WHY is the media supporting him?

[KentuckyWoman]

They colluded to push him to the top of the R race in 2016 - I blame American media far more than Russian internet bots and hacked vote counts.

But they were shining a light on a lot of crap against him for awhile. Now they've collectively backed off and are pretty much opening supporting him again.

It can't be ratings. Shining a never ending light on the huge pile of crap that is this Admin is ratings. I am not of the belief all of them are dupes for Putin. I can't believe every single person with any say at any MSM is willing to see the world go to hell in a handbasket to keep the ratings from this farce around 4 more years.

What happened? Why are they ALL pretty much supporting the crime syndicate?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. How did you get that impression?

It looks to me like most of the media, especially the print media, have been pounding him pretty hard lately. Read any WaPo or NYT editorials lately? They've been scathing.

[KentuckyWoman]

6. Just really within the last few weeks.

I'm mostly an ABC person - I like David Muir. But I look at a lot of sources. I feel like they were letting him have it pretty good. But it seems there has been a shift in the last few weeks. Across the board. A softening of the stance against him. Subtle things, choosing pics more flattering of him - toning down the remarks about the latest hit to the Admin... etc.

I can see them shifting back to supporting him and it bothers me more than it should. I hope you are correct and I'm wrong. I really do.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. I don't watch network news so I can't comment, but cable news

(except for Fox, of course) has been critical. They do, of course, interview GOPers in order to seem "fair," but the commentary has been generally merciless on CNN and MSNBC. While it's true that media companies are owned by billionaires, that hasn't stopped the Washington Post's editorial board from regularly publishing scathing editorials. My local paper, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, is owned by a wealthy GOPer but its editorial board has been very negative toward Trump and his wrongdoing. In order to be successful they have to pay attention to public opinion, and if people don't watch their programming, apply pressure to their advertisers or cancel their subscriptions because they support Trump too much, that cuts into their bottom line more directly and immediately than promises of tax cuts.

[greatauntoftriplets]

11. + 1,000

[dalton99a]

2. The corporate media is owned by billionaires.

[FoxNewsSucks]

3. Media is owned by corporations and billionaires.

They're either rightwing, concerned only with their own deregulation and tax cuts, or both.

[rainy]

29. This is it we need publicly funded elections

lasting maybe 3 months. The money spent on all campaigns in this country could be spent in ways that advance humanity rather than the BS that it funds through elections.

[tman]

4. He's a gift to the media. Even the NYT

They love him and they love to hate him.

He's the ultimate fusion of politics and entertainment.

I made a post in mid 2016 claiming the media would LOVE a trump presidency. They've been pushing it since 2011.

[RKP5637]

5. Often it's all about big money and ratings ... and FCC rules, etc. Big money loves big money and if

they feel tRump is big money they will help him, especially if his outrageousness brings more views and hence profitability. Also, the president can influence FCC rules on corporate broadcasting and might rule something not in their favor. As George Carlin might have said ... It's a game they play and we ain't part of it!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. That's a bit too simplistic. Of course Trump is news; he's the president

and he's as weird AF every day. They can't very well ignore him. But he's unpopular with a majority of Americans, and if too many people stop watching news shows or cancel newspaper subscriptions or put pressure on advertisers, that's a direct hit on those businesses' bottom lines. We've seen over and over that companies have stopped advertising on certain shows (especially on Fox) because of public pressure, commentators have been fired, and newspapers have lost subscribers. These things matter to these media companies at least as much as, and probably more than, perceived or hoped-for favorable treatment by a president who is disliked by almost 2/3 of the population.

The FCC doesn't regulate cable news, btw.

[RKP5637]

18. Thanks for this additional insight!

[smirkymonkey]

17. But controversy is controversy and will always sell, whether it is pro or anti-Trump.

Since a majority of people in this country despise Trump, why help him? It will only make those of us who hate him tune out. It should be a numbers thing. I am not going to watch a network that paints him and his administration favorably.

Even the billionaires who run the networks should understand that. They might love their tax cuts, but they should also understand that support for an increasingly unpopular president is going to damage their brand. They, like most republicans, are very short-sighted. This is not going to turn out well for any of them.

[RKP5637]

21. Rupert Murdoch IMO has changed the entire political landscape of the US with Fox News, etc.

I seldom see it discussed what he has done to the US with Fox News and the like.

[smirkymonkey]

22. He's got one foot in the grave.

I can't wait until that old bastard finally drops off the mortal coil for good. Apparently his children are not on board with his extreme right-wing views.

[RKP5637]

24. Same here, the guy is really king of the deplorables ... well, along with tRump. I think he had

married a liberal wife ... some thought that might change him ... but that's about all I know.

[J_William_Ryan]

7. As already correctly noted:

it's about ratings, money, and greed.

Another four years of Trump would be a boon to corporate media.

[mucifer]

9. If I hear one more snarky comment about "closed door meetings" from the msm

grrrr I am so sick of it.

They don't care about history and that this is how it has been done. They just parrot that talking point. That one in particular really has caught on.

However, they do recognize the Ukraine political pressure was messed up.

[mahina]

34. What pisses them off is that the closed door meetings are effective.

[Dem4Life1102]

12. Don't forget

They ran more stories about Clinton’s emails than any other issue.

[Mike 03]

13. Maybe what's happening is that some of us are hypersensitive to republican talking points.

I know I am. CNN and MSNBC seemed to be doing an extra good job of focusing on the real issues until about a week or ten days ago when I began to notice they were giving more breathing room to republican talking points, especially about whether the Impeachment Inquiry was fair and open, etc... I heard anchors say, "Well maybe they have a point" or "do they have a point?" Something that little could really set me off because of my hypersensitivity right now. It's hard to be objective about this, I admit. To me, even allowing a republican on any media whatsoever is a grave offense, which I know is ridiculous.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. THIS

and especially Schmuck Toad. I normally don't watch him but with all the inquiry procedure resolution discussions (and lead-up to the vote) going on last week, I decided to turn the TV on a bit earlier, and watched how him slide right back into his usual clueless howdy-doody-style "but what if...?" and "but what about...?" nonsense, barely a week or two after finally growing a pair and cutting off the lying gish gallop that the GOP has mastered and spews whenever on TV.

[GeorgeGist]

14. Most MSM is owned by Republicans.

[Wounded Bear]

15. They're all about the ratings, so they need a horse race...

Follow the money, even in the media.

[tblue37]

16. 1) ratings; 2) kompromat nt

[moondust]

20. Owners hooked on unbridled greed.

What could be better for unbridled greed than an incompetent government too bumbling and clueless to enforce laws and prosecute criminal behavior? An incompetent government that's also too corrupt to even want to enforce laws and prosecute their fellow mobsters if there's something in it for them (emoluments, campaign donations, etc.).

[mountain grammy]

23. Actual media quotes

The president remained on message. The president was tough. Are they serious? He’s a raving lunatic. Going out of their way to make it all normal.

[maryellen99]

25. They want to cover the chaos that trump creates

They want trump to start WW3/nuclear because they want to cover the panic prepping/rioting like the grocery store scene in The Day After.

[durablend]

27. Think of the ratings for a civil war!

Liberals being shot in the street? Ratings GOLD!

[maryellen99]

32. Yep nt

[Baked Potato]

26. Like a mob boss does, he spreads the wealth around to keep critics quiet

His tax cuts for the wealthy are a powerful incentive for those reaping the benefits to stay mum. This is a given from the old GOP playbook. The media, as corporations, live on ratings. And this MoFo gets the eyeballs on the screens. The MSM has to appear at last a little “fair”, so we get the whatabout BS.

It’s all about sales. Anything to get the sale, morals and logic and damage to the country doesn’t mean anything.

“Money, get back
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack
Money, it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit
I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet”

From Money, Pink Floyd

[Recursion]

28. Every single news outlet, even the liberal ones, is more profitable now

He makes them a LOT of money

[IcyPeas]

30. when he is finally out of office

what is the media going to do? what is going to fill the donald gap when he's gone? they are loving this. every.friggen.day.24/7.

[tenderfoot]

31. I think the media LOVES this shit. It's their ultimate reality show!

Their primary goal is to keep the public in a perpetual state of FEAR and ANGER.

The boardrooms of media outlets are stocked with awful people just like Trump.

This is their creation and don't want it to stop.

[Baltimike]

33. Because the "liberl media" has been the conservative press all along. nt

[Igel]

35. I don't think they were.

A few sources, sure. But even some fairly conservative ones may support one policy or action and damn him with the next breath. Between trumpista and never-Trumper is a wide swath of opinion on the right, but it's barely noticeable because the first bit of support for one policy tars them forever, and anything less than absolutely damning is then seen as covert or subtle support. A Russian proverb says that the Devil isn't as black as they paint him; that's true for all humans, as well. Even Stalin had good points, however much it hurts to say that of the killer of more people than Hitler.

Otherwise, what we have is the hostile media effect. When you're entitled to being told you're right, equality seems like oppression.

Personally, I think that should be elevated to the status of cognitive bias. Two people hear the same report back about what somebody said, and they come away with different views. They hear the same conversation, and it's hard reconciling the two reports. It's not just what's in "the media".