I'm disgusted with the media

[Buffalo Bill]

For years and years, the media have been "unbiased". Sure, they've probably skewed liberal, but they've tried to stay impartial. What the hell happened to that!? Since he announced his campaign, the media have been covering Trump nonstop. Every remark he's made, everything he's done. This enabled his name recognition to skyrocket, which let him win the Republican primaries. And now in the general, the media are covering Stormfront/Breitbart conspiracy theories as normal news and not caring about policy.

Why is this? Ratings. Ratings have driven the media insane and have let them become so biased in favor of Trump that they're enabling his candidacy. The media will be singlehandedly responsible for the destruction of our nation and our world, all because they want sweet, sweet cash. It's disgraceful. And it's definitely making a difference in the polls. If Trump wins this election, it's gonna be thanks to the news organizations.

ADDENDUM: And through this entire process, whenever Trump releases a bit of concrete policy, the hail it like a God has come to Earth, while the candidate(s) with actual good plans are ignored. Each side of Trump's flip flops are covered while other candidates' policy plans are never covered at all.

Never heard someone to reject the liberal bias in the media.  Cry me a river.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Atlas is probably the only place that thinks the media is biased in favor of Trump.

It's biased against both candidates. Clinton isn't Obama, who you can genuinely say is liked (possibly a bit too much) by the media and journalists.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Atlas is probably the only place that thinks the media is biased in favor of Trump.

[Buffalo Bill]

Atlas is probably the only place that thinks the media is biased in favor of Trump.

So many whiners it seems.  Blame her progress on something that makes them feel better.  I love it.

[Mr. Smith]

Pretty much I think the election will come down to whether Trump is having a good or bad news cycle in the two weeks before the election.

Yup, that's precisely what happened. 

[Mr. Smith]

I can't help but note that a liberal complains about media bias when it's HIS candidate with the e-mail scandal that becomes The Gift That Keeps On Giving for Donald Trump.  But, yes, Rep LLR is right in his observations.

I noted this in another thread, but the real dumbing down of Presidential campaigns occurred in 1992 when Bill Clinton went on Arsenio Hall and played the sax.  It seemed innocuous enough, but what it represented was a major candidate bypassing the national media and getting his message out through entertainment circles.  Now, the national media have to compete with late night tv, talk shows, talk radio, opinion tv (FOX, MSNBC) and social media, as well as the national news outlets.  Chris Wallace has to compete with Howie Carr, who has to compete with a viral meme on Facebook.  

I would not agree that the media has been easy on Trump.  They've jumped on him, attacked him, stay after him.  Trump just plays the game better; he knows something about how to do media that none of his opponents really get.  I suspect one of those things Trump knows is that there is a lot of things that the media whips itself into a frenzy about that ordinary voters don't give a crap about.  This is why Trump isn't being demolished for not revealing his tax returns; folks really don't care about it enough to change their voting behavior.

Eh, forcing The League of Women Voters onto the backburner in 1988 wasn't exactly a great idea either.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

Atlas is probably the only place that thinks the media is biased in favor of Trump.

[Sestak]

Atlas is probably the only place that thinks the media is biased in favor of Trump.

They clearly aren't biased for him. But a lot of times during the election they ended up helping him anyway.

[IceSpear]

Atlas is probably the only place that thinks the media is biased in favor of Trump.

They clearly aren't biased for him. But a lot of times during the election they ended up helping him anyway.

Yes, they were biased AGAINST Hillary, not FOR Trump. But it helped Trump since politics is a zero sum game. It also helped Bernie. It's been proven by multiple studies that Hillary received by far the most negative coverage of any presidential candidate. Of course, Trump's coverage since becoming president probably dwarfs that.

[twenty42]

Atlas is probably the only place that thinks the media is biased in favor of Trump.

They clearly aren't biased for him. But a lot of times during the election they ended up helping him anyway.

Yes, they were biased AGAINST Hillary, not FOR Trump. But it helped Trump since politics is a zero sum game. It also helped Bernie. It's been proven by multiple studies that Hillary received by far the most negative coverage of any presidential candidate. Of course, Trump's coverage since becoming president probably dwarfs that.

Hillary didn’t receive “negative media coverage.” She was a negative candidate. At the end of the day, the Democratic Party chose to nominate somebody who was under criminal investigation. If they didn’t want the media to cover it, they should’ve nominated somebody else.

This puts me in mind of the oft-touted fallacy that “Comey cost her the election.” While Comey’s letter may have in fact been the deciding factor in the election, it was still Hillary’s transgressions that were the source of the letter’s existence. Blaming everyone else for her faults is getting old.

[Beet]

LLR's sentiments were quite common among Democrats last year. The DNC gave Hillary a huge lead coming out of it, but nonstop negative media coverage against Hillary destroyed it by the time LLR made his post. The media would often just broadcast Trump rallies and speeches without comment. The CNN red banner at the bottom of the screen would just show "Trump: [Some point made by him]", as if they were a state-run mouthpiece just repeating propaganda. If there was a Hillary rally and a Trump rally at the same time they would show the Trump rally. Then they act anti-Trump in order to make themselves seem opposed to him, but in reality when the chips are down they gave him billions of free coverage (in both the primary and general) and destroyed Hillary nonstop. He, in turn, has been good for their corporate masters.

IMO, Trump vs. the media is like one of those celebrity feuds where in the back, they both agree it's good for both sides, but they try to act like they're against each other. I don't deny that most low level journalists are Democrats and dislike Trump but this is the big picture here. The executives like Les Moonves know what's really going on.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Atlas is probably the only place that thinks the media is biased in favor of Trump.

Well, the media did unintentionally help him by giving him 2 billion $ worth of free coverage.

[Mr. Smith]

Atlas is probably the only place that thinks the media is biased in favor of Trump.

Well, the media did unintentionally help him by giving him 2 billion $ worth of free coverage.

Not all of it was unintentional.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Atlas is probably the only place that thinks the media is biased in favor of Trump.

Lol or "unbiased" anymore. It hasn't been truly unbiased since the end of the Fairness Doctrine!

[Grassroots]

"...In favor of Trump..."
Sorry, I don't think so. The entire MSM (except Fox) supported Hillary and candy-coated her and her screw ups. They berated Trump non stop for the dumbest reasons and thats one of the reasons people voted the way they did.

[Rookie Yinzer]

supported Hillary and candy-coated her and her screw ups.

LOL.

[IceSpear]

supported Hillary and candy-coated her and her screw ups.

LOL.

This is objectively false. I don't really feel like digging up all the studies though.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The media has no idea what to do when reality is biased and one candidate is objectively bad. That's what we learned.

[TDAS04]

LLR's sentiments were quite common among Democrats last year. The DNC gave Hillary a huge lead coming out of it, but nonstop negative media coverage against Hillary destroyed it by the time LLR made his post. The media would often just broadcast Trump rallies and speeches without comment. The CNN red banner at the bottom of the screen would just show "Trump: [Some point made by him]", as if they were a state-run mouthpiece just repeating propaganda. If there was a Hillary rally and a Trump rally at the same time they would show the Trump rally. Then they act anti-Trump in order to make themselves seem opposed to him, but in reality when the chips are down they gave him billions of free coverage (in both the primary and general) and destroyed Hillary nonstop. He, in turn, has been good for their corporate masters.

IMO, Trump vs. the media is like one of those celebrity feuds where in the back, they both agree it's good for both sides, but they try to act like they're against each other. I don't deny that most low level journalists are Democrats and dislike Trump but this is the big picture here. The executives like Les Moonves know what's really going on.

This is so true.

CNN just let the nasty man deliver tirades and spellbind the far right.  Maybe CNN didn't agree with Trump but it was entertaining enough, maybe helped ratings.

Meanwhile, CNN never really questioned the "Hillary is evil" narrative that those on the right--and many on the left--had ingrained in their heads for years.  Any bad news about Hillary was blown out of proportion by the media, and voters were fed nonstop messages about (false) "scandals" regarding the former secretary of state, leaving so many voters thinking, "well, Trump may be awful, but I could never vote for that b**ch."

[Grassroots]

supported Hillary and candy-coated her and her screw ups.

LOL.

This is objectively false. I don't really feel like digging up all the studies though.

Did you even watch the news? They flocked to Clinton like gooses to bread in a pond. They attacked Trump non-stop. I need no studies, we saw this stuff with our own eyes.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

supported Hillary and candy-coated her and her screw ups.

LOL.

This is objectively false. I don't really feel like digging up all the studies though.

Did you even watch the news? They flocked to Clinton like gooses to bread in a pond. They attacked Trump non-stop. I need no studies, we saw this stuff with our own eyes.

Then why did they talk about Hillary Clinton's email server so much?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The media has no idea what to do when reality is biased and one candidate is objectively bad. That's what we learned.

[Grassroots]

supported Hillary and candy-coated her and her screw ups.

LOL.

This is objectively false. I don't really feel like digging up all the studies though.

Did you even watch the news? They flocked to Clinton like gooses to bread in a pond. They attacked Trump non-stop. I need no studies, we saw this stuff with our own eyes.

Then why did they talk about Hillary Clinton's email server so much?

You know, maybe because it was incredibly shameful of her to do that. I didn't really favor the non-stop coverage of it. But after the convention, it was clear who they supported.

[Gass3268]

Of course the corporate conservative mainstream media sided with Trump.

[IceSpear]

supported Hillary and candy-coated her and her screw ups.

LOL.

This is objectively false. I don't really feel like digging up all the studies though.

Did you even watch the news? They flocked to Clinton like gooses to bread in a pond. They attacked Trump non-stop. I need no studies, we saw this stuff with our own eyes.

Then why did they talk about Hillary Clinton's email server so much?

You know, maybe because it was incredibly shameful of her to do that. I didn't really favor the non-stop coverage of it. But after the convention, it was clear who they supported.

If they were in the tank for Hillary, they would've talked about it for a week then never mentioned it again, like they did for all of Trump's scandals. Not spam about it non stop for 18 months.