They still are accomplishing the overarching goal: The debasement of facts.

Among voters who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing, 85% say fake news is a Very Big problem;

Nearly half of all voters think the media is actively trying to block Trump’s agenda, while just as many said in 2010 that most reporters were trying to help Obama pass his agenda.

100% of people analyze within their personal cognitive dissonance

The notion that the media is actively trying to block Trump’s agenda is hardly a far fetched proposition.

It is a notion, just one that is as fake as the news that Trump creates. The media has no power to block his agenda, that power rests with the legislators. The media's only function is to report and to provide analysis and opinion. If Trump says that the new stealth fighter is invisible, then someone is going to say that this is what Trump said and it appears he doesn't grasp the facts.

It's not fake, clearly, the media has generally opposed Trumps efforts both to build a border wall and ban people from terrorist countries from coming to America.

I mean, objectively - whether or not you agree with those efforts - and I don't - most media outlets have not actively worked to endorse or support the president. Nor do I think they should, but if you were of the persuasion to strongly agree with the president, you would rightfully conclude that the media is not on your or his side.

(Just tryin' to keep it rational. The "that's as much fake news as this is fake news" pissing game is to no ones advantage.)

It is not the media's job description to be a cheerleader. The two examples you give are good ones...the objective reports point out that the cost of the wall will be far higher than trump's claim. Pointing that out is what the news media is supposed to do. Ditto for the ban.

The New York Times should register in-kind donations to the DNC.

N.Y. Times editorial board issues rare call to action to oppose GOP tax bill

Could be worse, could be someone from the White House telling you how to vote. Because of course that is actually illegal, whereas having editors of a newspaper suggest that is not.

The Tax proposal is awful, Roy Moore is awful, and voters will decide which of those is actually worse. Let's hope that Charles Barkley can talk some sense into his fellow constituents.

While it may be difficult to ultimately measure exactly how much bias has been successfully executed, regardless that amount, do you believe Trump would be a loved president otherwise? Supposing it could all be somehow removed, with absolute certainty. Are you confident a good president, and\or a good man would be revealed underneath? How far from his current portrayal do you think he really is?

The notion that media should be on side is absurd. They are the fifth estate,

They are not the fifth estate.

Correct, an Independent Media covering the actions of the government is the fourth estate.

My mistake, the Fifth Estate is an award winning broadcast news program....

You were thinking fifth column, and you're absolutely right about that.

Methinks one needs to stop looking in mirrors before commenting

Methinks thou shouldst fuck thyself, immediately and repeatedly.

I'll go fuck myself if you finally admit to being a (low) paid shill

Your envy and constant obsession with money are not healthy.

Mirror. Gotta stop looking in it before hitting "post".

Thought we went over this.


Although, i do think it funny the way you consistently attempt to attribute views and beliefs to me which I don't hold.

Mirror. Gotta stop looking in it before hitting "post".

Yes, you absolutely do.

Your envy and constant obsession with money are not healthy.

You're still projecting.

Here's a fun thought task for you. Please provide evidence of your statement regarding my obsession and envy?

I will patiently wait while you finish stroking norok's cock

I will patiently wait while you finish stroking norok's cock

More envy. Get your own cock, sunshine.

I tried to get my own cock but every time i got near one your face jumped on it.

Are you implying they are wrong for doing so?

If so, wouldn’t that imply conservative media was wrong for trying to block Obama’s agenda for the previous 8 years?

If not, what are you saying?

Simply what I wrote.
The notion is not far fetched. Hugh E's post implies it is - Evidence of the "debasement of facts".
It is evidence of no such thing. It's a perfectly viable premise.

Trump lies on a daily basis. It is the function of a professional media to point that out.

Ok, you're saying it is a viable premise. Fine.

But if it's not wrong, then... who cares?

If it is wrong, then conservative media has been incorrectly "blocking" an agenda that apparently they had no right to "block" for eight years, correct?

I think it is presumptive to say "the media". Certain news reports provide objective analysis, and up to observer to decide. other agencies have an obvious conservative (static/regressive) or liberal (progressive) viewpoint and color their views with that brush. The issue as i see it is that Fox (ignoring more extreme examples) offers a clearly Conservative viewpoint, but goes out of their way to pretend a) they are Neutral and b) everything to their "left" is Liberal propaganda. so in effect they are deliberately distorting facts because the deliberately claim bias where none exists and they deny their own bias which does exist.

the bigger issue here is not that all views shouldn't have a voice, but that one group is using FUD to convince their audience that the other "side" or "team" is lying and cannot be trusted. People can bitch and moan about the influence Russia may have had in the past Election but Rupert Murdoch has had significant influence in shaping electoral results for the last two decades (or longer).

"Certain news reports provide objective analysis, and up to observer to decide."
I don't think any analysis is objective.

There is only so much beyond the raw details that can remain objective. If you are analyzing something then you are turning it into a subject of discussion and is therefor subjective. The talking points may come from an 'expert' via their credentials or expertise but they will invariably be latent with the personal bias of the presenter; whether they believe they are being biased or not.

I think that's where the media has really gone off the rails. To fill 24 hour channels and keep viewers clicking and scrolling on articles tremendous amounts of fluff around the facts has to be generated. Then it has to be tailored to the target audience to keep them engaged.

If they a clear in indicating their opinions and editorial separate from the facts, does that not keep it objective? or does all presentation of data bias the audience?

I don't think the mainstream services ever make that distinction. It's also virtually impossible to fill an hour-long "news talk show" with just the facts; it has to be filled with opinion fluff.

Lots of news too is 'fiat' and the presentation is the message. This article gives two very good examples:

"Most media institutions have the good sense not to include outright lies, of course. But when you have an interest in the outcome of the story rather than its capacity to inform, you end up with fiat news like this, where CNN intentionally cuts off a portion of the video that would ruin the intent of their story, which is very obviously not to inform. You end up with fiat news like this, where you must read 7 paragraphs into a story to discover that a man being executed confessed to raping and murdering a 16-year old girl. Even that fact is couched in dismissive language that is very obviously intended to guide the reader to a salacious conclusion."

The article is long but a good read and I think proposes a valid explanation to the phenomenon. In addition to the financial burden media outlets are under to keep their audience engaged within the journalism field there is a common meme of "making a difference" via their profession. That idea is transforming whatever journalism was idealized to be decades ago into an activist role in society.

Misinformation only works when you flood whatever media you are trying to debase. When a demicrat lies it is a "damn lie". But Don Cheeto lies so much and so outrageously that it takes everything he says to a different level. The news hasn't really done anything new in political reporting sence the printing press.

ABC News suspends Brian Ross for erroneous Flynn report

http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/abc-news-suspends-brian-ross-for-serious-reporting-error