Well, what did they expect when they went all in for Hillary? And now Trump is climbing in the polls — 6 points up in the new L.A. Times poll — and they've already squandered their credibility. They can't help her now. They tried too hard before. Too bad the Democratic Party didn't give us a democratic experience this time. They foisted a candidate on us, they rigged it, with the assistance of the media. And now the candidate we didn't want zombie-walks and stumbles to the finish line, and there is nothing the Party or the media can do to stir up our affection. Meanwhile, the man the media loved to hate is powering through to the Presidency, looking only stronger for all the shots he took.
As Bob Wright said to me: "Well, my concern is that they are so ham-handed about it — they're so obvious about it — that it won't work."
पोस्ट्स
७१ टिप्पण्या:
Professor, A perfect comment.
I think it's a real problem going forward. It's amusing, schadenfreudishly, in the context of Crooked Hillary, but how can our Democracy function if the people view the Press as an arm of a Political Party a la Pravda and the Soviet Union?
The Real Estate Market in and around DC will be hotter than its ever been. The Moving Van services will be worn out with work. Maybe this year's imported 100,000 Muslims here and on government dole can lend a hand.
I believe them for some things and not for others.
You know the biases.
It used to be, back when airplanes crashed, you'd believe the media that an airplane crashed but for nothing else about it.
Aviation Week would have the right story. Every other version was rewritten for women by some woman or woman-equavalent.
MSM reported Colin Powell's disdain of Trump with great relish.
I did not notice any MSM coverage of the best Powell email:
"I would rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect... A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still dicking bimbos at home (according to the NYP)."
Fox Brett Baier's Evening News related that quote in full. The Panel's reaction was hilarious.
Some time ago I left a comment here suggesting that Hillary only was able to win when her election seemed inevitable. She was inevitable in 2008 up until she was not inevitable. Then she lost. In her two senate runs she never lost the aura of inevitability. She never lost it against Sanders (how many news reports this spring insisted that she already had it all sewed up with the super delegates?).
This is not a prediction of a Trump win. The Democrats have a Hell of a ground game. They are pushing their people, hard, to vote early where they can. I don't think that the GOP can match the Dems get-out-the-vote machinery.
With the death of the newspaper, all that remains is these web stories designed to tell you nothing, but make you aware that something happened.
For example the other day, it was alleged that some sniper killed a terrorist in the midst of an execution. That's not all, he killed the terrorist after he made his Moslem-inspired speech. That's not all, he did it from a mile away. That's not all, the victims were rescued by the military who swooped in to save them.
Amazing. Except that, we don't know who the terrorist was, we don't know who the victims were (maybe they deserved to be executed). We don't know anything, but we feel good about such a story, because it is so John Wayne (who was also fiction).
When people lap this stuff up, I just feel sorry for them. I hope their kids escape and survive a real life in the real world.
Another story from Hollywood, Amy Schumer was projectile vomiting her dinner after eating in Paris. OK, she says she got food poisoning. OK. What restaurant? What food? Did you eat shell fish in September you fat fuck?
It's secret. Here's the deal, unless we get the name, it didn't happen, you fat fuck.
"...with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media."
We know who these morons are.
Who the heck are these 32% that still trust the media? Do they actually read newspapers?
Madame Althouse, you nailed it with this post.
Well, what did they expect when they went all in for Hillary? And now Trump is climbing in the polls — 6 points up in the new L.A. Times poll — and they've already squandered their credibility. They can't help her now.
You misunderestimate the low information/intelligence voters who are vaguely aware there is a presidential race in progress. Well placed soundbites on radio news broadcasts during commute periods move the needle.
If the media secretly can't stand Hillary Clinton, the ham-fisted act may be intentionally designed to cost her the election.
You can't believe the media for anything soap opera women are interested in. That's what's been rewritten.
Soap opera women are 40% of women, so are 20% of the population.
So the media base support won't go below 20%.
I check my local media to check for traffic jams on the Interstate I use to commute. For the rest I use the Daily Mail, which is a blessing. Of course, they despise Hillary, and they're not subtle in their hatred, but at least there is a little balance.
AA wrote "and they've already squandered their credibility. They can't help her now."
Hillary and her media minions just play the sex, race and hate cards.
Big Mo has entered the race. More email leaks coming along with the debates. The undecided and Johnson voters will go to Trump. Hillary loses and it won't be close. Bill will not be with her on Election night. Too busy dicking bimbos,
The media rushed to compete with internet news - bloggers, twitter, and just plain BS news outlets. They wanted a monopoly on all news.
Instead, they do nothing well. They no longer do investigative journalism well, they don't do basic journalism well (i.e. constant corrections as they rush out news), and they aren't differentiated in online news cycles.
So what is a massive organization that no longer differentiates to do with all it's resources?
It invests in political capture - and for various reasons they went with an all-in on the democratic party.
They foisted a candidate on us, they rigged it, with the assistance of the media.
AA may have this a bit bass-ackwards. It may be more like "the media" foisted this on us with the assistance of the Democratic Party.
Who the heck are these 32% that still trust the media?
Hardcore Democrats.
It's OK if they lie and mislead. They're doing it for our own good. After all, Republicans and conservatives are evil.
I think they lacked credibility a long time ago, and it really accelerated during the Obama administration when they went out of their way to soft-foot the new president. There was no real critical analysis of him in his first campaign, and as he started to govern the coverage was far too deferential. It carried through the 2012 election, and this turned off a majority of voters.
This year, the media had no credibility left so their efforts against Trump fell on deaf ears. The "cry-wolf" syndrome kicked in.
"Hagar said...
They foisted a candidate on us, they rigged it, with the assistance of the media.
AA may have this a bit bass-ackwards. It may be more like "the media" foisted this on us with the assistance of the Democratic Party."
Both you and Althouse should stop trying to differentiate "the media" and the "Democratic Party." For all intents and purposes they are one in the same.
The best thing lately has been CNN demanding Trump call David Duke "Deplorable". He's already said he doesn't want his support or the support of people who think like him. But for whatever reason, Trump must use the word "deplorable" against David Duke, who as far as I can tell, enjoys all this attention from CNN.
MadisonMan said...
...but how can our Democracy function if the people view the Press as an arm of a Political Party a la Pravda and the Soviet Union?
Far better than it could if the people view the Press as honest and non-partisan when it is, in fact, an arm of a Political Party a la Pravda.
Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azUpfzDNxpw
I mean this should have ended any campaign. For any office. Anywhere.
It's frightening. There is no way to explain it away. It's not "allergies." It's not "pneomonia." It's not "overheating."
We call that well-earned opprobrium. RIP MSM.
With Barbara Streisand (BS) on your side, how can you lose? The media seems to put an equals "=" sign with a Democratic candidate on one side, and a multi-millionaire Hollywood type on the other.
The old ladies at the hair salon will go straight to the voting machines.
Shouldn't Barbara Streisand be dead by now? I mean, what, isn't she over 70?
"Blogger TreeJoe said...
It invests in political capture - and for various reasons they went with an all-in on the democratic party."
They favor Hillary's opposition to Citizens United, which would give government recognized media a monopoly on political reporting 60 days before and election, and oppose Trump because he wants to allow people like him to sue media outlets for slander.
The phrase "zombie walks and stumbles to the finish line" is extremely evocative. Metaphors are so much more effective when they are literally true.
The scales fall from my eyes three decades ago, when I realized the Cronkhites and Rathers of the television news world were nothing more than partisan hacks, no more worthy of respect or belief than Pravda.
My blue collar father tried to tell me this in the late 1960's, but I didn't believe him. Turned out the old man was right about a lot of things.
The deeper question is; Why are the media so untrustworthy? It's like you take your kids to the swimming pool, and you have to stand there watching them swim, to make sure the lifeguard doesn't drag them under the surface and drown them. Why does the swimming pool employ people called "lifeguards" who are actually cold-blooded child-killers? And why do we still take our kids there, when we know they hire "lifeguards" who drown children?
Provisional answers;
1 - The pools' owners want our children drowned.
2 - We think teaching our kids to swim is worth the risk.
In other secret news (well not mentioned on the first page), Microsoft killed hotmail over the weekend.
I have my checking account email going there, and my French cousins use it to talk with me. Since we were both on hotmail for that purpose.
Hopefully, we will be transferred to Outlook, their new mail invention. Same shit, different name.
Meanwhile, the man the media loved to hate is powering through to the Presidency, looking only stronger for all the shots he took.
Hee hee. Sweet re-purposing of the meme of the week. And you, dear hostess, are a lagging indicator, meaning the bias must have reached an extraordinary level.
Yet lefties complain on twitter that the NYT has given too much oxygen to Trump. Lola
This is not new. For those not taken in by the "historic" election of 2008, it's deja vu. This is exactly how it worked then for Obama. Notice the dip every presidential election year, when people at the margins actually pay attention.
I heard an interview with a doctor last night on MSNBC. The doctor explained that Trump was overweight, didn't exercise much, and had high cholesterol. The doctor's opinion was that Trump was in worse health than Hillary and that Hillary was far more forthcoming about her health issues than Trump. The interviewer didn't ask a single skeptical question.......I understand that the media is in the tank for Hillary, but now they're beginning to politicize medical science as well. We'll have to start checking on the political affiliations of our physicians as well as our broadcasters.......I suppose we all have biases that shape our opinions as to which facts are salient and which are incidental, but at a certain point your audience response is WTF, stop with the bullshit.
I like the way the media is handling the fact that Ivanka is a more poised and attractive woman than Chelsea. Don't look at Ivanka's positive appeal. Look at her father's creepy attraction to her. Hillary doesn't have any creepy feelings towards Chelsea. When you compare the two daughters, the advantage therefore lies with the Clintons.
Journalists have long assumed and propagated the proposition that they occupy a special niche in American society: that they are the guardians of the First Amendment's freedom of the press, of the public's right to know, and that they are thus entitled to special consideration and privilege because of it.
They have little understanding of the contempt and disdain in which they held by many Americans, although in recent years I think they realize it exists, but they chalk it up to the deplorables.
"The best thing lately has been CNN demanding Trump call David Duke "Deplorable". He's already said he doesn't want his support or the support of people who think like him. But for whatever reason, Trump must use the word "deplorable" against David Duke, who as far as I can tell, enjoys all this attention from CNN."
We know why this is--if he refuses to call Duke "deplorable", then it suggests he is okay with bigots. If he does actually call Duke "deplorable" then it lends credence to Hillary's remarks. It's sort of like a "have you stopped beating your wife" sort of question.
Far better than it could if the people view the Press as honest and non-partisan when it is, in fact, an arm of a Political Party a la Pravda.
True enough.
"As Bob Wright said to me: "Well, my concern is that they are so ham-handed about it — they're so obvious about it — that it won't work."
That was a pretty disgusting observation by, and about, Mr. Wright.
now they're beginning to politicize medical science
As opposed to climate science, which has been politicized for over 20 years now.
Both you and Althouse should stop trying to differentiate "the media" and the "Democratic Party." For all intents and purposes they are one in the same.
The Democratic Party is a political party here on earth; the "progressives" are missionaries for a mystic vision, a religion so to speak.
Weigh in here fellow charming commenters. Doesn't Althouse's post remind you of Tom Wolfe, albeit a younger and female version?
The media is more corrupt today than ever and that's saying something. In Cronkite's day the corruption was simply hidden bias dressed up as an all-knowing high priesthood. Today it's a blatantly obvious bias and narrative creating machine with the additional terrible woe of being in bed with the political power in office. Having a democrat president does that.
At any rate, my support of Trump is in large page to wreck this vile cabal. The wreckage will be temporary, for sure, but without these periodic takedowns, we would have a new form of the Soviet Union right here in the good old USSA.
William
I want a full media report on Dr. Lisa Bardack, Hillary's doc. I'm sure she is a Leftwing hack. Who else would stand to have her as a patient?
A Democrat politician who fails to deliver should not expect any loyalty or compassion from the "progressive" media.
You can check traffic with your smartphone now. Cortana/Siri etc. All search engines have
pretty good map technology with traffic functionality.
In fact, much of the Google search data is being stored and automated into processes which
account for much of what people want (traffic, restaurants, directions, doctors etc. which of course comes with benefits/costs)
The less important someone's job is, the more that person tends to create busy work and drama. Silly politics.
The less meaningful their life is, the more tend to pay attention to your life.
The less there is/is perceived to be, the more people tend to fight over it.
As the bias in certain media becomes clearer and more obvious, let's hope that the reason(s) why become clearer as well. I doubt it's all starry-eyed, youthful liberal bent. I'll bet that some is paid-for bias. Wouldn't that be delicious to savor?
The media has earned this distrust. They worked hard to achieve it. Looks like a good market opportunity for someone with money to start a media company that 1) doesn't hire journalism majors 2) doesn't hire journalists who worked for politicians or political parties in the past 3) bans anyone from using a Journolist type listserve 4) is devoted to balanced coverage of events. A cruel neutrality, if you will.
While reading a story about this Gallup poll I was reminded of Iowahawk's oft-repeated tweet that “Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.” It's not just that the "mainstream" media openly loathe Republicans (even newly minted liberalish ones like Donald) that disgusts and infuriates the public (who long for evenhanded sources of news). It's also that they show an extraordinary lack of curiosity* about any story that might lead to an embarrassing fact about Hillary or Obama:
+ Not one CNNNBCCBSABC evening news story where they spoke with any experts about how secret transmissions should be handled
+ About the difference between a privet ACCOUNT and a private SERVER
+ About the gun-running (fast and furious)
+ About weaponizing the IRS and targeting people for abuse based on their political affiliation
+ About how many people LOST insurance through ACA vs how many got Obamacare
+ About what the hell Chris Stevens was doing in a dangerous Libyan city on the anniversary of 9/11
+ About how the history of falling down from dehydration keeps causing Hillary problems (broken arm, concussion, blood clots, confusion and memory loss, inability to testify to Congress)
+ ANY of Bill Clinton's rape accusers
+ ANY of Hillary's prior shape-shifting views on hot topics like gay marriage, single-payer heath care, rape, Nixon,
+ ANY of Obama or Hillary academic endeavors (did she pass the DC bar?)
And yet the media are endlessly fascinated by the minutiae of every Republican nominee, including childhood spats, education from K through whatever, words spray painted on nearby landmarks, marital status and fidelity, employment history, distant relatives who may be embarrassing, details of nominee's spouse's activities, religious oddities and affiliations. NONE of these subjects are "interesting" to the media when it comes to D candidates for President.
So we don't trust the "news" as an honest broker of information.
*Remember when "incurious" was an anti-GWB meme? What about Obama who seems incredibly ignorant about the world in general and history in particular?
The lying liberal press was once an American press that hated conservatives.
But we have been alerted by Trump that they are an international press owned by Soros and other oligarchs that hates us for wanting to be a country.
"I want a full media report on Dr. Lisa Bardack, Hillary's doc. I'm sure she is a Leftwing hack. Who else would stand to have her as a patient? "
As long as the candidates can pick which doctor's they want to use, they'll get the reported results they want (or refuse to release any part of the report they don't like). The only fair way to do it is for the rival campaigns to agree on a single doctor to examine and report on both candidates, but of course this is impossible for many reasons.
It couldn't happen to a better group of people.
Doctors never lie about health issues..... unless they are handing out excuse slips at Wisconsin protests.
It is more revealing about the truth in the things that they DON'T say in an article. It reveals what they want to hide, what they cannot bring themselves to say or print. They use code words to cover up.
The most obvious one now is when there is a violent occurrence and the report is that "youths" or "young men" are involved. Everyone knows what they are hiding. It is black youths or black men who are rioting, looting, shooting. They don't want to print the truth because it is not politically correct.
In Europe, when there are mass rapes by "asian" men. They mean Muslims. Must shelter the public and obfuscate.
Articles with no substance. No facts. No there there. The print media is a complete waste of time as well as the opinionated and biased talking heads on television who pretend to be journalists, but who are just propaganda shills for their networks biases.
At least we have the internet.....for now......until Obama gives it away to the UN and the World Order starts dictating what we can see and do on the net. Starts closing down blogs and other sites who disagree with the marching orders of the world dictators. Enjoy it while you can because the internet is soon to be gutted like a fish on a dock.
The JournoLists are on trial. Everything they say can and will be used to infer their ulterior motives.
The former survey professional in me would want to see "great deal" and "fair amount" reported separately over time rather than lumped together. As informative as that graph may be, I suspect collapsing the two responses masks an even more dramatic trend.
"Well, my concern is that they are so ham-handed about it — they're so obvious about it — that it won't work."
As I've said before, I think this statement is backwards. The techniques haven't changed. The media is no more ham-handed than they've been for quite a long time. They are only considered such now because their techniques are no longer as effective.
Brando attributes this to "cry wolf." I think Trump not playing into their hands, unlike previous "R's," is at least as big a factor.
Frankly, that 32% scares the hell out of me. How can that many people trust the MSM?
A NY Times columnist today wonders "I wonder if journalistic efforts at fairness don’t risk normalizing Trump..."
And so it goes...
I think there is a direct connection between that decline and the increasing ability over those years to "fact check your ass."
Coupe above brought up a story that was in the press a few days ago, the rescue of ISIS prisoners via a mile distant sniper shot followed by a special forces raid, and I had the exact same reaction he did- that it sounded like a story that was completely made up because it literally lacked any detail at all that would allow one to verify any part of it.
Much of what journalist report these days is like that story, and increasingly so.
Plenty of people still "buy it." 32% of the US electorate is >75 million people.
God knows what they are paying attention to, but there they are.
Anyway, It's all about confirmation bias.
mockturtle said...
Frankly, that 32% scares the hell out of me. How can that many people trust the MSM?
9/15/16, 10:18 AM"
The stupid and gullible will always be among us. What is heartening is that 68% no longer trust the media to be trustworthy.
From the link, we find out that since 2005, the drop in trust in mass media is fairly uniform.
Democrats: 70% to 51%, a drop of 19%
Independents: 49% to 30%, a drop of 19%
Republicans: 32% to 18%, a drop of 18%
Overall, the drop in trust in mass media went from 50% in 2005 to 32% in 2016.
I think it's interesting that a majority (slight-51%) of Democrats think the media report the news fully, accurately and fairly. The MSM can take some comfort in the fact that they're still reaching at least half their target audience.
RichardJohnson said..Overall, the drop in trust in mass media went from 50% in 2005 to 32% in 2016.
[Channeling Taranto] I blame George W Bush.
My faith in the media is Zero, Zilch, Zip, and Nada.
Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low
Now, there's a headline you can save and re-use every year!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा