon was close, at times). That has had a price.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
Which came first, though, Trump's declaration of war on the media, or the media slant to the left?

Probably every president since George Washington thought the media was unfair to them. But nobody until Trump was so openly hostile (though Nixon was close, at times). That has had a price.
Doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive. The media can have a left bent and trump can be deserving of what he got. They can also coddle Biden. All can be true
 
I think any objective person recognizes that the media is heavily slanted to the left. I read a NYT’s reporter note that publications could have have as many as 20 Dems to a single republican on staff. Look at academia and journalism programs and the type of students that tend to gravitate towards same.
MM66, interested in your definition of the media along with your thoughts about how many who participate in local and national newspapers, radio news and talk shows, magazines, and the ever growing social media have journalism degrees.
 
MM66, interested in your definition of the media along with your thoughts about how many who participate in local and national newspapers, radio news and talk shows, magazines, and the ever growing social media have journalism degrees.
i believe it's pervasive and in many ways not surprising. i believe there's a dichotomy in the republican party where you have uber wealthy and successful people as republicans (lion's share of fortune 500 ceos) and then a big dip to the less educated working class. i think the dems have the largest amount of middle class educated voters and that political bias is congruent with the education they received at university that tends to be very liberal and shapes their voting patterns.



 
Craze, you complain about the news media being nothing but propaganda and state the following...

The fact of the matter is that all of our news is propaganda designed to push one party or another. I think that is, at best, split about 75% pulling for the left and about 25% for the right

Craze, some folks who are acquainted with the art of using propaganda might look at your statement above and accuse you of making a judgment with insufficient evidence.
Fair point, I pulled the numbers out of my ass. That being said, removing the numbers, can we agree that the majority of the news media both print and TV comes from a left slant? CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC all tend to mostly approach stories from a left leaning perspective with mostly left leaning journalists and talking heads. Fox is usually more to the right. There are new networks like OAN and Newsmax? that come more from the right, but those 2 don't have anything like the reach of the others I listed.

You could do the same with Newspapers. The WSJ is usually from the conservative side. I could probably tick off about a dozen that are from the left. Almost every newspaper in every major city in the U.S. has a left leaning editorial board.

So yeah, using the percentages was a haphazard guess and honestly I think it was a more favorable guess than actually exists. Now this is where you would disagree with me and say that so and so media watchdog thinks that both sides are covered the same and my reply to that is that often what is not covered is where the bias lies and also the amount of coverage. Take the Hunter Biden scenario above. There would be 24-7 coverage if that was a Trump kid dropping the N word like he is Kendrick Lamar, not a 30 second mention at the end of a show or buried inside the paper. That is above the fold news if it is a Republican's kid and the Republican President would be asked in press conferences to explain that behavior and denounce their child. Biden gets to skate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
i think the dems have the largest amount of middle class educated voters and that political bias is congruent with the education they received at university that tends to be very liberal and shapes their voting patterns.
Perhaps it's just my personal experience, but I suspect most people pick up their voting / party patterns long before they get to college. Without looking at any hard data, if I had to pull a number from my tooshie, I would guess that about 66% of all people follow the party that their parents belong to. The way you are raised by your parents, teachers, and moral role models (whether that's your religious leader or favorite WWE wrestler) I think has a much bigger hand in how you view the world and sets those values in your head long before you get to college and are inundated with the "save the whales" groups.

I personally don't know anyone who was a hard republican at age 17, went to college, and came out as a hippie tree hugger. That is just anecdotal, I know, but I suspect that is generally the case.

Then again, maybe if there's a girl involved, all bets are off. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Meh. I'd call it more of a vicious circle. Trump says / does something stupid / inflammatory, media reports it / complains about it, clicks generated, Trump sees the bad coverage and bitches about how unfair it is while at the same time saying something stupid / inflammatory. Rinse. Repeat.

I mean, he was the leader of the free world. His public statements are things the news is going to cover. You can complain that the media turned into a Trump-24-hour news cycle, but at the end of the day, Trump is the one who always initiated the cycle by saying something stupid.

Since Trump has been removed from his pulpit of both Twitter and presidential podium, his opportunities to say stupid things publicly has dropped significantly and the media's chance to bitch about it has decreased accordingly.
Biden has more than made up for Trump's lack of stupid things said.
 
This. They have outright lied about and censored quite a few things the past few years so why would you turn to "mainstream media" to get the truth. And it is not like scandal is not there to be had, it is just that the majority of the media is a cheerleader for the party currently in charge, so things that would have been huge news with nonstop coverage for the last administration are barely mentioned or not mentioned at all.

For example, Hunter Biden. Could you imagine if one of Trump's kids had a laptop that was left at a computer store and carried a bunch of his conversations and photos and business dealings and it was found that:

1. He liked to use the "n word" like he is a rapper.
2. He loved his prostitutes and getting hooked up with women, just not the "yellow" kind.
3. He got caught up in a credit card issue with Russian hookers (in the US) who he double paid and ended up having to threaten to get money back.
4. Had inappropriate photos and conversations pointing to an interest in underage girls.
5. Had self created porn videos of him with said hookers mentioned above and smoking crack with them.
6. Had to get the secret service and FBI involved to recover a gun that was lost when his brother's ex-wife (whom he was banging) took it away from him and threw it in a supermarket dumpster because she was afraid of him and subsequently lost the gun. (This is old news, but how many of you knew about it? And do you think that would be the case with one of Trump's kids? Hell, do you think that would be the case with any Republican running for President?l
7. Hunter lied on his gun application.

You want more?

1. Why is Jill Biden involved in, or planned to be involved in so many diplomatic meetings lately?
2. In these aforementioned meetings, why are Biden and more specifically Harris (since we assume that Biden is uh, unavailable) not involved?

There is always something to create scandal about or complain about day after day. The fact of the matter is that all of our news is propaganda designed to push one party or another. I think that is, at best, split about 75% pulling for the left and about 25% for the right. Given the left dominated the media market at all levels and their people are running the government, they have a vested interest in turning down the scandal and fear porn knob. And so their viewers go looking for other ways to entertain themselves.
You have the wrong ID. You're not crazy.
 
This. They have outright lied about and censored quite a few things the past few years so why would you turn to "mainstream media" to get the truth. And it is not like scandal is not there to be had, it is just that the majority of the media is a cheerleader for the party currently in charge, so things that would have been huge news with nonstop coverage for the last administration are barely mentioned or not mentioned at all.

For example, Hunter Biden. Could you imagine if one of Trump's kids had a laptop that was left at a computer store and carried a bunch of his conversations and photos and business dealings and it was found that:

1. He liked to use the "n word" like he is a rapper.
2. He loved his prostitutes and getting hooked up with women, just not the "yellow" kind.
3. He got caught up in a credit card issue with Russian hookers (in the US) who he double paid and ended up having to threaten to get money back.
4. Had inappropriate photos and conversations pointing to an interest in underage girls.
5. Had self created porn videos of him with said hookers mentioned above and smoking crack with them.
6. Had to get the secret service and FBI involved to recover a gun that was lost when his brother's ex-wife (whom he was banging) took it away from him and threw it in a supermarket dumpster because she was afraid of him and subsequently lost the gun. (This is old news, but how many of you knew about it? And do you think that would be the case with one of Trump's kids? Hell, do you think that would be the case with any Republican running for President?l
7. Hunter lied on his gun application.

You want more?

1. Why is Jill Biden involved in, or planned to be involved in so many diplomatic meetings lately?
2. In these aforementioned meetings, why are Biden and more specifically Harris (since we assume that Biden is uh, unavailable) not involved?

There is always something to create scandal about or complain about day after day. The fact of the matter is that all of our news is propaganda designed to push one party or another. I think that is, at best, split about 75% pulling for the left and about 25% for the right. Given the left dominated the media market at all levels and their people are running the government, they have a vested interest in turning down the scandal and fear porn knob. And so their viewers go looking for other ways to entertain themselves.


the media don't censor stories and back Biden because they are liberal, they do it because they are economic ultra conservatives.

how beyond naive would one have to be to think the C suites at Comcast, AT&T, Disney, Google, Facebook, News Corp are filled with liberals????

don't let the race, race, race, immigration, immigration, immigration, "look over there" slight of hand misdirection, fool you as to who the multinational corporate conglomerate media actually are.

there's a reason the biggest stories of the century barely get a mention, and bathroom choice for transsexuals and CRT play all day everyday.
 
Last edited:
I personally don't know anyone who was a hard republican at age 17, went to college, and came out as a hippie tree hugger. That is just anecdotal, I know, but I suspect that is generally the case.

Then again, maybe if there's a girl involved, all bets are off.
I was pretty much a center-right Republican until I married a Kommie Kanuckistani and GWB invaded Iraq for fun.
 
I voted Dem in a presidential election for the very first time at age 54. I voted for both parties further down the ticket, though.
 
Doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive. The media can have a left bent and trump can be deserving of what he got. They can also coddle Biden. All can be true


How many people are aware that Tlaib had close associates and campaign staff that would post pictures comparing Jews to rats and suggesting that Hitler didn't go far enough when it came to Jews?

Most do not because the press chose not to cover it.
The media ignored or even defended the open bigotry and associations from Democrats like Omar and Tlaib.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and 76-1


How many people are aware that Tlaib had close associates and campaign staff that would post pictures comparing Jews to rats and suggesting that Hitler didn't go far enough when it came to Jews?

Most do not because the press chose not to cover it.
The media ignored or even defended the open bigotry and associations from Democrats like Omar and Tlaib.
No media reporting on this, but many hours of coverage on Marjorie Taylor Greene.

And crickets from the Leftists on this board.
 
No media reporting on this, but many hours of coverage on Marjorie Taylor Greene.

And crickets from the Leftists on this board.
Both sides have their bigots. Gosar, MTG, Omar, Tlaib
There is a simple solution for both leaders in the House to do the right thing without giving any partisan advantage.

Remove Omar and Gosar from their committee assignments at the same time.
 
I recall it being huge news when Democrats demanded, at least twice now, that Omar retract her offensive statements. But when MTG and Gaetz say stupid stuff or have sex with minors? Crickets...
 
I recall it being huge news when Democrats demanded, at least twice now, that Omar retract her offensive statements. But when MTG and Gaetz say stupid stuff or have sex with minors? Crickets...
Probably because MTG didn't make the outrageous statements Omar did and the Gaetz allegations haven't bee proven.

But go ahead with your false equivalency.
 
I agree. Enough is enough. She should be removed from her committee assignments.


The tweets (statement) that she just put out are very nice and accurate.
Unfortunately, it doesn't match any of her words or actions since she became a public figure.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
I think any objective person recognizes that the media is heavily slanted to the left. I read a NYT’s reporter note that publications could have have as many as 20 Dems to a single republican on staff. Look at academia and journalism programs and the type of students that tend to gravitate towards same.

They all know it, and they all lie about it. All the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Which came first, though, Trump's declaration of war on the media, or the media slant to the left?

Probably every president since George Washington thought the media was unfair to them. But nobody until Trump was so openly hostile (though Nixon was close, at times). That has had a price.

Nonsense.
 


These lists are always so bad
Kennedy was in lessthan 3 years and came the closest of any President to getting us into a nuclear war. He did give the space program a goal, but we were chasing the Russians by then and it was a natural rivalry.

Obama, in 8 years, accomplished little. I'm no Democrat, but Clinton was more of a leader than him.
 
Kennedy was in lessthan 3 years and came the closest of any President to getting us into a nuclear war. He did give the space program a goal, but we were chasing the Russians by then and it was a natural rivalry.

Obama, in 8 years, accomplished little. I'm no Democrat, but Clinton was more of a leader than him.
Is this the sum and substance of your "expert" analysis? Not surprisingly, you're way off the mark.

The presidential historians who participated in the survey rated the presidents on ten individual leadership characteristics. One of these is Crisis Leadership, where Kennedy scored highly as a result of his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In this category, only Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower scored higher. Kennedy was also very high in Public Persuasion, Economic Management, Vision, Pursuit of Justice for All, and Relations with Congress.

Because you've got nothing else, I'm sure you'll attack the survey participants as know-nothing liberals with political agendas. Of course that's bullshit, and I'd point out that Eisenhower and Reagan are in the Top 10, but you're nothing if not predictable.

Finally, some good news, Danny. Your boy, President Donald J. Trump, isn't dead last. He came in at #41.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Circlejoe
Is this the sum and substance of your "expert" analysis? Not surprisingly, you're way off the mark.

The presidential historians who participated in the survey rated the presidents on ten individual leadership characteristics. One of these is Crisis Leadership, where Kennedy scored highly as a result of his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In this category, only Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower scored higher. Kennedy was also very high in Public Persuasion, Economic Management, Vision, Pursuit of Justice for All, and Relations with Congress.

Because you've got nothing else, I'm sure you'll attack the survey participants as know-nothing liberals with political agendas. Of course that's bullshit, and I'd point out that Eisenhower and Reagan are in the Top 10, but you're nothing if not predictable.

Finally, some good news, Danny. Your boy, President Donald J. Trump, isn't dead last. He came in at #41.
Not surprisingly, you need to learn some history.

Kennedy knuckled under to Krushchev by removing missles from Turkey in exchange for the Russians standing down from Cuba. He only 'handled' it by caving in to the Soviet's demand.

But Kennedy did do a great job by decreasing capital gains taxes and increasing revenue. He understood fiscal conservatism.

And he also scored high in banging ho's while President, including tag-teaming Marylin Monroe with brother Bobby (who he made AG - no nepotism there). So he's got that going for him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mushroomgod_1
Not surprisingly, you need to learn some history.

Kennedy knuckled under to Krushchev by removing missles from Turkey in exchange for the Russians standing down from Cuba. He only 'handled' it by caving in to the Soviet's demand.

But Kennedy did do a great job by decreasing capital gains taxes and increasing revenue. He understood fiscal conservatism.

And he also scored high in banging ho's while President, including tag-teaming Marylin Monroe with brother Bobby (who he made AG - no nepotism there). So he's got that going for him.

lol....also, pretty innovative at scheming to assassinate foreign leaders....under what category does that fall? His high score on the "relations with Congress" is also somewhat strange, because he had few legislative victories. It was the evil & manipulative LBJ that was able to open up the social welfare floodgates.

But, all-in-all, there's no denying that JFK was a media star. That and his commitment to space define his presidency.
 
Kennedy was in lessthan 3 years and came the closest of any President to getting us into a nuclear war. He did give the space program a goal, but we were chasing the Russians by then and it was a natural rivalry.

Obama, in 8 years, accomplished little. I'm no Democrat, but Clinton was more of a leader than him.
They have LBJ at 11! Wilson at 13...wow
 
  • Wow
Reactions: DANC
Is this the sum and substance of your "expert" analysis? Not surprisingly, you're way off the mark.

The presidential historians who participated in the survey rated the presidents on ten individual leadership characteristics. One of these is Crisis Leadership, where Kennedy scored highly as a result of his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In this category, only Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower scored higher. Kennedy was also very high in Public Persuasion, Economic Management, Vision, Pursuit of Justice for All, and Relations with Congress.

Because you've got nothing else, I'm sure you'll attack the survey participants as know-nothing liberals with political agendas. Of course that's bullshit, and I'd point out that Eisenhower and Reagan are in the Top 10, but you're nothing if not predictable.

Finally, some good news, Danny. Your boy, President Donald J. Trump, isn't dead last. He came in at #41.
The objective historians ranked Woodrow Wilson as the 13th best President because he had a D by his name despite being one of the worst Presidents in history by any objective measure.
 
lol....also, pretty innovative at scheming to assassinate foreign leaders....under what category does that fall? His high score on the "relations with Congress" is also somewhat strange, because he had few legislative victories. It was the evil & manipulative LBJ that was able to open up the social welfare floodgates.

But, all-in-all, there's no denying that JFK was a media star. That and his commitment to space define his presidency.
The most egregious one is Wilson at 13, but the whole list is full of inexplicable claims (FDR at 3, LBJ at 11, and Obama at 10)
 
The most egregious one is Wilson at 13, but the whole list is full of inexplicable claims (FDR at 3, LBJ at 11, and Obama at 10)
I'm sure everyone might have different opinions on the list, but if you review the list of participants who scored the presidents, you would have a hard time arguing against their credentials. The advisory team for the survey is also a who's who of historians and scholars, including Richard Norton Smith who I've met several times. His past gigs include first Executive Director of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, Director of the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum in West Branch, Iowa; the Dwight D. Eisenhower Center in Abilene, Kansas; the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and the Reagan Center for Public Affairs in Simi Valley, California; the Gerald R. Ford Museum and Library in Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor, Michigan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoot1 and UncleMark
I'm sure everyone might have different opinions on the list, but if you review the list of participants who scored the presidents, you would have a hard time arguing against their credentials. The advisory team for the survey is also a who's who of historians and scholars, including Richard Norton Smith who I've met several times. His past gigs include first Executive Director of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, Director of the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum in West Branch, Iowa; the Dwight D. Eisenhower Center in Abilene, Kansas; the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and the Reagan Center for Public Affairs in Simi Valley, California; the Gerald R. Ford Museum and Library in Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Everyone is biased but there are objective measures that these lists clearly ignore.
 
Not surprisingly, you need to learn some history.

Kennedy knuckled under to Krushchev by removing missles from Turkey in exchange for the Russians standing down from Cuba. He only 'handled' it by caving in to the Soviet's demand.

But Kennedy did do a great job by decreasing capital gains taxes and increasing revenue. He understood fiscal conservatism.

And he also scored high in banging ho's while President, including tag-teaming Marylin Monroe with brother Bobby (who he made AG - no nepotism there). So he's got that going for him.
If it weren’t for Kennedy holding out against all of his military advisors, who wanted much more drastic measures, we most likely would have ended up with nuclear war. Hell, Curtis Lemay wanted to level the whole island.

To say he failed during the Cuban missile crisis is insane.
 
I agree. Enough is enough. She should be removed from her committee assignments.


The tweets (statement) that she just put out are very nice and accurate.
Unfortunately, it doesn't match any of her words or actions since she became a public figure.
She's horrible. The worst of the worst. That said, why remove her from her committee assignments? She's just the worst example of Democrats Gone Wild.

so exactly what did Tlaib say that she should be removed from committee assignments.

i have heard Omar say things that were out there and politically stupid, but people who are from Somalia or are the children of Palestinians might not be the biggest fans of Israeli policy and those who support it.
 
Fair point, I pulled the numbers out of my ass. That being said, removing the numbers, can we agree that the majority of the news media both print and TV comes from a left slant? CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC all tend to mostly approach stories from a left leaning perspective with mostly left leaning journalists and talking heads. Fox is usually more to the right. There are new networks like OAN and Newsmax? that come more from the right, but those 2 don't have anything like the reach of the others I listed.

You could do the same with Newspapers. The WSJ is usually from the conservative side. I could probably tick off about a dozen that are from the left. Almost every newspaper in every major city in the U.S. has a left leaning editorial board.

So yeah, using the percentages was a haphazard guess and honestly I think it was a more favorable guess than actually exists. Now this is where you would disagree with me and say that so and so media watchdog thinks that both sides are covered the same and my reply to that is that often what is not covered is where the bias lies and also the amount of coverage. Take the Hunter Biden scenario above. There would be 24-7 coverage if that was a Trump kid dropping the N word like he is Kendrick Lamar, not a 30 second mention at the end of a show or buried inside the paper. That is above the fold news if it is a Republican's kid and the Republican President would be asked in press conferences to explain that behavior and denounce their child. Biden gets to skate.


how beyond naive are you and everyone else here?

there is a lot more than someone's take on race or the LGBTQ community that define them as liberal or conservative, and some now branded as near communists by the right, are probably right of Nixon on a lot of stuff, as the bar has been shifting hard right my entire life on most things other than race and gay rights.

and "the media" are the ones who have led the shift.

LMAO.

again, do you guys actually think the C suites at Amazon, Facebook, Comcast, AT&T, Disney/ABC/ESPN, Google, News Corp/Fox, IHeartMedia/Clear Channel, are filled with liberals, or that the talking heads rather than the execs and the corporate advertisers set the agenda?????

as for Biden, the media that support him do so because he is far right and a puppet on things they care about, and they didn't actively instal him as the DNC nominee to beat Trump..

they did so to take down Bernie, who was their real fear.

the multinational corporate conglomerates you guys call the "media" couldn't care less whether Biden or Trump won last Nov, they only cared that Bernie didn't win.

there are no "liberal" multinational corporate conglomerates in the US or the world.

"liberal" and "multinational corporate conglomerate" are literally mutually exclusive entities, and can never be anything but.
 
If it weren’t for Kennedy holding out against all of his military advisors, who wanted much more drastic measures, we most likely would have ended up with nuclear war. Hell, Curtis Lemay wanted to level the whole island.

To say he failed during the Cuban missile crisis is insane.
Nuclear war was not stopped by Kennedy - a Russian sub officer, who didn't know whether WWIII had started or not, convinced his fellow officers not to launch his nuclear torpedoes when US Destroyers were dropping depth charges on them.


As the story states, the crisis was over the next day - after Kennedy agreed to withdraw missiles from Turkey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: i'vegotwinners
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT