The MSM has a transition mission, too: keep the panic going
It’s been a mere week since the shocking and momentous election of 2016, and the Trump camp is dealing with the first stages of its transition from campaign mode to governing mode.
But they’re not the only ones making a transition. The public is making a transition from an especially brutal, bitter, and just plain strange campaign year to the idea of the presidency of a man without experience in government, and who also has unusually high unfavorables for an incoming chief executive. A goodly number of people are already in a highly fearful state at the prospect. That contrasts with the jubilation of the pro-Trump camp, and the guarded optimism of people like me who very much want him to do well but have reservations about him and have adopted a hopeful “wait and see” attitude.
And then there’s President Obama and his team. Hillary is dealing with defeat, but the defeat is also for Obama. This isn’t the transition he’d hoped; that’s for sure. He is not only leaving the job he’s held for eight years and the power he’s reveled in, but he’s leaving it not to the heir apparent who would have continued his legacy, but to someone committed to dismantling it.
And yet Obama has been gracious to Trump and counsels acceptance to Americans and the world, at least so far. He’s been a bit less gracious to Hillary, whom he blames for her (and his own) loss. It can’t be the least bit easy for him, but it’s never been easy for him to look in a mirror and find anything the least bit wanting.
But then there’s the MSM, who have a transition to make, too. They emerged from this election year almost totally discredited, and that’s quite a feat for a group that was already plenty discredited enough. Some people think their biggest error was to fail to predict the election results, but I don’t happen to share that notion because the vast majority of people made the same error, including many people who supported Trump but were not optimistic about his winning. No, the MSM’s biggest error was its generally biased pro-liberal political reporting, just as it always is, and this time the bias (once Trump was safely nominated, that is) was especially clear.
Not only has the press now had to change from campaign mode to “President-elect Trump” mode, but it has had to do so while licking its prodigious wounds. It is no secret that most of the MSM consists of highly partisan Democrats, and the Trump victory—which includes a Senate and therefore Congress in Republican hands, about which predictions were wrong, as well—has to be especially difficult for them.
But I’m happy to report that they seem to be recovering. Unfortunately, their recovery includes reporting that is almost ludicrously critical of Trump for things that in a Democrat would probably not be spun that way, and this occurs at a time when they have squandered whatever lingering credibility they may have had.
This doesn’t mean that no one believes the NY Times when it reports on all the Trumpian transition “turmoil.” Of course many people do believe, and that’s the point. The Times’ target audience is not you and me, it’s the people who are already primed to be very frightened at the prospect of Trump, and I would imagine that they full well believe the Times’ reporting on this. And their numbers are hardly inconsequential; the Times is still the authority to a lot of voters.
Now, everyone who reads this blog knows my opinion of Donald Trump. I certainly have some anxiety about how his administration will play out. I plan to criticize him when he stumbles. The Trump presidency may end up as a fiasco, or it might end up being really really (to coin a phrase)”great.” I’m keeping an open mind, and I’m very much hoping that the ultimate results of this election fall much closer to “great” than “fiasco.”
But I’m planning to wait and see what happens, and I would counsel everyone to do the same.
No doubt an Obama-to-Clinton transition would have gone much more smoothly. But so what? Is there some correlation between transition smoothness and successful governing? What’s more, how do we know there’s any significant turmoil in the Trump transition at all? Whose word are we supposed to take these days? The MSM will criticize (and base its criticism on the reports of Obama officials, by the way, as noted at RedState).
And MSM stories like this one seem almost ludicrous (headline: “As Trump Leaves Press Behind for Steak Dinner, Incoming Admin Already Showing Lack of Transparency”):
In a highly unusual move, President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday night left his Manhattan residence without notifying the reporters covering him or giving any indication of where he was going.
The maneuver seemed to deliberately limit access to the media.
The only way the press eventually ascertained his whereabouts was after a Bloomberg reporter, who happened to be dining at the 21 Club, tweeted a photo of Trump and some of his transition team in the Midtown steakhouse.
Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks later told NBC News. “He is having dinner with his family.”
A week after the election, Trump hasn’t yet held a press conference, the longest any recent president has waited to speak to the press. That continues a weeks-long drought that’s been going on since mid-summer, when Trump last answered questions from the press.
Can anyone blame him?
Imagine if it had been Hillary Clinton. My guess is that the stories about the dinner would be puff pieces about how president-elect Hillary is warmly bonding with her happy family over her well-deserved victory. And I would also guess that those “transition turmoil” pieces would instead be descriptions of how Hillary is thoughtfully trying to get it all just right, and is not afraid to shake up the team when necessary.
However, one thing I’ve noticed the MSM is bipartisan about is its anger at those who would deny it unlimited access. For example, the press actually criticized Hillary’s failure to give press conferences during the campaign.
Biased reporting leaves us all in the dark. But facts are stubborn things. Trump and his administration will either make a lot of errors with dire consequences, or they won’t. And we’ll have to look past the anti-Trump anti-GOP MSM, as well as the biased pro-Trump sources, to try to figure out what’s really happening. It will take quite a while for this to become at all clear, so I caution patience plus alertness.
Patience is good counsel at this point. I don’t think the MSM has dived into negative reporting out of impatience — I think they are just signaling how they will treat Trump.
Hillary is going to give a press conference later today. Any bets on how that will go? I’m guessing she won’t say “I got it wrong.” More like “Comey destroyed me.”
I hope I’m wrong.
Hey, if we wait until he actually does something, what are we going to talk about for the next 2 months?
Brian E.:
Oh, never fear. We will chatter on no matter what.
Rush Limbaugh just went off on the same story: (headline: “As Trump Leaves Press Behind for Steak Dinner, Incoming Admin Already Showing Lack of Transparency”)
Synchronicity
Aint soviet style press a bitch till you find out, then its a dirty bitch with fleas you at least can avoid…
duh. duh. duh. duh…
not like no one was telling you
Florida press is looking for conservatives cause they were so bad
NY Times was so bad, they had to write a mia culpa
it was soooooooooooooo off, but the most edumacated, and the more professional, were the tuna that bit the bait more than most others.
and those who had family in the workers paradise, came from there, and had experience in such things, they were the LEAST fooled.
but in a world of equality, there is no place for experience, which makes us all unequal… so its ignored!!!!
Good post by neo. You would think the MSM would learn but they are not even being halfway fair to Trump.
I’m sure the Left is planning major demonstrations/riots of Inaguration Day and the MSM will whitewash and hide the violence or portray it as heroic.
That’s right.
It’s Comey’s fault.
And Wikileaks.
And all those mysogynistic men.
And mysogynistic women.
And all those Bernie supporters who for some reason didn’t like me.
And all those minorities who for some outrageous reason or other couldn’t be bothered to vote.
But it’s not my fault.
Most definitely not my vote.
How could it be?
I was a shoe-in….
Hey, if we wait until he actually does something, what are we going to talk about for the next 2 months?
its just a guess, but Jello and Ballet?
though i know of no Jello Ballet…
Rubella Ballet interview Jello Biafra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=213N-7j3-3w
though i guess neo could buy
3D Silicone Mold Ballet Dancer Shape Candy Jello Mold Cake Decorating
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/3D-Silicone-Mold-Ballet-Dancer-Shape-Candy-Jello-Mold-Cake-Decorating-C686/32657086016.html
or
Doing ballet on a cube of jello
drawing by Katura Flynn
and
throw a ballet dance party tatertots and jello
though i think this is the only thing that neo may even read:
The Belated Ballerina
my journey as a late bloomer in ballet (and now college!)
MSM & Gelatin
https://emilleejoyce.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/msm-and-gelatin/
Artfldgr:
You continue to act as though press bias was misunderstood or denied in some way here.
I’ve devoted much of my blogging life to talking about egregious press bias, and virtually all of the regular commenters here are in agreement about it.
Why are you fighting these straw men? No one here thinks the way you seem to think they think.
My guess is that most Trump supporters–most conservatives and Republicans, even–will have a quick thought of, “good! He was able to sneak out and get away from them.”
Just a feeling based upon no polling data,
Trump is totally inside the has-been media’s OODA loop. It’s like watching Ali in his prime.
CBI:
I actually think it’s possible that even many non-Trump-supporters might think that particular criticism by the MSM is over-the-top.
I guess we could always talk about:
Federal Judge Proclaims a Stable Climate to Be a Fundamental Constitutional Right
[Guess? its a feminist pro-leftist judge… has anyone noticed that the more the women are in control the more totalitarian it is, from toys, to twitter, to policing private conversations, and on and on… but that is why the left did that, the totalitarian impulse comes from the feminine side, who wants its soooo safe, no one can move (read the old texts which have great conversations in it before we were forced not ot think that way, talk that way, discuss and explore that way]
or this feminist freedom idea:
Sweden Introduces Mansplaining Hotline
“Whose word are we supposed to take these days?” – Neo
That’s a bigger question than you have addressed.
If anything came to light this cycle, it is that the “conservative” media is just as biased, only in a different way.
This election has awarded them some credibility and following, as they play up the trump win as a “landslide” – hardly so, but that fact won’t stop them saying so, and from a good size of people believing so (conveniently).
It also carries with it an acceptance of things that are well beyond “politically incorrect”. Expect this to become more acceptable over time a) because the media needs / desires access to the admin to report; b) if trump keeps up the same pace on this as in the campaign, then all become numb to it.
What trump will specifically do is very unknown. The red team vs blue team media will not shed much light on this.
We will have to discern it all from the entrails of the trump admin.
Whoops, meant entrails and detritus of the trump admin.
Artfldgr: You continue to act as though press bias was misunderstood or denied in some way here.
go back and read and see how you conciously claim that, but then ignored it and kept using the polls that were so far off as a basis of conversation without any words that the paper your gettign t hem from was THAT BAD
of you know, then why use them as a basis?
thats insane… garbage in, garbage came out, and it was a waste of time..
do i really have to comb through and show it?
how about its a straw man to call up a straw man in what someone else notices and claim you know when the behavior was to ignore it… then use it…
why not report on the raise in unicorn farts hurting sea monkeys? its about as real as the other stuff you cut and pasted in poll information…
[edited for length by n-n]
Big Maq:
Actually, strangely enough, I did address it very briefly. But that part of the post disappeared in a tangle around a bad link that I then corrected, and somehow that part of the sentence inadvertently got eliminated.
When I wrote the post, it originally contained the following, right after that bit about whose word to take, and that the MSM would criticize: “Trump will deny, and we are left in the dark about what’s really going on.”
In other words, both sides will spin.
I don’t trust any source, including conservative ones. Nor does averaging them out lead to the truth.
Just remember, since feminism went socialist / communsit (around the time naomi goldstein wrote her happy gulag book), the goal is a totalitarian state a la marx and that worship… and note that the one that would have brought it most would have been hillary…–artfldgr
Is that Karl or Groucho?
I’ve been worrying all day about whether Trump ate his broccoli last night. Actually, I doubt that the press would have gotten that right even if they had been at the restaurant.
Artfldgr:
I have consistently pointed out anti-right press bias as part of the main function of this blog for all the years I’ve been blogging. You were criticizing me for being remiss in that, but I have not been remiss in that.
Polls are not press coverage, although they are related to press coverage. The polls were off, but I see no evidence that they were purposely off. I believe (as I wrote many times here, saying they might be off, but not purposely) that they were off because the turnout models were wrong. I have said many many times that turnout is always hard to predict, and would be particularly hard to predict this year.
Also, this was a close election, not as close as 2000 but very close nevertheless.
One thing I failed to credit enough was the shy Tory effect, which I mentioned and said might end up operating. But current evidence seems to suggest it was indeed operating to a small extent, anyway. And that the late-deciders—whom I often said would be key, and were unpredictable—broke for Trump.
Most of the times I have discussed polls I have taken pains to say they are flawed, and that a lot of the polls in the last weeks before the election were within the margin of error. I fail to see that polls were intentionally falsified. Pollsters have no interest in having been wrong; they have an interest in being right. And falsely stating a Hillary advantage could just as easily suppress Democrat voter turnout through cockiness, so it’s a risky move anyway for a Democrat-friendly press.
I’ve explained these things many times.
Cue the homeless stories.
Troubling…
“I asked my focus group of 23 Donald Trump voters what would make them stop supporting him. 15 answered “nothing.” – Frank Luntz – re:Nov 16 Focus Group
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/798939901001662464
Betcha in 2008, this might have been the case with obama voters.
““Trump will deny, and we are left in the dark about what’s really going on.”
In other words, both sides will spin.
I don’t trust any source, including conservative ones. Nor does averaging them out lead to the truth.” – Neo
Might say it is a new world order, only it is the same world order, now revealed.
By one measure (above), for 15 out of 23 trump voters, truth doesn’t matter.
“By one measure (above), for 15 out of 23 trump voters, truth doesn’t matter.” – Big Maq
That’s a wrong characterization, and…. wrong.
When George Bush worked with Ted to get No Child Left Behind, were you happy? Did you quit supporting him.
When George Bush proposed Part D Medicare, were you happy? Did you quit supporting him?
Brian E:
The question was what could Trump do that would cause them to stop supporting him, and many people said “nothing.”
That’s quite different from abandoning someone (Bush) for one particular policy decision. There’s no analogy there. Most Bush supporters could certainly name things he could do that would cause them to stop supporting him.
You would think the MSM would learn but they are not even being halfway fair to Trump.
All of which gets lost in his stupid pick of Steve Bannon as his top adviser.
Oh Neo, you are counselling prudence and patience and optimism. That is SO 2008! 🙂
Well, as a post-convention Trump supporter (Cruz in the primary), I guess I’d be in the 8 of 23. I can think of several thing that would have led me to stop supporting him. Three quickly come to mind:
– Had he endorsed Clinton;
– Had he become incapacitated or died;
– Had he endorsed the confiscation of all private firearms.
As it was, his platform was reasonable (not perfect), so as long has he didn’t change that, there was no justification to change. In many ways, the original question (“what would it take”) to be a somewhat silly hypothetical in context. In other words, he would have to change on the issues–a lot of them–for me to think that Clinton was a better candidate.
Most Bush supporters could certainly name things he could do that would cause them to stop supporting him.– Neo
Just for sake of conversation, name some.
But Big Maq equated it with “truth”, implying that they are being deluded now and when some “truth” were revealed they still wouldn’t stop supporting him.
Keep in mind this was a focus group who voted for Trump right after the election. The effect of the question is ‘think of some disappointment that would make you sorry you voted for Trump’.
Tim Woolstencroft â€@TimWoolstencro 3h3 hours ago
@FrankLuntz This is truly silly question to ask in a FG. How would they know what might stop them from supporting Trump until it occurs?
From the comments section. Tim hits the nail on the head.
“The MSM has a transition mission, too: keep the panic going”
A brilliantly incisive title. That is exactly what they are doing.
I too have a wait and see attitude. I am not happy with his pick of Priebus for his chief of staff. This provides some insight into Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist.
I think Trump should take the attitude that he doesn’t need to cater to a has-been media. ‘F’ them. Bar the most biased from the WH press room. Declare them to be persona non grata.
Since the alternative to Trump is the dems, for good or ill we’re stuck with Trump for the next 4 yrs. That of course ignores the possibility of a Pres. Pence finishing Trump’s first term. There will be assassination attempts and impeachment and conviction is IMO a potential possibility.
If at the end of his first 100 days he hasn’t started to drain the swamp, I’m all in favor of the Tea Party becoming an independent third party alternative.
Just because we avoided the Hillary bullet does not mean we’re out of the woods.
It would be interesting if this country had a tradition of “Prime Minister’s Question Time” which occurs weekly before the House of Commons.
We might start a tradition like that here but I could not care to see any President forced to submit to the media jackals that twist and distort every word, even if the entire thing is recorded since they end up hiding the recording or declaring it ‘unavailable.
There is turmoil in the transition team. Here’s why. Christie’s group had promised jobs to several lobbyists. That is why he’s out and Pence is now in charge. The action has been described as like a “Game of Thrones” game. The lobbyists are trying o stay in, but the Trump people are working to keep them out. Here’s a short explanation.
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/11/16/93975014/
Neo, I would suggest that Obama’s fit of graciousness was rather short-lived. First, he went over seas and assured people that despite anything Trump said that he, Obama, could assure them that everything would be ok. It seemed to me that he implied that they should ignore Trump.
Then he came out and said that he would do everything within his power to keep Trump from over turning his questionable Executive Orders. Really?
(The above are paraphrases, of course.)
He has telegraphed his intent; and I suspect that there will be more second guessing, more rhetoric intended to undercut Trump in advance, and more borderline Executive actions in the weeks ahead.
I cannot wait until 1201 of January 20th. Watch the door as you leave Mr Obama.
I’m glad Christie is out – for the reason JJ states above.
(See, I can be gracious to Team Trump when they do something good) 🙂
Brian E – the point I get from the issue with 15 of the people on that focus group saying “nothing” would cause them to drop support of their candidate: this is creepy no matter who is the President.
I dislike Team Blue/Team Red thinking, because it leads to hypocrisy. Case in point: all the Religious Right folks UP IN ARMS over Clinton’s behavior in 1998 who enthusiastically endorsed Trump even though he has a closet STUFFED with sexual misbehavior himself. (I know, I know – it wasn’t about sex, it was about lying before a grand jury . . . but for the RR, it was about sex).
On a side note, I’m a Christian but was hoping the RR would be disgraced and just go away after a Trump loss. The too-cozy relationship of evangelicals to the Republican party, from a theological, orthodoxy and orthopraxy point of view is really troubling to me. Wasn’t always so, but certainly is now. But I digress . . .
I dislike cults of personality, double standards, etc.
What I have always wanted is a good, boring president who does his/her job well and humbly and goes back to his/her plow like Cincinnatus when done. P.J. O’Rourke first put that idea in my head when discussing the Kennedys, in his fantastic little book Give War a Chance.
He’s right. But we’re way past that kind of attitude about our presidents in this country at this time.
Bill,
It was easy, (OK it wasn’t easy, but in the final analysis) Hillary’s abortion position trumped everything. I can’t vote for an abortionist.
I don’t think this is a personality cult. People keep electing politicians to “clean up Washington” and “make a difference” and nothing seems to change. Trump truly represents an outsider, unique in our lifetime. Eisenhower was the last president with that status.
I think he’s viewed as the last chance to change the culture in Washington. Kicking the lobbyists off his transition team was a good move. Perhaps letting them on, to later kick them off was a publicity stunt (see how clever Trump is).
He’s talked about term limits, as if he could will it. Now that’s going to be an interesting battle– Congress sending a constitutional amendment to the states limiting their terms!
What’s the odds that will happen?
I expect Trump will be a one term president. If he truly fights for the policies he’s advocated, the pushback is going to be unlike any pushback we’ve seen. The level of vitriol will make the election look like a high school debate.
I hope the American public isn’t too disappointed, because what may come after him could well be that authoritarian people fear Trump is.
One of Trump’s yuge flaws is his thin skin. The left will exploit this character flaw relentlessly. He needs end his childish twitter rants. And as noted above, pay as little attention to the msm as possible.
I take Pence as the leader of the transition team as a wise move on djt’s part. His cabinet picks will tell us how serious he is about actually leading the executive branch. Trump and the gop controlled legislature have a rare opportunity, I hope they don’t blow it.
Parker:
I’m expecting that as Trump learns more about the Beltway Culture, he will find more subtle ways to show his disdain for his critics.
Case in point: Obama revelled in attention from a sycophant press. Trump seems to revel in snubbing the hostile press.
Speaking of which. During the late great election process the media professed puzzlement that anyone could have been anything but enthused at the continuance of Obama’s economic policies.
After the election they did a soul search and concluded that they might have spent a little more time away from the Beltway and out in the hinterlands ferreting out some of those obscure factoids which contributed to blue collar outrage in mid-America.
Really? They figure they had to go driving the highways and byways to figure this out?
No. They did not. They are either stupid, or lying shills.
One click further along from the primary Gallup connected link on the Drudge report, we find this [reorganized in presentation]:
So, you’ve got a “good job” if you are working 30 hours a week and collecting a regular pay check.
About 47% have it so good.
And if you are a machinist who is cutting lawns 4 hours a week, you are not unemployed.
What wasn’t to like?
Must have been sexism.
If you have a liberal or a journalist for a friend, you might want to pass it along. If you think they would even care one way or another.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/189068/bls-unemployment-seasonally-adjusted.aspx
I’m more inclined to think Christie got shown the door because he successfully prosecuted Jared Kushner’s father in 2004 (for tax evasion, witness tampering, and illegal campaign contributions). Dad spent a year in prison.
Cap’n Rusty, I really like your above reference to Colonel Boyd. It is exactly right.
“…but to someone committed to dismantling it.”
Someone who is *apparently* committed to dismantling it. In reality, most insiders consider Trump to be a corruptible “pragmatist,” hence all the ass-kissing that’s going on right now.
Kiss hard enough, and he’ll go easy on you. That’s the theory, anyway. I’ll save my ire for January 21, at least. Trump can say whatever he wants in the meantime because he has an incentive to misinform his opponents.
Promises were made, and I expect action once he’s in office.
I wonder if it was Elizabeth Warren’s letter to Trump on Tuesday decrying all the lobbyists that led to the purge of lobbyists, since Trump, when talking to Lesley Stahl just two days before, sure didn’t sound as if it was something that would happen right away:
I hope Trump will at some point make his displeasure with the press explicit, instead of this passive-aggressive crap. Tell them during the first presidential press conference his exceedingly low opinion of them and why, to their faces and in front of the nation.
They are currently acting like they’re invulnerable to criticism and they need to suffer. They need to be publicly shamed in the same manner that they’ve been shaming their opponents.
Matt SE:
The only people who can be shamed are people who have a conscience.
Maybe not “shaming,” but shunning. Trump should make it clear that nobody should be reading dishonest propaganda.
The good thing about shunning is, it doesn’t rely on the target’s participation; it is completely unilateral.
Trump has made his displeasure with the press explicit. See this:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-press-created-rigged-system-205710848.html
I feel like a lot of Obama’s graciousness to Trump, and I want to give him credit for it, reveals more about his feelings about himself than about Trump.
The 90 minute-meeting was Obama’s way of impressing his successful, bad ass Dad with how much he knows and how well every policy has turned out. Then he spends every press conference asserting again what a good job he’s done and it’s everybody else’s fault.
He can’t admit to himself that he’s failed and that’s what the election means. And to be fair, it would be tough to admit you failed at being president. It’s more than just losing a job.
Whatever Trump is, he is a success and no Hamlet like Obama, and Obama knows it.
We all here know that the corruption of the main stream media is one of the foundational pillars of the Left’s Gramscian “March through the Institutions”. That pillar must fall.
The MSM long ago became the Left’s propaganda agents. We know this to be true and currently, 70% of the American public realize that the MSM is untrustworthy.
The big question has been what can be done about it and Brian and Matt here have each prompted my renewed consideration of it. There is no doubt that if Trump actually starts to drain the swamp, that the outrage and resistance will literally be volcanic. And Matt accurately describes the MSM as propagandists.
The MSM having thrown off all pretense is an opportunity.
The MSM incessantly engages in libelious behavior. Over the last year, Trump has been libeled by the MSM even more than was Sarah Palin. In order for a public figure to win a case of libel, they have to be able to prove “actual malice”, that is intentionally lying (knowingly telling an untruth) with the purpose of harming that public figure’s reputation.
There is no reasonable level of doubt that the MSM’s leadership is guilty of actual malice. They know they are lying and are purposely engaging in propaganda in order to mislead and deceive the public with the express purpose of harming the reputation not only of Trump but of anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
Wherein the legal difficulty lies is in proving that actual malice is the MSM’s motivation.
Should evidence ever emerge (Wikileaks?) that lends probable cause to a “suspicion of a crime” having occurred, i.e. “actual malice” and is likely to be provable through the process of discovery… the Trump administration could prosecute the MSM without infringing upon the 1st amendment.
As the 1st amendment protects free speech, not libelious propaganda.
Geoffrey Britain:
There is a possibility (I’m not saying it will happen, but it’s a distinct possibility) that the press has become so obviously, nakedly partisan, so over the top, that it has lost credibility with people who used to trust it. Not just conservatives on the right, but people in the middle, and maybe even some liberals.
When you are a “public figure” threshold for libel is significantly higher than for a private citizen.
It’s all part of wearing the big boy pants. Donald will have to learn what to ignore and what to “fight.” As Fredrick the Great said “he who defends, everything defends nothing.”
Misplaced comma.
“He who defends everything, defends nothing.”
neo,
I can’t remember where but I vaguely recall seeing headlines indicating that some liberals are becoming doubtful of the media’s veracity. That’s certainly of value but I don’t think that public distrust, in and of itself will be enough.
OM,
Choosing your battles is good strategy but if a big enough opening arises with a real prospect for success, going after one of the Left’s primary cultural/political weapons would be IMO well worth it.
Remember the turmoil when Bill Clinton was first setting up his cabinet and was determined to have a woman as Attorney General? Zoe Baird and then Kimba Wood were considered, then dropped because they were found to have illegals working for them as domestic servants. It was called Nannygate. Janet Reno was finally picked.
Off topic but possibly of great importance: “Republicans Now Control Record Number of State Legislative Chambers”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/after-winning-7-more-seats-gop-dominance-state-legislatures-all
Republicans are now in control of 67% of the nation’s State Legislatures. An Article V Constitutional Convention may be viable.
If Trump does nothing beyond “burning down the house” of the msm, he will have accomplished what no one else has done before.
Richard Saunders, and others, yes you know who you are,I am addressing who cast stones at those who were reluctant to jump on the djt bandwagon, For you I have a brief message.
Fuck off. I voted for trump, I was not happy to do so but I did. But you who disparage we who haboured doubts, based on reality, about djt, who now insult us what can I say but stick your self righteous BS where the sun does not shine. You are a few degrees off true north tof wanting a rule by the totalitarian of your choice. Back off, you are not welcome on the street where I live.
GB@2:17,
Glad that you caught up with reality.
Sociology is not a science and never will be. This is especially true for prognostication. Predictions are hard, especially about future, as Yogi Berra could have said. Humans have a free will, and their decisions can be influenced by lots of things, like weather in election day or their innate feeling which is impossible to assess. Shy Tory effect is also important, and nobody knows how to include it predictions. While in this elections it mostly affected undecided and independent voters, it was not small and eventually made a lot of difference in the key battlefields.
The demand of journalists for unlimited access to public figures is an arrogance. Even politicians and celebrities have a right to keep their private life private. Contacts with press is needed, of course, but it is up to politicians to decide when and in what format make such contacts. This is especially true when the press is openly hostile and biased.
Obama told his staff they could grieve for 2 weeks – 2 weeks??????
Lotta time to troll websites
That the msm has a strong leftist (not liberal) bias is not an issue. The issue is that they are shameless liars and remorseless propagandists.
As long as Trump supporters feel that he sincerely fights for their interests, he can do absolutely everything. The only thing they will not forgive him is betrayal. Leader of a peasant’t revolt can be as rude, crude and cruel as he wishes, just keep the job being done.
It is not news that the members of the mass media are largely shameless propagandists for the Democrats. It’s been that way – and and also widely known- for years. It’s also true that trust in the mass media is at an all-time low. The question is, will this falling trust lead to more objective media? Current indications do not indicate this will occur. Rather, the media seems to be doubling down.
The Gallup Poll has some interesting data. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to trust mass media: 32% to 14%. That is no surprise. Those 50 and older are more likely to trust mass media compared to those 18-49: 38 versus 26. Yet older people were more likely to vote for Trump. That merits some explanation.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0
I don’t mind the press or TV networks being biased, if they would admit to their biases. Once upon a time before WWII (No TV back then), newspapers openly admitted where they stood. Most major cities had two papers – one liberal one conservative.
The Vietnam War was a big watershed in journalism in this country. Most newspapers and TV stations had followed a policy of politics ending at the water’s edge as they supported our military efforts up till those days. Between turning our citizens against the war in Vietnam and bringing down the Nixon Presidency, the MSM sensed their great power to mold events and took a left turn. In spite of that, they continued to hold themselves out as objective and seekers of the truth. Unfortunately, LIVs still believe that crap. Maybe the Trump years will bring a demand that these organizations go back to proclaiming their biases so people will know.
When so many news providers proclaim that Fox News is hard right and they are the center of the political spectrum, you know they are either out of touch or are systematically trying to fool the citizens. I believe it is the latter.
The problem with MSM is not that they tell lies, but that they also believe them. That makes self-correction impossible. They violate the Fist Rule of the Holes: When you are in the hole, stop digging. But as true believers they cannot help themselves and make the hole deeper. Eventually this leads to ideological meltdown like what I have seen in Communist Russia.
“The Gallup Poll has some interesting data. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to trust mass media: 32% to 14%. That is no surprise.”
Given that the msm panders to Democrats’ prejudices, I was surprised that so few Dems trust the media. Gallup actually reports that 32% of independents trust the media, versus 51% of Dems — still fewer than I would have thought.
I’m extending patience plus a wait and see trial period to Trump before I make a judgment about him as President, just as I did with Obama in 2008. I hope I am not disappointed again.
As for the Establishment Media, the exceeded their probationary period long ago. The NYT and the rest of ’em have earned themselves the name America’s Enemedia. It’s time for them to go.
Excellent post.
While Obama has done a superb media job of portraying himself as the magnanimous loser and transferor of power, I have read some skepticism on that point. (Forgot where.) Not that they are equivalent, but recall the Clinton transition: Stolen furniture, destroyed keyboards, coffee all over the walls. We all should have learned the primary Obama lesson well; pay attention to the deeds, not the words.
I am slightly less certain that polling methodology is fair and unbiased. There is a post that claims that the RCP average had a suspicious rearrangement of its poll components in the week or two leading up to the election, possibly for the purpose of maintaining that small Hillary lead. Would they trade real accuracy for a positive Hillary spin? Maybe. This was the election where a few journalists said that their J-school rules had to suspended in order to put Hillary over the top.
And there were four battleground states in the RCP list that were off by 5.0 to 7.5%. That’s a lot. The RCP guy said that it wasn’t much worse than in 2012, but then there were three battleground states with errors of 4 to 5.5%. To me that is much worse, especially if the Dem/Rep directional error is reversed relative to 2012. These so called scientific polling methods simply track the statistical trends of what happen before as their basis.
neo-neocon Says:
November 16th, 2016 at 2:39 pm
I don’t trust any source, including conservative ones. Nor does averaging them out lead to the truth.
* * *
Interesting philosophical discussion inherent in that line. How would one even go about averaging the claims made by different factions?
Snopes has a bucket for “partly true” claims and separates the components of complex statements/articles, but that is not quite the same thing.
If you put a drop of dark dye into a glass of water, you get, as an average, gray water; but if you drop in a stone, you just get a wet rock.
If Bush II had Trum’s alt right propaganda backup, the Iraq years would have been quite different. The Leftist propaganda arms also tried to gum up the works for as long as they could, delaying things until Kerry in 2004 or Hussein in 2008 could take over and put the ice pick to Iraqi and Afghan liberation.
I see their orders from their Authority, hasn’t changed for the next Republican P.