Democracies risk 'losing souls' as media freedom erodes, group says

[Frederick Foresight]

First, the so-called "Muslim ban". Trump's plan to ban refugees from a source of countries is really not all that different from when Obama did it in 2011. The media, of course, attacked Trump and called him a racist. Back then, not a peep from the media about Obama. I won't provide links to the attacks on Trump because if you haven't seen them yet, you're not a member of the same planet.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/

Media elites attacked Trump for singling out CNN, but never said a damned thing for Obama going after Fox News repeatedly.

You're comparing a legitimate news source watched and respected around the world with Fox? Fox?! Good one.

Media goes after every gaffe Trump makes (and there are quite a few) like the electoral college one, or the Nazi one Spicer made, but not a peep about the Obama 57 states comment, or when Obama said the tornado in Kansas killed 10,000 people, when it only killed 12...stupid crap I remember. Simple mistakes but one sided coverage.

So you're saying the media did not report any of this?

Or how about the big one where Trump's audio tape is a feeding frenzy, but no stories on women coming forward on sexual assault claims/harassment from the Clintons, etc.?

So you're saying Clinton got a pass? No stories on women coming forward? Revisionist much?

After Mr. Trump won the nomination, press coverage turned sharply negative, with 61 percent of the stories generated on him being oppositional, according to a recent Harvard University study.

Comparatively, seventy-one percent of the coverage of Mr. Obama during the 2008 campaign was positive or neutral, with only 29 percent negative, according to a Pew Research Center study.

I would suggest that Trump gives the media much more to work with than Obama ever did. You're looking at tit-for-tat, when one of the men is a Constitutional scholar while the other is a carnival barker who made and broke more promises than any other president in his first 100 days. All in the name of "truthful hyperbole," of course.

 

[Max E.]

You're comparing a legitimate news source watched and respected around the world with Fox? Fox?! Good one.

Legitimate in whose eyes? Certainly not the majority of the country's, as polls put the MSM as low as congress and cockroaches, the only people Trump can legitimately claim to be winning against at this point is the MSM.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Legitimate in whose eyes? Certainly not the majority of the country's, as polls put the MSM as low as congress and cockroaches, the only people Trump can legitimately claim to be winning against at this point is the MSM.

Republicans are fueling the drop in media trust.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx

You were saying something about cockroaches...

 

[Max E.]

So if the media has become so dishonest, that even the people who they are siding with are at all time lows in terms of confidence, you chalk that up as a win?

When less than 1 in three people with no political leaning whatsoever have trust in the media is that a good state of affairs?

Republicans are fueling the drop in media trust.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx

You were saying something about cockroaches...

 

[java]

Republicans are fueling the drop in media trust.

ha,ha, You think the poll would be more accurate if they eliminated the republican response, ha,hahahahahah

 

[Frederick Foresight]

So if the media has become so dishonest, that even the people who they are siding with are at all time lows in terms of confidence, you chalk that up as a win?

I'm saying that the distrust is skewed and overstated. Republicans don't hear their narrative in the MSM, so they go to their hidey-hole "news" sources like Fox, Breitbart, Zerohedge, RT and so on to get their daily fix of "information."

The thinking public sees the rise of these pseudo news sources and begins to question the media's overall integrity and wrinkles its collective nose. But we all know which side the fart came from.

 

[Max E.]

Republicans don't hear their narrative in the MSM, so they go to their hidey-hole "news" sources like Fox, Breitbart, Zerohedge, RT and so on to get their daily fix of "information."

I for one dont listen to fox cause id rather listen to CNN which is basically the opposition viewpoint at this point.

But how are republicans who go to fox, breitbart, and zerohedge any different than democrats who go to CNN, Huffington Post, and change.org, or mediamatters?

 

[java]

I'm saying that the distrust is skewed and overstated. Republicans don't hear their narrative in the MSM, so they go to their hidey-hole "news" sources like Fox, Breitbart, Zerohedge, RT and so on to get their daily fix of "information."

The thinking public sees the rise of these pseudo news sources and begins to question the media's overall integrity and wrinkles its collective nose. But we all know which side the fart came from.

So now you have decided the republican narrative should not be heard.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

But how are republicans who go to fox, breitbart, and zerohedge any different than democrats who go to CNN, Huffington Post, and change.org, or mediamatters?

If you can't tell the difference in integrity, then we're at an impasse.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

So now you have decided the republican narrative should not be heard.

I refer to narrative as distinct from fact. I bet you cringe every time you see one of these: