Is the media to blame for the rise of Trump?

[Beet]

Yes, of course. Trump's entire career outside of real estate has been in the media. The media blasted Trump's rallies 24/7 the whole campaign season. They were the pied piper that led liberals down the path of attacking him over his words, rather than what would have really damaged him politically. They hammered Hillary Clinton over her e-mails until there was nothing left of her image but E-Mail. Meanwhile, they successfully painted themselves into a corner of seeming anti-Trump. In reality, they thrive off him. They have turned around entire newspapers, the failing New York Times now has more subscriptions ever thanks to him. They secretly love him. The entire lot of them all-- Trump, the media, the CIA-- bread and circuses. Just bread and circuses. They are all in cahoots at the end.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes, partly.

[Mr. Reactionary]

They friggin crowned him in the primary. He got what, 95% of media coverage in that primary?

[Mr. Smith]

Duh!

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No, not really. Fame is not equivalent to votes. People did not reject Paul and Sanders because they didn't know they existed, it was because there aren't that many ideological purists in America (and that's sad). People didn't vote for Trump because they knew he existed, but because they felt he was the best candidate on the economy.

[Mr. Morden]

No, not really. Fame is not equivalent to votes. People did not reject Paul and Sanders because they didn't know they existed, it was because there aren't that many ideological purists in America (and that's sad). People didn't vote for Trump because they knew he existed, but because they felt he was the best candidate on the economy.

It’s not just about knowing they exist.  It’s also providing them a platform for their message.  This is especially important in a primary campaign, when most voters have multiple candidates in their party who they like and could be persuaded to vote for, they’re probably going to be more likely to gravitate towards the candidate who they hear from most.  Why do you think candidates spend money on advertising?  To get their message out.  And Trump got over 60% of the media coverage in the crowded GOP primary field:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump-hacked-the-media/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No, not really. Fame is not equivalent to votes. People did not reject Paul and Sanders because they didn't know they existed, it was because there aren't that many ideological purists in America (and that's sad). People didn't vote for Trump because they knew he existed, but because they felt he was the best candidate on the economy.

It’s not just about knowing they exist.  It’s also providing them a platform for their message.  This is especially important in a primary campaign, when most voters have multiple candidates in their party who they like and could be persuaded to vote for, they’re probably going to be more likely to gravitate towards the candidate who they hear from most.  Why do you think candidates spend money on advertising?  To get their message out.  And Trump got over 60% of the media coverage in the crowded GOP primary field:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump-hacked-the-media/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/07/20/why-is-trump-surging-blame-the-media/?utm_term=.09193ee374ae

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reason Trump got so much media attention was, firstly, the sheer uniqueness of it, then, secondly, the fact he quickly became the Republican front-runner. Nothing more complicated to it than that. Five days after the announcement of Trump's candidacy, his share of coverage was less than that of the standard-issue GOP candidate five days after his respective announcement. But, then, the first post-Trump-announcement polls started coming out, placing him second in New Hampshire:

https://www.fitsnews.com/2015/06/23/donald-trump-surges-in-new-hampshire-poll/

, and Trump's share of coverage swiftly skyrocketed. If Trump's poll #s a week after his announcement weren't showing a 10-point spike just after his announcement, he also would have been swiftly ignored by the press. Ben Carson also somehow became the front-runner for a few days despite a dearth of media coverage of his campaign. Candidates quickly get more coverage when they become the frontrunner. Nothing more to it than that.

I remember Rick Perry getting quite a lot of media coverage, too. Didn't help him at all. Same with Giuliani. Media doesn't make candidates. You can't polish a Bush, and you can't take down a Trump.

[Vosem]

Media coverage is insufficient to give candidates a victory, but the lack of it can doom candidates. The sheer monopoly Trump enjoyed on coverage (which other frontrunners, like Hillary in 2016 or 2008, or Romney in 2012, never had) played a big part in his victory, though it's not a complete explanation.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I ask again, in what universe does barely more coverage than Jeb! in his first month of running count as a "monopoly"?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I ask again, in what universe does barely more coverage than Jeb! in his first month of running count as a "monopoly"?

Because the campaign lasted more than a month.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I ask again, in what universe does barely more coverage than Jeb! in his first month of running count as a "monopoly"?

Because the campaign lasted more than a month.

-Yes. Why?

[OSR stands with Israel]

The fact that they hid the access Hollywood tapes all the way till October proves they wanted him to win the primary because they thought he would cause the GOP to go down in defeat. The fact is they should have released the tapes before the New Hampshire or South Carolina Primaries if they were truly being honest . The media should not hide things from the voters , thats called being dishonest.

[parochial boy]

Neoliberalism is to blame for the rise of Trump. The media was incidental in comparison.

[Phony Moderate]

(Understandable) Hatred of the media is one of the few things that the Trump and Clinton bases have in common.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I ask again, in what universe does barely more coverage than Jeb! in his first month of running count as a "monopoly"?

Because the campaign lasted more than a month.

-Yes. Why?

Because the candidates announced in early 2015 and the Iowa caucus was in early 2016. By the time we got to Dec. 2015 the media was pretty much only talking about Trump. The primary was framed as "can trump be stopped" rather than a more neutral "who will win".

[Antonio the Sixth]

Neoliberalism is to blame for the rise of Trump. The media was incidental in comparison.

The reason the media sucks right now has everything to do with neoliberalism though.

[Maxwell]

nobody ever blames the right for the rise of Trump, who not only voted for him overwhelmingly in the primaries but PUT HIM IN THE GOD DAMN WHITE HOUSE.

[Illiniwek]

Reality TV media is partly to blame, not the news media.

nobody ever blames the right for the rise of Trump, who not only voted for him overwhelmingly in the primaries but PUT HIM IN THE GOD DAMN WHITE HOUSE.

Exactly. Also, I will not give those people a pass because they were angry and wanted things to change. Wanting to change the status quo is a reasonable stance, but doing it by putting the most destructive person into office is a HP way to do things.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I ask again, in what universe does barely more coverage than Jeb! in his first month of running count as a "monopoly"?

Because the campaign lasted more than a month.

-Yes. Why?

Because the candidates announced in early 2015 and the Iowa caucus was in early 2016. By the time we got to Dec. 2015 the media was pretty much only talking about Trump. The primary was framed as "can trump be stopped" rather than a more neutral "who will win".

-He was more dominant in the polls than Romney was at the time; give the media a break in this case.

The most destructive person out there was probably Christie or Rubio. You should thank us Trump supporters you didn't get them.

[dead0man]

They certainly played a part.  Other people to blame:
obviously the people that voted for Trump in the primaries share a good chunk
to a slightly lesser extent, those who voted for him in the election
<those are the two biggest groups to blame, obviously, but they couldn't have done it by themselves>
the people running the DNC for, well, a ton of sh**t
the people running the GOP for giving us a field that was just garbage, mostly boring garbage
the press for the reasons mentioned in the thread
Hillary for somehow being a worse candidate than Trump (but the DNC takes a bigger chunk of the blame than she does for their shenanigans in making sure she got the nomination)

[Leinad]

Definitely partially. It was a combination of an environment that Trump tapped into (he filled a niche of being anti-establishment without being ideological like a Cruz, which was exactly what the people wanted but weren't getting elsewhere), the media talking about him constantly, and no one being able to unify to stop him.

And then in the general he ran against maybe the only person more disliked than him.

[Deblano]

They friggin crowned him in the primary. He got what, 95% of media coverage in that primary?

There were reports that the DNC/Democrats/Media gave more attention to candidates like Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson because they felt that they would be easy for Hillary to beat if they won the nomination.

....OOPS!

[GoTfan]

After Bernie won a primary, they literally showed footage of an empty lectern waiting fro Trump to speak.

That say all I need to know, really.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

After Bernie won a primary, they literally showed footage of an empty lectern waiting fro Trump to speak.

That say all I need to know, really.

-Because they knew Trump was much, much more likely to win the nomination of his respective party than Bernie.

[ApatheticAustrian]

nah...the people are.

the media can only enhance stuff which is there before.