Who was the media biased for in 2016?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:33:41 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Who was the media biased for in 2016?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Who was the media biased for in 2016?  (Read 2594 times)
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 31, 2018, 06:26:23 PM »

During the election there was numerous claims that the media was biased.

Supporters of Hillary Clinton claimed that the media was biased against her by focusing excessively on the story of her e-mails, digging up past scandals, and attempting to deliberately create a "horse race" narrative that didn't exist.

Supporters of Bernie Sanders claimed through the primaries that the media was biased against him by portraying him as an extremist, overestimating Clinton's delegate lead, and giving him insufficient coverage.

Supporters of Drumpf, of course, continue to argue the media was biased against him. During the GOP primaries his various challengers frequently complained about the free air time Drumpf received from the media.

So which was it?
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2018, 06:30:59 PM »



Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,709
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2018, 06:42:00 PM »

The media was biased in favor of news, which tended to reward Trump's propensity to say and do controversial things.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2018, 07:20:29 PM »

Trump, since he had the money, and the image.




Logged
pops
katman46
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 770


Political Matrix
E: -7.00, S: 4.00

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2018, 10:17:34 PM »

In the primaries, Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders

In the general election, Hillary Clinton
Logged
Tekken_Guy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,742
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2018, 04:04:25 AM »

Hillary Clinton, but only because of who her opponent was. Against any other opponent coverage would be normal. The argument was not that Clinton was the perfect candidate but Trump was uniquely bad and must be kept from the presidency.
Logged
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2018, 11:50:24 AM »

Hillary Clinton, but only because of who her opponent was. Against any other opponent coverage would be normal. The argument was not that Clinton was the perfect candidate but Trump was uniquely bad and must be kept from the presidency.

And that's why the media gave Trump disproportionate coverage during the primaries too?

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Logged
Tekken_Guy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,742
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2018, 06:52:03 AM »

Hillary Clinton, but only because of who her opponent was. Against any other opponent coverage would be normal. The argument was not that Clinton was the perfect candidate but Trump was uniquely bad and must be kept from the presidency.

And that's why the media gave Trump disproportionate coverage during the primaries too?

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.




The primary stuff was about ratings more than anything. Or more because he was a sideshow that captivated the nation.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,066


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2018, 11:51:57 PM »

I think they wanted Clinton, but the nature of their coverage and how they operate led them to be biased against her. So in a way they were biased against both candidates, Clinton seems to have come out worse from this though it's hard to tell.
Logged
twenty42
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 861
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2018, 02:00:58 PM »

During the election there was numerous claims that the media was biased.

Supporters of Hillary Clinton claimed that the media was biased against her by focusing excessively on the story of her e-mails, digging up past scandals, and attempting to deliberately create a "horse race" narrative that didn't exist.

Supporters of Bernie Sanders claimed through the primaries that the media was biased against him by portraying him as an extremist, overestimating Clinton's delegate lead, and giving him insufficient coverage.

Supporters of Drumpf, of course, continue to argue the media was biased against him. During the GOP primaries his various challengers frequently complained about the free air time Drumpf received from the media.

So which was it?

The final result in the NPV was 48-46. If anything, the media tried to propagate a landslide narrative despite polls showing the opposite. Except for a couple weeks in October, Clinton never really led the polls by more than 1976 Carter/2012 Obama margins.
Logged
Kleine Scheiße
PeteHam
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,770
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.16, S: -1.74

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2018, 03:31:17 PM »

The media has always been biased toward itself and nothing else. It is baised towards excitement and the most unwarranted types of irrationality.

The press is a moneyed industry, just as sick and depraved as coal and oil.
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2018, 05:08:37 AM »

Clinton but their coverage allowed the Trump presidency to occur.
Logged
Averroës Nix
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,289
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2018, 07:22:20 AM »

Clinton but their coverage allowed the Trump presidency to occur.

Exactly. Most people in print and television media were Clinton supporters, exclusive of networks and publications that more or less openly affiliate themselves with movement conservatism.

This wasn't hard to infer from their coverage. But that didn't produce a deluge of pro-Clinton propaganda.

Whatever their biases, media figures are professionals. They're looking to win views and clicks, not hearts and minds. Their coverage tended to be sensationalist, ahistorical, innumerate, and politically ignorant, but it did not persuade viewrs - and, with rare exceptions, was never meant to.
Logged
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2018, 09:10:27 AM »

Clinton but their coverage allowed the Trump presidency to occur.

Exactly. Most people in print and television media were Clinton supporters, exclusive of networks and publications that more or less openly affiliate themselves with movement conservatism.

This wasn't hard to infer from their coverage. But that didn't produce a deluge of pro-Clinton propaganda.

Whatever their biases, media figures are professionals. They're looking to win views and clicks, not hearts and minds. Their coverage tended to be sensationalist, ahistorical, innumerate, and politically ignorant, but it did not persuade viewrs - and, with rare exceptions, was never meant to.

TRUMP TRUMP OMG look at what TRUMP said! There were 11 Republicans in the debate but TRUMP TRUMP isn't he terrible and unqualified BUT MUH CLICKZ MUST REPORT MOAR TRUMP
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2018, 02:06:42 PM »

So is anyone going to address the multiple objective studies showing Hillary getting by far the most negative coverage of any candidate, or will we just pretend they don't exist like anti-vaxxers do with inconvenient truths?
Logged
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2018, 04:15:27 PM »

So is anyone going to address the multiple objective studies showing Hillary getting by far the most negative coverage of any candidate, or will we just pretend they don't exist like anti-vaxxers do with inconvenient truths?

I mean, here's the thing, and it might be the biggest problem with the American news media today: False balance. Trump was objectively a bad candidate.  Objectively worse than Hillary Clinton.  As in, could pass the "any reasonable person" test with flying colors if you simply looked at the facts.

But one side supports Trump.
One side supports Clinton.

The media brought Hillary Clinton down to Trump's level, because of the faulty need to maintain the perception of balance.

If Hillary Clinton had run against literal Hitler, the media would have found a way to bring Clinton down to his level, and bring Hitler up to hers.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 05, 2018, 05:25:10 PM »

So is anyone going to address the multiple objective studies showing Hillary getting by far the most negative coverage of any candidate, or will we just pretend they don't exist like anti-vaxxers do with inconvenient truths?

I mean, here's the thing, and it might be the biggest problem with the American news media today: False balance. Trump was objectively a bad candidate.  Objectively worse than Hillary Clinton.  As in, could pass the "any reasonable person" test with flying colors if you simply looked at the facts.

But one side supports Trump.
One side supports Clinton.

The media brought Hillary Clinton down to Trump's level, because of the faulty need to maintain the perception of balance.

If Hillary Clinton had run against literal Hitler, the media would have found a way to bring Clinton down to his level, and bring Hitler up to hers.

Yep, it's disgusting. But they also have a hatred for Hillary Clinton personally, and always have. They treated her just as harshly in 2007-2008 when her opponent was someone they adored.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,596
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2018, 08:55:34 PM »

One factor I think was that the (non-conservative) media thought Clinton was going to win anyway, so by attacking her with invented scandals they made the race tighter and more exciting and covered themselves against accusations of bias.

Sort of like what Comey said his rationale was for leaking the letter: "I thought Clinton was going to win anyway so leaking the letter wouldn't matter and I could get the Trump supporters in the New York FBI office off my back". Though in not so many words of course.
Logged
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 06, 2018, 12:18:42 PM »

During the election there was numerous claims that the media was biased.

Supporters of Hillary Clinton claimed that the media was biased against her by focusing excessively on the story of her e-mails, digging up past scandals, and attempting to deliberately create a "horse race" narrative that didn't exist.

Supporters of Bernie Sanders claimed through the primaries that the media was biased against him by portraying him as an extremist, overestimating Clinton's delegate lead, and giving him insufficient coverage.

Supporters of Drumpf, of course, continue to argue the media was biased against him. During the GOP primaries his various challengers frequently complained about the free air time Drumpf received from the media.

So which was it?

The final result in the NPV was 48-46. If anything, the media tried to propagate a landslide narrative despite polls showing the opposite. Except for a couple weeks in October, Clinton never really led the polls by more than 1976 Carter/2012 Obama margins.

And as Nate Silver pointed out, even though Clinton's lead looked a lot like Obama's lead in 2012, you had to pick apart the numbers carefully to see that the number of undecideds (and where those undecideds resided) in 2016 made Clinton's victory way less certain than Obama's was in 2012.
Logged
twenty42
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 861
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2018, 02:09:56 PM »

During the election there was numerous claims that the media was biased.

Supporters of Hillary Clinton claimed that the media was biased against her by focusing excessively on the story of her e-mails, digging up past scandals, and attempting to deliberately create a "horse race" narrative that didn't exist.

Supporters of Bernie Sanders claimed through the primaries that the media was biased against him by portraying him as an extremist, overestimating Clinton's delegate lead, and giving him insufficient coverage.

Supporters of Drumpf, of course, continue to argue the media was biased against him. During the GOP primaries his various challengers frequently complained about the free air time Drumpf received from the media.

So which was it?

The final result in the NPV was 48-46. If anything, the media tried to propagate a landslide narrative despite polls showing the opposite. Except for a couple weeks in October, Clinton never really led the polls by more than 1976 Carter/2012 Obama margins.

And as Nate Silver pointed out, even though Clinton's lead looked a lot like Obama's lead in 2012, you had to pick apart the numbers carefully to see that the number of undecideds (and where those undecideds resided) in 2016 made Clinton's victory way less certain than Obama's was in 2012.

I agree. I'm saying that I remember MSM frequently predicting a 1980/1996-style blowout for Hillary, despite polls being fairly close for much of 2016. She was the favorite for most of the cycle, but polls mostly indicated a 2004/2012-style victory. The OP stated that some people claim the media created a horse race, but that simply isn't true. If anything, they tried to discourage Trump supporters from voting by brainwashing people that the election was in the bag for Hillary.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 08, 2018, 04:19:37 PM »

During the election there was numerous claims that the media was biased.

Supporters of Hillary Clinton claimed that the media was biased against her by focusing excessively on the story of her e-mails, digging up past scandals, and attempting to deliberately create a "horse race" narrative that didn't exist.

Supporters of Bernie Sanders claimed through the primaries that the media was biased against him by portraying him as an extremist, overestimating Clinton's delegate lead, and giving him insufficient coverage.

Supporters of Drumpf, of course, continue to argue the media was biased against him. During the GOP primaries his various challengers frequently complained about the free air time Drumpf received from the media.

So which was it?

The final result in the NPV was 48-46. If anything, the media tried to propagate a landslide narrative despite polls showing the opposite. Except for a couple weeks in October, Clinton never really led the polls by more than 1976 Carter/2012 Obama margins.

And as Nate Silver pointed out, even though Clinton's lead looked a lot like Obama's lead in 2012, you had to pick apart the numbers carefully to see that the number of undecideds (and where those undecideds resided) in 2016 made Clinton's victory way less certain than Obama's was in 2012.

I agree. I'm saying that I remember MSM frequently predicting a 1980/1996-style blowout for Hillary, despite polls being fairly close for much of 2016. She was the favorite for most of the cycle, but polls mostly indicated a 2004/2012-style victory. The OP stated that some people claim the media created a horse race, but that simply isn't true. If anything, they tried to discourage Trump supporters from voting by brainwashing people that the election was in the bag for Hillary.

With a quick "buh her emails" and "shame there isn't someone much better than Trump" as a nice aside right afterwards.

And this did no favors towards youth or black turnout, especially the latter.
Logged
RaphaelDLG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,688
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2018, 09:09:10 AM »

Trump, because no publicity is bad publicity
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2018, 02:09:01 PM »

If you go by the commentators, it was hugely biased toward Clinton;this was the "inevitable" Clinton victory.  If you looked at the polls, it was a close election.

Here is the final RCP results, with no tossup.  It shows a Clinton win, with 272 electoral votes:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

She was leading in NH by 0.6 points on the RCP average; the polls could be off by 0.7 points for it to be a Trump victory. Yes, pundit after pundit called it for Clinton, sometimes big for Clinton.   Even Fox had nobody insisting that Trump would win. 

Logged
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2018, 12:34:01 PM »

If you go by the commentators, it was hugely biased toward Clinton;this was the "inevitable" Clinton victory.  If you looked at the polls, it was a close election.

Here is the final RCP results, with no tossup.  It shows a Clinton win, with 272 electoral votes:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

She was leading in NH by 0.6 points on the RCP average; the polls could be off by 0.7 points for it to be a Trump victory. Yes, pundit after pundit called it for Clinton, sometimes big for Clinton.   Even Fox had nobody insisting that Trump would win. 



Frankly, the polls looked like 2012. And in 2012, an Obama victory was a foregone conclusion. That's not bias, that's objective analysis.

It's very hard to make an objective case for Trump having a realistic chance, given all available data. Nate was derided for giving Trump a >30% chance, but Nate was absolutely correct: too much volatility, too many states where Clinton had not topped 50% in the polls, and way too many undecideds. But it was difficult to see.

If you showed me the exit polls for WI, leaving out vote breakdown, I would have told you Clinton won the state by 5 points. The way people voted, compared to their opinion of the candidates, defies all logic and reason. It means we need to fundamentally change our assumptions when designing polls.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 14, 2018, 04:53:32 PM »

If you go by the commentators, it was hugely biased toward Clinton;this was the "inevitable" Clinton victory.  If you looked at the polls, it was a close election.

Here is the final RCP results, with no tossup.  It shows a Clinton win, with 272 electoral votes:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

She was leading in NH by 0.6 points on the RCP average; the polls could be off by 0.7 points for it to be a Trump victory. Yes, pundit after pundit called it for Clinton, sometimes big for Clinton.   Even Fox had nobody insisting that Trump would win. 



Frankly, the polls looked like 2012. And in 2012, an Obama victory was a foregone conclusion. That's not bias, that's objective analysis.

It's very hard to make an objective case for Trump having a realistic chance, given all available data. Nate was derided for giving Trump a >30% chance, but Nate was absolutely correct: too much volatility, too many states where Clinton had not topped 50% in the polls, and way too many undecideds. But it was difficult to see.

If you showed me the exit polls for WI, leaving out vote breakdown, I would have told you Clinton won the state by 5 points. The way people voted, compared to their opinion of the candidates, defies all logic and reason. It means we need to fundamentally change our assumptions when designing polls.

You can see what the final RCP averages were.  Without tossups, Hillary had 272 electoral votes, with at least one state (NH) where she had a 0.6 point lead.

Were the polling failures?  Yes, in the Midwest, WI, MN, IA, and MO.  The latter two were showing as a Trump victory. 

PA?  RCP average was 2.6 points off.  MI, 3.7 points. AZ 0.5 points, but in Clinton's favor.

Arizona raises a good point.  The RCP average was 4.0 points for Trump, but AZ was listed as a toss-up.  Same with Georgia.  The RCP average was 4.8, but it was listed as a toss-up. Same with OH, 3.5 points.  These were 45 electoral votes.

Yes, they were sort of doing the same to Clinton, but, but there were only NM, ME (statewide and ME-2), and VA, for a total 21 electoral votes.

With one exception, WI, a candidate that was ahead by 3.5 points in the RCP average carried the state.

When you are looking at 3.5 points in an average of polls, that should be enough.  Using that, there were  223 EV for Clinton,  209 EV for Trump and 106 toss up. You didn't have the commentators saying that. 

I don't know if it was because they hated Trump, loved Clinton, or couldn't believe that someone that never held a major governmental post would be elected. Even at best, the math was not showing a big Clinton win, yet a number of commentators were saying just that. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 12 queries.