McCain warns: Dictators get started by suppressing the press

[Rion]

This claim that the mainstream media is dishonest is heard often. Does anyone have any actual evidence - any credible, hard data - that demonstrates that there is a significant "honesty" problem in the media.

I doubt any such data will be forthcoming, but let's see.

WikiLeaks - Search the DNC email database

I would ask if you remember this: John Podesta's Email Directive To Cheryl Mills: 'Dump All Those Emails' but I doubt it. So, how did the completely unbiased media react?

Why ‘dump all those emails’ doesn’t mean what Drudge thinks it does

"Oh, no guys, they're totally not saying anything bad! We swear!"

GOP Debate Moderator John Harwood Trashed Trump in Emails to the Clinton Campaign

Donna Brazile Out at CNN After Allegedly Slipping Debate Qs to Clinton

For the next one, you'll have to google for yourself, as Glenn Thrush is a bit of a potty mouth. Anyhow, he was repeatedly caught sending articles for verification/approval to Podesta, etc.

WIKILEAKS: New York Times Reporter Sought Quote Approval from Clinton Campaign

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/leaked-washington-post-writer-asked-dnc-for-anti-trump-research

If you want some post-election examples, start here:
4 Recent Examples Show Why No One Trusts Media Coverage Of Trump

It also goes back before the election. Google journolist and read up on it.

 

[HannahT]

So when he demonstrably lies; and his spokes people lie (like, full on, easily proveable lies), the press calls them on it.

How and why should we expect truth to come out of them when they lie about such basic stuff?

It isn't the media's "propoganda" that is making me question this administration; it's their antagonistic, unpredictable behaviours.

Obama and all the rest of the President's get caught in that position as well. I mean the biggest about the prior administration was about his healthcare law.

I honestly don't have a problem with them calling people in positions of power on their errors, and falsehoods. What is rather stupid is they talk it to death for a week, instead of showing more news from around the globe. I mean there IS more going on in the world than one statement that day, but it seems it takes to much effort to report on that stuff. I hated when they did that to Obama too. Report on it, and then MOVE on for goodness sakes!

I personally find the media and YES the Trump's administration antagonistic. I'm on a wait and see position for Trump, and the media has been in the dog house for a years. They are always in SUCH a rush to get the story out there, and don't take the time to make sure they have the facts straight. It was never this bad in the past, and no doubt it's going to get worse before it gets better. I mean the media can't even admit their trustworthy ratings are in the tank, because of such practices - and others. Yes, they talk about it. Then go on to explain how people are just being silly for thinking it. lol Yeah...that works!

I'm not a Trump supporter, nor do I ever quote Politifact.

If you point out anything that can be perceived positive for Trump - real or imagined? You're going to be accused of being a supporter. It was same when in Obama was in office - if you disagreed with some position? You hate him. It's lazy and ideological debate skills I'm afraid. That's why some can't seem to come to a middle ground to agree on anything.

 

[wing2000]

They did give obama a long, long honeymoon and where never overly harsh on him. IMO, the fact that he was the first black president, likely had something to do with it.

...and he didn't act like an 8 year on Twitter...or undermine his Cabinet officers.

Just yesterday Trump was going on about using the military to catch "bad hombres":

- DHS and State Secretaries were in Mexico to mend fences as it were
- Military should never be used for arrest activities on U.S. soil.

The man doesn't know when to shut up.

 

[HannahT]

Just yesterday Trump was going on about using the military to catch "bad hombres":

Yes, its incredible that people can't figure out when words are used as an adjective. lol! I think it was 'bad dudes' this time around.

 

[wing2000]

Yes, its incredible that people can't figure out when words are used as an adjective. lol! I think it was 'bad dudes' this time around.

Is it? The POTUS needs to learn that his words matter.

...and drop the Spanglish....

 

[Rion]

Is this bias then?

All False statements involving Barack Obama | PolitiFact

I get tired of repeating myself.

Oh! oh! I know this dance!



Running The Data On PolitiFact Shows Bias Against Conservatives

Seriously, though, I'd suggest reading the whole thing. It's interesting.

Here's the follow up: How PolitiFact Slants Its Truth Ratings Against Republicans

 

[wing2000]

Gen Kelly is a good man, and as former SOUTHCOM Commander of forces in Latin America, he understands the region well and has good relations with the countries.

...I am waiting to see how long he puts up with the disrespectful garbage coming from his boss's mouth. Soldiers have their limits too....

 

[bhsmte]

...and he didn't act like an 8 year on Twitter...or undermine his Cabinet officers.

Just yesterday Trump was going on about using the military to catch "bad hombres":

- DHS and State Secretaries were in Mexico to mend fences as it were
- Military should never be used for arrest activities on U.S. soil.

The man doesn't know when to shut up.

Trump is another deal altogether. He will have more media criticism, than any president in history and likely deserve it. Again, i do think the media in general, was light on obama.

 

[HannahT]

Is it? The POTUS needs to learn that his words matter.

...and drop the Spanglish....

People could learn to stop jumping to conclusions as well. I know that is unheard of today, but it's worked for longer than any of us have been on this planet.

Again the term was clarified that it was an adjective, and if people want to pretend they dont' know what that entails? That's pretty much on them.

Adjectives matter too. You ignore them? It's called fake news.

lol funny how that works huh?

 

[BubbaJack]

Trump is another deal altogether. He will have more media criticism, than any president in history and likely deserve it. Again, i do think the media in general, was light on obama.

Big understatement. The press under Obama was nothing less than a bunch of slobbering, knee-padded, sycophantic toadies.

 

[bhsmte]

...and he didn't act like an 8 year on Twitter...or undermine his Cabinet officers.

Just yesterday Trump was going on about using the military to catch "bad hombres":

- DHS and State Secretaries were in Mexico to mend fences as it were
- Military should never be used for arrest activities on U.S. soil.

The man doesn't know when to shut up.

I would not expect trumps words to change much. He is a serial narcissist and has been this way for decades. It is what it is.

 

[expos4ever]

WikiLeaks - Search the DNC email database....

Perhaps I was not clear. It is no surprise that there are examples - and perhaps plenty of them - of dishonesty in media. But simply reporting examples can be misleading - what really matters is the "rate" of dishonest reporting: what fraction of pronouncements by the media are intentionally distorted.

 

[bhsmte]

Big understatement. The press under Obama was nothing less than a bunch of slobbering, knee-padded, sycophantic toadies.

Hyperbole, they were very light on him though and especially so in the first term.

 

[Rion]

Perhaps I was not clear. It is no surprise that there are examples - and perhaps plenty of them - of dishonesty in media. But simply reporting examples can be misleading - what really matters is the "rate" of dishonest reporting: what fraction of pronouncements by the media are intentionally distorted.

So, when you said: "Does anyone have any actual evidence - any credible, hard data - that demonstrates that there is a significant "honesty" problem in the media."

You didn't mean actual evidence, you wanted a pie chart?

 

[expos4ever]

So, when you said: "Does anyone have any actual evidence - any credible, hard data - that demonstrates that there is a significant "honesty" problem in the media."

You didn't mean actual evidence, you wanted a pie chart?

Yup.

I concede that my initial request, which you quoted, was not well-worded at all.

Humans have a notorious weakness for generalizing from a few anecdotes. And there is also the "availability bias" - if information about a recent event "X" is easily "available" (for example, people are talking about X a lot), we tend to greatly exaggerate the frequency of events like X. So, for example, when the media went on forever about that disappeared airliner, people will greatly inflate the risk of that sort of thing happening.

Examples are of very little value. I can think of quite a number of examples of people I know who have not looked after their health and lived to old age. But this is hardly an argument for the view that looking after ourselves does not matter.

 

[Rion]

Not a fan of polls, but here's some on how people saw it:

Voters See More Anti-Trump, Pro-Hillary Bias in Media - Rasmussen Reports™

America now shunning the news media after 2016 election

Poll: Majority of voters believe media biased against Trump

Here's the NYT admitting it
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/...-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html

MSNBC

 

[bhsmte]

Perhaps I was not clear. It is no surprise that there are examples - and perhaps plenty of them - of dishonesty in media. But simply reporting examples can be misleading - what really matters is the "rate" of dishonest reporting: what fraction of pronouncements by the media are intentionally distorted.

As i have already commented on, the vast majority of the media doesnt report outright lies. They do tell stories and relate facts in different ways, by downplaying certain facts and overplaying other facts. Then, you do, have your complete ideological shills, like a hannity on fox and a van jones on cnn, which will both completely ignore facts that go against their ideology. Not hard to filter those folks out though, if a person has any semblance of objectivity about them.

 

[rambot]

I get tired of repeating myself.

Honestly, I know how frustrating it can be to have to do that. I appreciate that you hunted down that last post to prove your point.

However, I was not talking about the entirety of politifact. I was simply stated that they called out Obama too. And then I provided EVIDENCE of that.

You are welcome to call into question their complete impartiality, but you can't deny that they DID label Obama as having lied during his tenure.

Lastly, I know you are not a Trump supporter. I mistyped "more" when I should have said "moment" and I can see the implication there, but I know you are not a supporter.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Gen Kelly is a good man, and as former SOUTHCOM Commander of forces in Latin America, he understands the region well and has good relations with the countries.

...I am waiting to see how long he puts up with the disrespectful garbage coming from his boss's mouth. Soldiers have their limits too....

People really believe military, and intelligence agencies are stapled to the hip of the sitting administration.

This isn't true at all, which is why there is such a thing as a coup (which is happening in the States now.)

There are many soldiers who are simply for the American people - no matter the administration.

And, they take seriously the charge to defend the constitution from foreign or domestic tyranny - even if the people don't know how to tell the threat themselves.

 

[expos4ever]

As i have already commented on, the vast majority of the media doesnt report outright lies.

I agree. And while such data might not be available, it would be good to be able to back up this claim of yours (which I agree with) with some "hard data". I find it incredibly hard to imagine that the mainstream media systematically lies and distorts even though those who have drunk the orange kool-aid would have us believe otherwise.