If this is considered an opinion, did WaPo separetely report on Trump’s post Orlando shooting address?
If not, then I am inclined to believe this is meant as straight journalism and not an opinion.
I have no idea. You’ll have to ask Harvard. Let me know what they say.
This would be completely subjective.
Easy enough to google journalists’ political leanings. And easy enough to believe it colors their work, since you, they, and I filter our communication through our personal biases. You is generic here.
1 Like
I appreciate your intention to post evidence to the contrary. But, am not fully on board with something coming out of the “Harvard Kennedy School on Media, Politics and Public Policy”. How do you feel about it? Do you think that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, Time Magazine and the rest of the pop culture rags give the republican a fair shake, or do they favor the democrat?
But it isn’t really. Online newspapers do this stuff all the time. There’s nothing sneaky or underhanded about it. Everyone reading it knows it’s news analysis and it’s opinion.
Huh? What are you talking about?
How I feel about it is no particularly relevant. I’m bias and I get my news from biased sources just like everyone else. The Harvard study was the most detailed analysis that I could find and their conclusion was that Trump and Sanders received the most favorable coverage of any of the candidates.
If you would really like to know how I feel about it then I’d say I think Trump’s candidacy is a media creation. He announced his candidacy and because of his name recognition and star power the media, in general, pounced for rating.
I think that they realized they helped create a monster and began pushing back, but it was too late.
1 Like
Yeah, I think you are spot on with that observation. I would only add that the republican party could have and should have pounced on him sooner but they thought he was a joke and would fall of his own weight. And…they were obviously quite wrong.
1 Like
I agree and it’s a shame.
1 Like
Trump lets go of his campaign manager Leandowski and yet Leandowski shows unwavering support for him.
No known skeletons his closet after 40 years in the public eye, his former lovers openly praise him, doesn’t drink or smoke, well adjusted children with beautiful daughters and now his recently fired campaign manager praises him.
Hillary Republicans will slowly have to come around to the fact he is a decent man.
REPORT: ABC, CBS, NBC cover Trump ‘scandals’ 4-1 over Clinton
What were you saying about biased sources?
They only analyzed ABC, CBS, and NBC. Why’d they leave Fox out?
A lot of this list can be attributed to a) the vetting of an unknown candidate and b) the fact that Hillary has basically been on autopilot. She hasn’t said anything controversial because she was given a free pass by the Dems and, yes, the media.
Additionally, Trumpkins keep trying to have it both ways - Trump pushes the envelope, and that’s what makes him great, except when pushing the envelope generates criticism (as it always would), and then it’s unfair emphasis on made up, scare quotes “scandals”.
Fact is, Trump intentionally makes incendiary comments to keep himself front and center in media reporting - a deliberate strategy to get free exposure while his opponents have to buy it. No one can blame the media for doing exactly what Trump wants them to do - report on his outrageous statements.
2 Likes
That seems more like it.
And that’s pretty much how it has always been regardless of who the republican is.
I think the media is biased as well.
However, I also think that research institutes founded by Kennedys, or the Koch brothers, can turn out good quality research. I would rather try to analyze the research on its merits or methods than intimate that because its a Harvard School founded by the Kennedy clan it can’t be accepted.
That’s the same thing liberals do with things like “Cato Institute” or anything Koch founded. I don’t like it then either. It is well known that the source of funding CAN influence the subsequent research, , and that it HAS in the past, but not that it MUST BY DEFUALT. In short, No of course I don’t trust any source until I dig into it and you shouldn’t either. But you can’t and shouldn’t dismiss a research institute out of hand because of its name alone either. That would be sinking to their level and that’s no good at all.
It’s annoying, but that’s the only way to be fair in your approach IMO
I half agree with you, but I believe many people really do NOT know this. If they did you wouldn’t have a generation of people thinking that Jon Stewart was legitimate news.
It should be labeled much clearer and put in the Opinion section. Analysis by nature is aupposed to be as close to objective as possible.
Sure I hear you they could very well be correct. But, I prefer something from an unbiased source. For example, when I hear a poll from FOX News I never, not one time, believe it.
1 Like
I don’t disagree, the lines should be clear and I don’t like the rise of “news analysis” generally - but my point is that it has been around for a while as part of web-based journalism and people have begun to self-select the media they consume knowing that.
In other words, I think very few people are reading these kinds of pieces as blank slates, and even if they are, the context makes it clear (in this particular piece) it is opinion. By definition, if someone is saying that Trump “seems” to be doing something, it is an expression of opinion, not fact.
1 Like
Hillary needs to worry more about this, than Trump or Johnson.
The money quote…
Assange told a British TV station: “We’ve accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton. We could proceed to an indictment.”
He added that with the AG in Obama’s pocket that will never happen…but it would be crazy damaging to her none the less.
1 Like
What have I been saying…
*Pay special attention to what they have to say about tariffs.
2 Likes