General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSomething's happening here... (media upheaval)
So Fox dropped like a rock to third behind MSNBC and CNN. The loss of Ailes and O'Reilly were devastating.
iHeart radio is, by all accounts, going to be lucky to make it to the end of the year.
The New York Times and The Washington Post appear to be in an all out "scoop"/BREAKING NEWS War and it looks like McClatchy is getting into the fertile hunting grounds of the Trump scandalS too.
Frankly, to me, all of the media holds a majority of the blame for the clustertrump getting in office. TV "news" really sells drama and the almighty dollar still rules but this has been nice to see.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)by acting like the Fourth Estate again..
get the red out
(13,460 posts)It would be in the country's best interest for sure.
world wide wally
(21,734 posts)If they continue to play dumb to Trumps wanting to eliminate the free press, they won't be able to make a living when state run media takes over.
GoCubsGo
(32,073 posts)Comrade Trump basically declared the media enemies of the people. They no longer have any reasons to kow-tow to him.
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)Remember Matt Laer. Maddow and Matthews did, until it was possible she could lose. They all did.
The Guardian was pretty consistent and supportive all along...I think after Brexit they knew what propaganda could do.
Now, we are in a fight for our democracy. Without NYT& Washington Post, these stories wouldn't be out.
Buzz Feed published the dossier.
ProfessorPlum
(11,253 posts)Alice11111
(5,730 posts)She is the best journalist on TV now, plus she has integrity. (In her early years, sometimes she would leave out some of the facts, and many people boycotted her, including me, but she has grown & she is straight up now, IMO.) However, though she was not as intense as some, earlier on, even in the general election, she did attack or give a podium for others to attack Hillary. For example, she gave KellyAnne Conway an entire hour, very friendly, with almost no push back, to boast about DT and attack Hillary.
She pulled back more quickly than some with her negative reporting. (I won't even go in to or criticize her for the primaries, but a lot of damage was done then, so much that many times, I couldn't even watch her, and I like Bernie.)
I am not going to focus on her, because she was the least of those on TV that degraded Hillary, while giving DT free reign. Also, once she got it, that the media were going to cause DT to be elected (it was one of many factors), she rolled up her sleeves and went to work. ..but it could have been earlier. In the last several weeks before the election, she was 100pc on top of everything.
On election night, I was watching Maddow, Matthews & others report, as the telling results were coming in. They were fighting back tears, as most of us were. I and others were thinking and saying, but you did your part, especially Matthews. I believe RM would even say that.
Matthews was much worse and he went on for longer into the general election, often attaking Hillary. I'm not saying Hillary did everything right, but it was about ratings and giving audiences red meat, IMO. In the hour immediately before one of the debates (I think it was the second one?), he gave KellyAnne a full hour, in which he glowed at everything she said, to set up the debate by degrading Hillary and promoting DT.
CNN was even worse, with their awful panels. The false Equivalency of giving someone like Kayleigh Repub airhead equal time to someone like David Gergan or Paul Begala, who have had years of experience, was
disgusting . This has been discussed quite a bit in the media, on both CNN & MSNBC.
I got and still do get most of my news from print...NYT, Washington Post, New Yorker, and others. However, most of America gets their news from TV. The false equivalency of the TV media, pretty much all of it, of giving equal time and criticism to Hillary and DT was a factor that caused a lot of middle America to not support Hillary, either by not voting or voting for a 3rd party or DT.
With DT, there were so many breaking scandles that the media could hardly keep up with them, but for Hillary's time, it was the emails, the emails.
unblock
(52,112 posts)or at least an anti-trump network.
there might be something to the idea that the "out" party is going to be the source of more enthusiastic consumers of news as they seek consolation, righteous anger, scandal, etc.
in any event, i think our time has come, i think msnbc's timing in tilting to the right now is horrendous from a purely commercial point of view.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)draw Fox viewers. Problem is, Fox viewers are so invested in hard-core lies that they cannot be wooed with honest information. Truth has to be abandoned to satisfy them and build the ratings numbers.
I no longer watch either except for Rachel and O'Donnell, but just this morning on my way past I saw Fox alpha bitch Allison Camerota and WaPo's offering to the right, Chris Cillizza, serving up Fox-grade right-wing spin together on CNN. And, of course, Katie Tur turned out to be a ruthless Fox-grade attacker also.
Amaryllis
(9,524 posts)Great video by Vox that unpacks their spin techniques.
american_ideals
(613 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)was definitely worth viewing and the read.
Amaryllis
(9,524 posts)teach middle school kids advertising techniques (9 out of 10 doctors say...etc.) and it is very useful to be able to identify specifics when watching manipulation techniques. Thinking of sending to a few friends and relatives who are Fox watchers, but they would most likely think it is just propaganda.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)what'd be to lose? Otoh, I noticed someone here on DU badmouthing Vox for an article on fake news, so likely foxers tossed it in the MSM trash bin as soon as it was created.
I signed up for a MOOC once on understanding how political arguments are framed and techniques for countering and prevailing. The various techniques illustrated were very interesting, but like any skill would need a lot of practice to get competent at.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)But I haven't watched her enough, apparently.
rurallib
(62,373 posts)what little liberal media there is.
Can't run an outlet without money and the left community is now trying to keep many projects and candidates afloat with small contributions.
Our portion of the media landscape looks like this AFAIK:
- 3 hours a night on MSNBC - Hayes, Maddow and O'Donnell
- Free speech TV which is totally supported by contributors (we give to them)
- shows like Thom Hartmann, Steph Miller and Democracy Now are syndicated but the markets for them are small.
- Radio: Pacifica is like a network unto itself. To be honest I don't know a lot about them other than most are local and some low power. Democracy Now is their most notable program.
- Commercial radio: There are a few scattered around the country. KTNF in Minneapolis and WCPT in Chicago are the ones I am aware of. Compare that to the hundreds that carry Limbaugh and his ilk.
- Sirius has two or three liberal stations. That's about it.
- If you've listened to NPR lately, I am sure you wouldn't include it in the list.
- Newspapers? No really liberal newspapers I am aware of. I'd love to be enlightened. There are few independents any more. Most are owned by one of the corporates such as Gannet, Tribune or Lee.
- right now we have a solid presence on the internet, but the FCC is looking to kill that in a couple of months. Well, not kill but make it harder to get to.
There is probably a a hunger for real news and differing opinions, but with limited bandwidth for TV and radio and with most of that owned by the right wing, I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope. With the FCC trying to limit opportunity on the internet expect that to dry up also.
Sorry if I am such a Debbie Downer. Maybe I really went off on a rant that has little to do with your post.
This is what frustrates me so. In a truly open market we could compete, but the right has totally stacked the deck in their favor.
unblock
(52,112 posts)when i said "commercial interest" i really was thinking more in terms of an audience.
you're right, though, you need advertisers, and unfortunately while there are plenty of advertisers happy to go all-in on right-wing sources, there doesn't seem to be a comparable contingent willing to go left.
Volaris
(10,266 posts)That NEWSROOM has to be revenue-neutral at least. Feel free to make as much dirty money as u want with other broadcast ENTERTAINMENT endeavors, but news has to be treated as a Public Service. If you don't operate that way, FCC require you to plug your show AS ENTERTAINMENT before and after each commercial break you're making money off of.
Rush Limbaugh would be off the air in 45 days, wouldn't he?
mwooldri
(10,299 posts)If I were dictator... I'd abolish the FCC and set up the Federal Broadcasting Authority. Every broadcaster would have to bid for a license, with a minimum quality threshold. News would have to be impartial. Opinion shows are labelled as such, and opposing views must be aired. I'd also ban political advertising, giving candidates free airtime at election time instead.
So I may be modelling this on the UK's Independent Broadcasting Authority, itself abolished by... Conservatives. It was a good model for its time.
The problem is we have this thing called the Internet that can circumvent all of that.
american_ideals
(613 posts)I'd add that the comedians help too. Liberals like to be entertained.
John Oliver
Daily show
Stephen Colbert
Samantha Bee
They are basically all liberal news.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)I still think they are on our side simply because they try to report the news straight up. While I may occasionally disagree with the way they frame a story, I realize I am extremely biased.
But if somehow all the fox listeners suddenly switched to NPR most of our troubles would end.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,046 posts)So it is much easier to pander to the most gullible consumers - right wingers
Corporations that own networks and their advertisers do not want to promote or support through advertising a pro-worker, pro-environment, pro-consumer messages.
The problem is not on the demand side, it's the supply side that supports right-wing media.
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)only now the drama is about Trump get impeached.
Warpy
(111,120 posts)When there is something legitimate to report, they report rumors to keep running the one story into the ground. Otherwise, they lie by omission. People who want to be informed would be wise to switch to print with digital subscriptions to decent big city newspapers and magazines that print in depth stories.
progressoid
(49,929 posts)It was unbearable. I especially can't stand the incessant panels of talking heads bleating their tiresome opinions about the latest trending topic.
Warpy
(111,120 posts)so I tried CNN--for about 10 minutes. The breathless delivery in bafflegab of minutiae that would cause the end of life as we know it was not going to contribute to my recovery. I finally found CSI reruns to watch when I wasn't zonked on oxy for my broken leg.
progressoid
(49,929 posts)Alice11111
(5,730 posts)Voltaire2
(12,939 posts)genxlib
(5,518 posts)IN regards to the media's culpability on getting cheeto elected...
I think the blame is largely on the new media. Primarily cable news and to a lesser degree network news.
Online sources were almost as bad and were definitely made worse by the rampant fake news that was interwoven among the typical news sources.
However, with one notable exception, I think the print media did their job. That notable exception was the AP hit job on the Clinton Foundation. But other than that, there was plenty of written reporting about what Trump actually was. The problem was that it rarely made it to the much brighter and louder atmosphere of the TV.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)The print media (for the most part) did their jobs but it's hard to compete against the idiot box that confirms your bias depending on what you watch.
Ligyron
(7,615 posts)That's what my Mom called it and I carry on the tradition.
BumRushDaShow
(128,371 posts)And that is what it continues to be!
FSogol
(45,435 posts)DeminPennswoods
(15,265 posts)nt
Amaryllis
(9,524 posts)underpants
(182,584 posts)oasis
(49,317 posts)How does this kind of journalism put America first?
I wonder how long university and college journalism instructors have been using Fox as a horrible example of journalistic ethics and professionalism.
With the exception of Liberty College and Bob Jones University.
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)So true that if that is all they hear, it sounds normal. I always check when there is a major story against the Repubs, that every newspaper in the world is covering, if Fox is covering it. Often, they do not, or if it becomes big enough that their viewers are probably hearing about it, they undermine it. It is not news, unless it's covering tornados or terrorist attacks.
The Wielding Truth
(11,411 posts)Lies cannot live in sunshine. When people hear the truth the lies can not stand and people turn to the places where the truth can be found.
tandem5
(2,072 posts)now the infectious material is spreading about.
Amaryllis
(9,524 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)Put them in pens at the back of the room and insults them daily. It's time they got in the fight against him.
BamaRefugee
(3,483 posts)Newspapers and TV shows don't generate much money when everything is groovy. Pretty sure the "media" is very happy with the way things are, and don't really have an interest in it going away
alfredo
(60,071 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,936 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Legitimate media publishes real news. So there's that. But also, it reports on what people want to see and hear about. It's not the opposite way around, with people just accepting what the media wants to tell them about.
TV media has a LOT of time to fill. That's part of the problem. But ratings has always been the name of the game. Before tv, newspapers rose and fell on subscriptions...how many people read their paper & subscribed to it.
underpants
(182,584 posts)His amount of airtime was astounding. There was one day where he was going to exhibit all his products (most of which had failed) and the prep,for the news event was carried live. At the same time Bernie, who drew "Trump sized crowds" before Trump was in the race, had 20,000 people at a rally - no coverage.
It was estimated during the primaries that he had received $2 Million of free air time. Ted Cruz even mentioned that in a debate. When Trump ran out of primary money waiting for the nomination he put out a statement that he was going to rely on media coverage - because he's so great- aaaaand he got it.
50-60% was about airtime.
Chemisse
(30,802 posts)The media bears a big chunk of the responsibility for this.
underpants
(182,584 posts)Generic Brad
(14,272 posts)They need to drop the over the top shills if they are to become watchable in my home.
pnwmom
(108,952 posts)especially the Washington Post and Newsweek.
And now the NYTimes seems to be trying harder, too.
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)impossible to turn on the TV without seeing his mug.
underpants
(182,584 posts)My mistake.
wishstar
(5,267 posts)I emailed ABC/Stephananopoulis to complain since Trump was the only candidate getting this constant exposure where he was allowed to dominate the coverage spreading his messages virtually unchallenged. Just one example of the media bias.
underpants
(182,584 posts)He prepped the battlefield on them. Everyonday morning for several years before he ran. The hosts just sat there and nodded while he spewed his birther and tough guy bulls---
Ailes had to agree or it wouldn't have happened.
not fooled
(5,801 posts)2 BILLION in free airtime for the dumpster.
underpants
(182,584 posts)My mistake.
MrPurple
(985 posts)When was there ever live coverage of a John Kasich speech, or any of the other Republican candidates? It is a massive advantage for one candidate to be on tv for hours every day while the other ones aren't shown at all.
Same thing for Bernie & Hillary. Whether people thought Trump was a horrible car wreck or something they like, the networks felt that channel surfing people were more like to watch it and boost their ratings the most. MSNBC and CNN were just as bad as Fox.
There used to be an equal time rule for people running for office on tv. Trump is the eventual result of our degraded infotainment media.
GatorDem82
(36 posts)What's the situation with iHeartRadio?
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)They're still the same assholes that they were when they had the old name. Personally, I blame them for ruining music radio stations in this country, because all they play is garbage on repeat these days. And that's not to mention their investment in winger talk radio.
When and iHeartRadio dies, I'm going to jump for joy.
underpants
(182,584 posts)underpants
(182,584 posts)Cha
(296,751 posts)thinking hiring greta and acti like LO'D is replaceable with brian I've lied about my exploits Williams?
Nitram
(22,755 posts)office." Right wing media supported Trump 100%, mainstream media publicized and criticized every stupid move he made to no avail. Trump won because:
1. Too many Americans are racists.
2. The right wing media, Republican investigations, Russian propaganda on social media, and a timely insertion by FBI Director Comey cast just enough doubt on Clinton to persuade just enough liberals and moderates not to vote.
3. Too many Americans would not vote for a woman for president, including many women.