Trust in media is at record lows

[Larniavc]

In an ideal world, the media would not be "favorable" toward anyone.

Yeah and as you say it used to be objective but that was before MAGA.

So what I’m saying is that it cannot be coincidence that when extremist MAGA appeared the news media suddenly becomes biased.

One might argue that MAGA has so normalised lies and misinformation that anything that points it out becomes ‘biased’.

In the before times of the long long ago where MAGA was yet to appear there was much less bias (as you say).

 

[Larniavc]

Interesting hypothesis. I wonder if any Democrats would be willing to post articles from the "mass media" that they disagree with. It would be interesting to see from the Democratic perspective what kind of reporting they believe is accurate but disagree with.

SEAN HANNITY: Donald Trump got down to business at a local McDonald's

Fox News host Sean Hannity reacts to former President Trump working at McDonald's outside of Philadelphia on "Hannity."

www.foxnews.com

This was staged.

 

[probinson]

Yeah and as you say it used to be objective but that was before MAGA.

That's not accurate. If you look at the chart in the OP, you'll see that trust in media has been on a fairly steady downward decline since 1973. Certainly you can't blame MAGA for that.

 

[MrMoe]

I wonder how many of those 58% of Democrats watch MSNBC and consider it a trustworthy news network.

 

[Nithavela]

SEAN HANNITY: Donald Trump got down to business at a local McDonald's

Fox News host Sean Hannity reacts to former President Trump working at McDonald's outside of Philadelphia on "Hannity."

www.foxnews.com

This was staged.

Really? Trump working at a McDonalds was staged? And here I thought he wanted to rustle up some more last minute funds for his campaign by working minimum wage in the drive through.

 

[probinson]

SEAN HANNITY: Donald Trump got down to business at a local McDonald's

Fox News host Sean Hannity reacts to former President Trump working at McDonald's outside of Philadelphia on "Hannity."

www.foxnews.com

This was staged.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Did you really think Trump got a job at McDonald's?

 

[iluvatar5150]

SEAN HANNITY: Donald Trump got down to business at a local McDonald's

Fox News host Sean Hannity reacts to former President Trump working at McDonald's outside of Philadelphia on "Hannity."

www.foxnews.com

This was staged.

 

[KCfromNC]

I suppose that's one theory. A rather arrogant theory IMHO, but a theory nonetheless.

Is "arrogant" better or worse than name calling when a post can't come up with a response of any substance?

 

[KCfromNC]

Or perhaps that Democrats are more able to accept news that does not fit their views.

To be fair, some GOP followers are quite able to accept news about what their candidate really meant to say even when those stories don't line up with news about what he actually said.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Did you really think Trump got a job at McDonald's?

Trump serves McDonald’s fries to supporters in stage-managed campaign stop​

The restaurant was closed to the public during Trump’s visit, and the motorists whom Trump served were screened by the U.S. Secret Service and positioned before his arrival. No one ordered food. Instead, the attendees received whatever Trump gave them.

 

[RoBo1988]

Trump serves McDonald’s fries to supporters in stage-managed campaign stop​

The restaurant was closed to the public during Trump’s visit, and the motorists whom Trump served were screened by the U.S. Secret Service and positioned before his arrival. No one ordered food. Instead, the attendees received whatever Trump gave them.

Harris ' people had patrons of a Primonti Bros restaurant forced out so she could do a photo op

 

[Piers Plowman]

"No one ordered food. Instead, the attendees received whatever Trump gave them."
As an aside: that's an idea I'm interested in trying out. Fast food omakase. Imagine that. A fresh twist, for once.

 

[probinson]

Is "arrogant" better or worse than name calling when a post can't come up with a response of any substance?

"Arrogant" isn't "name-calling". It's an adjective, that means:

Making, or having the disposition to make, exorbitant claims of rank or estimation; giving one's self an undue degree of importance; assuming; haughty; -- applied to persons.​

Your (ludicrous) supposition was that the "facts" tend to align with Democrats, as if Democrats have a monopoly on facts. Your implication is that the reason 68% of people have little or no trust in mass media is because they don't care about facts. That is, by definition, arrogant.

 

[probinson]

Trump serves McDonald’s fries to supporters in stage-managed campaign stop​

The restaurant was closed to the public during Trump’s visit, and the motorists whom Trump served were screened by the U.S. Secret Service and positioned before his arrival. No one ordered food. Instead, the attendees received whatever Trump gave them.

What I find amusing about this article is not that they marvel that Trump was inside a McDonald's serving fries for 15 minutes to pre-screened people in the drive thru, but rather they say that he is pushing an "unsubstantiated claim" that Harris has never worked at McDonald's. In reality, the Harris campaign hasn't been able to provide any proof at all that Harris ever worked at McDonald's beyond the campaign simply asserting it as being so. In the days of real journalism, it may have been the case that the article would have been more truthful and said that Harris has made an "unsubstantiated claim" of working at McDonald's. Indeed, if you read far enough, WaPo finally says this in the 17th paragraph:

Although Harris and McDonald’s have not produced any evidence proving that she worked at the fast-food chain, a short stint of summer employment four decades ago is not likely to have resulted in any permanently preserved records.​

​

Huh. So there is no evidence that Harris worked at McDonald's. WaPo says that no "permanently preserved records" are needed to substantiate Harris' claim. They'll believe Harris simply because she said so. But Trump? He's making "unsubstantiated claims" that she did not work, even though she can't substantiate her claim that she did. I think they may have that backwards.

I worked at Pizza Hut in high school and college. I still have every one of my paystubs from that job from 1994-1995, 30 years ago. Eh, maybe I just keep better records than the Vice President of the United States.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Although Harris and McDonald’s have not produced any evidence proving that she worked at the fast-food chain, a short stint of summer employment four decades ago is not likely to have resulted in any permanently preserved records.​

​

Huh. So there is no evidence that Harris worked at McDonald's. WaPo says that no "permanently preserved records" are needed to substantiate Harris' claim.

The Washington Post clearly states Harris' claim has not been proven by evidence.
The lack of substantiation for a claim does not substantiate that the claim is false.
Trump's claim that her claim is false is unsubstantiated.
Neither claim has been substantiated by evidence.
The Washington Post has neither implied nor said that no evidence is needed to substantiate Harris' claim.

 

[probinson]

The Washington Post clearly states Harris' claim has not been proven by evidence.
The lack of substantiation for a claim does not substantiate that the claim is false.

No. But it does mean it's unsubstantiated.

Trump's claim that her claim is false is unsubstantiated.

That's a silly argument.

"Prove" that I've never worked at Disney World. Go on. I'll wait.

Neither claim has been substantiated by evidence.

Correct. But WaPo calls out only Trump for making an "unsubstantiated claim" while Harris gets a pass for some reason.

The Washington Post has neither implied nor said that no evidence is needed to substantiate Harris' claim.

Sure they did. They offered up the explanation that no "permanently preserved records" would be available for a part-time job decades ago. They're simply taking her at her word.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sure they did. They offered up the explanation that no "permanently preserved records" would be available for a part-time job decades ago. They're simply taking her at her word.

On the contrary, that explains why her claim is unsubstantiated.

 

[probinson]

On the contrary, that explains why her claim is unsubstantiated.

At no point in the article did they say that Harris' claim was "unsubstantiated".

The word "unsubstantiated" appears on that page twice. In the subtitle it says:

Trump didn’t answer a question on the minimum wage, instead promoting his unsubstantiated claim that Kamala Harris never worked at the burger chain​

​

And in the 12th paragraph of the articles, it says this:

Trump’s visit to McDonald’s was not in support of the minimum-wage effort. Instead, he focused on promoting his unsubstantiated claim that Vice President Kamala Harris did not work at the fast-food chain in college.​

​

Those are the only 2 places in the article that the term "unsubstantiated claim" appears.

How does WaPo actually describe Harris' unsubstantiated claim that she worked at McDonald's?

In pro-Trump media, however, the absence of documentation has morphed into proof that Harris lied.​

​

Oh. It's not an "unsubstantiated claim" when Harris does it. No, it's "the absence of documentation".

Two unsubstantiated claims, only one gets called out as such.

 

[essentialsaltes]

At no point in the article did they say that Harris' claim was "unsubstantiated".

substantiate
Similar and opposite words
From Oxford Languages
verb
prove
give proof of
show to be true
...

Although Harris and McDonald’s have not produced any evidence proving that she worked at the fast-food chain

The Washington Post clearly states Harris' claim has not been proven by evidence.

not proven is synonymous with not substantiated, i.e. unsubstantiated.

 

[probinson]

substantiate
Similar and opposite words
From Oxford Languages
verb
prove
give proof of
show to be true
...





not proven is synonymous with not substantiated, i.e. unsubstantiated.

Then why don't they just say "unsubstantiated"? Why the different language? Why doesn't WaPo simply state, "Harris' has continually made the unsubstantiated claim that she worked at McDonald's"?

They instead choose to say she has an "absence of documentation".

The phrase "unsubstantiated claim" carries with it a connotation of dishonesty whereas the phrase "absence of documentation" is a much softer framing.

I do appreciate the example though. It's a prime example of the media writing in a way favorable to the Democrats, which provides some credence to my earlier hypothesis that the reason Democrats trust the media more is because the reporting is more favorable toward them.