Trump - is he getting a fair crack of the media whip?
Projectionist
Posts: 1,040 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Donald Trump has been very critical of CNN, & slightly less so of the BBC & the Press in general.
Do DS forum users think he is being fairly treated?
Edit - his press secretary is not impressed....:)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-sean-spicer-media-womens-march-washington-deliberately-false-bias-a7539886.html
Do DS forum users think he is being fairly treated?
Edit - his press secretary is not impressed....:)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-sean-spicer-media-womens-march-washington-deliberately-false-bias-a7539886.html
0
Comments
What do you think?
Given the link you have provided who do you belive. The Media or the Press Secretary?
And like Brexit this has caused the whole of media from tv, to print, to online go into some sort of frenzy of disbelief, in part showing they have absolutely no idea how to react when things like this happen and partly determined to show what complete and utter idiots everyone has been by actually voting for him or Brexit.
I also think it's partly the whole lot of them are not a little bit upset that voters did so, after they spent so much time and effort illustrating the catostrophic consequences of going against what they think is best for everybody.
In short, the media is in a state of shock and can't cope.
I suspect that the crowd size was lower than previous inaugurations, lots of evidence of that, but I would not be surprised if one TV station used an earlier image. Stupid thing to do if they did, because they must have known Trump would jump on it as evidence of bias against him.
http://www.snopes.com/nps-twitter-account-shut-down/
http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/20/obamas-inauguration-crowd-larger-than-trumps/
However not all comments about Trump are true.
http://www.snopes.com/trump-inaugural-address-plagiarism/
If anything now, I have become a lot more skeptical and insist on multiple sources with evidence before I believe a story. And I think other people should also treat the media with a skeptical eye as well.
What do you consider 'mainstream media'?
Brexit was supported by the majority of the most widely read British Newspapers - The Sun, Mail, Express, The Telegraph....... you can't get more mainstream than that I would say?
And though newspaper sales are in very sharp decline it is the 50+ age group that are still the most likely to read a daily paper - also more likely to have voted Leave.
Younger people that don't rely on a single media source like a Tabloid newspaper were more likely to vote Remain.
Coincidence?
For me, Brexit WAS a victory for mainstream media and the fact that its being spun post-vote as a victory AGAINST causes me no end of amusement.
There's a famous old Johnny Rotten quote that applies.
As for Trump... being criticised is part of the job he campaigned for and got. It's not a new thing. Obama got pilloried for eight years, as did Bush before him to be fair. Trump's mob are complaining after one day. If he can't take it he should resign and let someone who has the character for it do it instead.
Complaining the media is lying about something when everyone can see the photos themselves just makes you look like a fool.
But why are the media making such a big deal of the crowd size? I don't remember all this in depth time-wasting by BBC/Sky with previous inaugurations.
Now they're comparing yesterday's demos on a weekend with the inauguration on a working day.
Like Brexit, the media are unhappy with the result and are trying to invalidate it.
As for Sean Spicer yesterday, the bias shines through.
On 5Live last night Nolan only played the crowd size clip and ignored the main complaint about the Martin Luther King bust, which was a lie to portray Trump as a racist.
When the discussion was over, Nolan signed off and played the whole press conference (so they can say they're not biased), but by then they'd already had nearly an hour of Trump bashing.
I agree there was mainstream media that supported Brexit, BUT they didn't actually think Britain would vote to leave. These 'institutions' are now in a right pickle, they thought they had moaning editorials for the next thirty years which would take the line 'Well that serves you all right for voting to remain' they are flummoxed. The Express is going to have revert to Diana conspiracies pretty soon.
Of course the flip side of this is that all the political parties have a ready made excuse for any issue be it NHS funding to the rate of inflation, they can blame the voters cos they voted to leave. The same with any media that wanted to remain.
I think the (supposedly) much smaller crowd compared to previous inaugurations is what has made it newsworthy. Team Trump have denied it but have not released any photographs to disprove those which appear in the mainstream media.
There you will find a lot of articles presented as news which are furiously anti-Brexit and anti-Trump. Soundbytes and personalised news (echo chambers as it were) are fast becoming the standard for how people consume news and information nowadays.
If anything, opinions are becoming the new news. A recent development as of late is to how comment articles, OP:ED's and articles pursuing an agenda on the front page of a newspaper or news website has become "news". Sensationalist headlines are nothing new but "clickbait" is. Truth and ethics are taking a side step for partisan news reporting and the chase to allow people to hear what they want to hear because it makes for revenue - whether its the Mail calling for the borders to be closed, the Guardian declaring all Trump supporters misogynists, FOX News declaring Trump's opponents unpatriotic or left wing US outlets seeing Trump's victory as the apocalypse.
Because Trump told everyone it would be the biggest and best inauguration ever and that people would be flocking to see him.
Absolutely he is. The Donald shouldn't interpret legitimate questioning and criticism as bias...and nor should anyone in this country either. Arguing, debate, questioning and challenging is part of a healthy democracy. The Donald has made a big mistake by criticising the media.
The Washington area is predominantly Democrat and has a large Black population, so of course they flocked in droves to see Obama inaugurated. I would like to see a comparison with Bill Clinton's inauguration, that would be a fairer comparison. It had been noted that before Reagan, they didn't even try to fill that overflow area.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38707722
Mr Trump's press secretary said it had been "the largest audience to ever see an inauguration" even though figures he cited add up to under 750,000 people.
What are inauguration figures for past US presidents?
Officials from the District of Columbia have said that 1.8m people attended Mr Obama's 2009 inauguration and close to 1m showed up for his second in 2013.
George W Bush drew some 400,000 in 2005, 300,000 in 2001; Bill Clinton had 800,000 in 1993 then 250,000 in 1997.
Some 140,000 tickets were sold for Ronald Reagan's inauguration in 1985, but extreme cold forced officials to move the ceremony indoors, says Politifact.
It says the biggest crowd the National Park Service counted was for Lyndon Johnson's 1965 swearing-in that drew 1.2m.
I expect if a right leaning celebrity had made a similar comment when Obama was resident, it would be headline news.
Thanks for ALL your replies so far, Even old "Box Brownie" Camera.
I must admit, whilst hoping for someone who might rattle some establishment cages - he does now somewhat remind me of a certain "Elevation challenged Austrian with a tash" in his early days.
I hope I'm wrong about him, I really do - but I think as far as the press are concerned - Hamlet77, I agree - the media are mostly as confused as the rest of us are. Which is why I asked the question.
If I am right though, I expect the great American voters, will find a way to change Donald's outlook.
I am sure I read on the BBC News site earlier the report about Madonna being investigated by the Secret Service?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2676007/secret-service-to-investigate-madonna-after-foul-mouthed-rant-threatening-to-blow-up-the-white-house-during-500000-strong-womens-march-against-donald-trump-presidency/
The very fact that news outlets have set up a fact-checking system, because of his lies should say alot to you!
And the petulant reactions of the new WH press secretary over the media's correct claims that the Inauguration wasn't attended by anywhere near what trump claimed (1m+) should also be a red flag! Unofficial estimates suggest nothing more than 250,000.
PBS released a timelapse video from the Earthcam showing the difference between inaguration day and Womens Rights march day. HUGE!
And the numbers used by that idiot Sean Spicer (WH press cry-baby) have also been fact checked and proven to not be accurate. His numbers comparing to the Obama 2009 Inauguration were only to 11am, not the day like he used in the Trump numbers. Obama's 2009 Inauguration battered Trump and for that reason, they've tried to doctor the numbers, the media caught on, called them on it and viola - Petulant cry-baby antics from them yet again!
There were more people in the Womens march the next day!
More people protested his Presidency in person than the numbers that came to see him be sworn in! That is startling!
So no, it has nothing to do with fair crack of the whip, the media are doing their job and he (And his team) are just whiny little bitches!
You did, because in her speech, she made a comment about having thoughts of blowing up the White House!
Only a tit makes that comment....Oh wait, it was Madonna!
Been watching CNN a lot over the weekend - first thing their panels are well overcrowded - do they really need 8 commentators on the panel - Biased against Trump yes so far if the BBC commentators called our leaders liars on air they would be sacked
Link to Trump's twitter....
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump
Don't disagree. But when it's the other way, it's not made a big thing of.
Yesterday's main gripe from the Trump camp was the racially inciting and inaccurate TIME magazine Tweet about the Martin Luther King bust being removed.
The media have hardly covered this lie compared to the crowd figures.
They report anti-Trump stories as it suits their agendas.