Study: Breitbart-led right-wing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda

[Dill]

(08-26-2017, 12:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Someone tell me again how sticking to criticizing Trump's "policies" is all anyone should do when the average Trump voter didn't care about any policy statements for anyone.

Vlad is still totally unaware of Clinton's white papers on the economy. Yet she referred to them frequently during her stump speeches, which were mostly about policy. You had to listen to the speeches though, not hear about them as reported later. She apparently--mistakenly--thought that American voters wanted a president with a solid understanding of and well thought plans for the economy.  They would "reject easy answers." LOL Talk about being "out of touch" with the voters!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/hillary-clinton-has-a-very-detailed-plan-for-the-economy-that-may-be-a-problem/?utm_term=.3fda7b4a0980

[Belsnickel]

(08-26-2017, 08:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Vlad is still totally unaware of Clinton's white papers on the economy. Yet she referred to them frequently during her stump speeches, which were mostly about policy. You had to listen to the speeches though, not hear about them as reported later. She apparently--mistakenly--thought that American voters wanted a president with a solid understanding of and well thought plans for the economy.  They would "reject easy answers." LOL Talk about being "out of touch" with the voters!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/hillary-clinton-has-a-very-detailed-plan-for-the-economy-that-may-be-a-problem/?utm_term=.3fda7b4a0980

See, the problem is that [insert right wing media site] didn't report on her policies, and instead focused on [insert any of Clinton's scandals] more, and since we all know that everything that isn't [insert right wing media site] is fake news, any existence of [insert Clinton's policy statement] must therefore be fake.

[Dill]

(08-25-2017, 11:00 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That graphic right there is the main example of why the whole "fake news" and "media vs people" and all that jazz was able to catch so much traction. The top three news groups all leaned left, as do 6 of the top 7.

The disparity allowed such an Us vs Them stance against the media to succeed.

I think is where one of Clinton's main flaws in her campaign is shown. (Other than the fatal flaw of neglecting to spend time in a couple states she thought she would auto-win.) It seemed when Trump was talking, he was talking about Hillary's scandals, or his policies (regardless of how well thought out they may or may not be). It felt like Hillary often talked about Trump, and Trump, thinking if she just pointed out that he was Trump enough, no sane country would elect him.

That meant that there really wasn't any policy stances of hers that were well known or polarizing, allowing the voting base to get behind her on it. If you asked a random person what Trump's stance on immigration is, everyone could answer. If you did that with Hillary, could most of them? I feel the same was for a lot of her stances. I really wasn't sure other than her wanting to make a ton of jobs in renewable/solar energy (which is why that was her most covered positive thing). She spent too much time trying to focus on Trump, and let her biggest strength (experience) be overshadowed by not making strong proclamations on what her policies would be, to let people get motivated to vote for her. Leading to a meh turnout.

Trump successfully attacked her while getting his message out (regardless of how he's followed through on it or how much BS some of it was), Clinton didn't.

Len, the 0 point on the graph does not designate an absolute political center, with right and left distributed on either side.

I think the anger against the media in the US has a long history in fringe right politics, getting mainstream traction with the Nixon administration. Us vs them, where "them" is the media, is largely a right wing phenomenon greatly amplfied by Fox and other right wing media prior for three decades prior to this election. Trump could take the anti-media message to a greater extreme as a candidate because his "base" had been prepared to hear it.


One consequence of this has been that discussions of policy have been deflected or crippled. That's why I think one can't just look at what was covered or not in this election, or what candidates chose to speak about or not.  Clinton clearly presented a detailed and logical plan for domestic and foreign policy. Trump did not, but he presented visceral symbols like "the wall" and a Muslim ban. Partly because of their shock value, the press discussed them frequently. The US press is largely for profit, and if they want to keep ratings, they cannot spend much time a Clinton white paper when Trump has just promised Mexico will pay for the wall.


Still a lot of issues which move this election beyond the usual post-election analysis. Why were Trump's vulgar and uninformed attacks on qualified candidates (not just Clinton) "successful"?  If substance is the standard, Clinton kicked his ass in the debates. Clinton did all the usually things candidates do to get out their messages. She had a very visible website, informed proxies speaking for her, and she explained her policies repeatedly in speeches. Yet almost a year later a segment of the public finds her policies unclear, Trump's clear.  But why should a clear policy based on emotion and misinformation be an effective draw at all just because it is "clear"?

[Vlad]

(08-26-2017, 08:40 PM)Dill Wrote: Len, the 0 point on the graph does not designate an absolute political center, with right and left distributed on either side.

I think the anger against the media in the US has a long history in fringe right politics, getting mainstream traction with the Nixon administration. Us vs them, where "them" is the media, is largely a right wing phenomenon greatly amplfied by Fox and other right wing media prior for three decades prior to this election. Trump could take the anti-media message to a greater extreme as a candidate because his "base" had been prepared to hear it.


One consequence of this has been that discussions of policy have been deflected or crippled. That's why I think one can't just look at what was covered or not in this election, or what candidates chose to speak about or not.  Clinton clearly presented a detailed and logical plan for domestic and foreign policy. Trump did not, but he presented visceral symbols like "the wall" and a Muslim ban. Partly because of their shock value, the press discussed them frequently. The US press is largely for profit, and if they want to keep ratings, they cannot spend much time a Clinton white paper when Trump has just promised Mexico will pay for the wall.


Still a lot of issues which move this election beyond the usual post-election analysis. Why were Trump's vulgar and uninformed attacks on qualified candidates (not just Clinton) "successful"?  If substance is the standard, Clinton kicked his ass in the debates. Clinton did all the usually things candidates do to get out their messages. She had a very visible website, informed proxies speaking for her, and she explained her policies repeatedly in speeches. Yet almost a year later a segment of the public finds her policies unclear, Trump's clear.  But why should a clear policy based on emotion and misinformation be an effective draw at all just because it is "clear"?

Hopefully you aren't implying that medias excessive coverage of "the wall" and "muslim ban" was intended to help Trump.
Even a simpleton could deduce that the strategy was meant to help Hillary by portraying Trump as a racist....or at least a big bad meanie.

If this Trump bashing strategy did indeed leave less room for reporting Hillary's "detailed and logical policies" resulting in her losing the election ...then you must conclude that it backfired.

Breightbart isn't the mainstream media. People don't watch Bbart when they turn on the TV.  The lying misleading corrupt mainstream media, an extension of the democRAT party is why Bbart exists.

This "study" is crap. Someone gotta find an explanation for why Hillary lost.  There is...she sucks.

Incidentally, Trump spoke about a little more than just "the wall" and a "muslim ban"... how about the repeal of Obama care, taking care of our Veterans, keeping job here, destroying ISIS?  

[ballsofsteel]

Trump is playing all you Trump lovers for fools and you suck up all the garbage he vomits up. When will you face reality that you been had?

[GMDino]

Whats missing is that there was no "policy" to discuss with Trump.  In order to even cover him it had to about that latest crazy thing he said or did.  If Trump knows anything it's how to get publicity with no substance.  That he did right for himself.

Sadly people must have thought it was a reality show and not voting for the POTUS because they didn't pay attention to what he was saying and what he wasn't saying.

Now, 8 months in, we have a "man" who still thinks he is running his company and everyone should just do things his way so it will be easier.

A President who is alienating everyone except the small, sad group that refuses to understand that he is a dim witted, uneducated, small minded person who might get lucky and have something good happen under his watch but will spend the majority of the time making a fool out of himself with his childish actions.

Or maybe that's what they wanted?

[Dill]

(08-27-2017, 01:16 AM)Vlad Wrote: Hopefully you aren't implying that medias excessive coverage of "the wall" and "muslim ban" was intended to help Trump.
Even a simpleton could deduce that the strategy was meant to help Hillary by portraying Trump as a racist....or at least a big bad meanie.

If this Trump bashing strategy did indeed leave less room for reporting Hillary's "detailed and logical policies" resulting in her losing the election ...then you must conclude that it backfired.

A "simpleton" could deduce that Trump knew nothing about governing and was temperamentally unfit for the presidency.
"Excessive" media coverage of what Trump actually said could not "portray" Trump as racist any more than what Trump actually said. The best that can be said at this point is the racism was a draw to some voters and the rest did not care.  Still don't.

Much of what Trump said could have been just an aside and a joke in the national media, except that attacks on minorities drove his numbers up week by week. The press cannot ignore the Republican front runner and what he says. One must conclude that millions of voters saturated in right wing media were neither interested in "detailed and logical policies" nor following the "lying" MSM anyway.

(08-27-2017, 01:16 AM)Vlad Wrote: Breightbart isn't the mainstream media. People don't watch Bbart when they turn on the TV.  The lying misleading corrupt mainstream media, an extension of the democRAT party is why Bbart exists.


This "study" is crap. Someone gotta find an explanation for why Hillary lost.  There is...she sucks.

Incidentally, Trump spoke about a little more than just "the wall" and a "muslim ban"... how about the repeal of Obama care, taking care of our Veterans, keeping job here, destroying ISIS?  

If social science belongs to the mysterious realm of "democRATs," then assessing media studies by how well they do or do not confirm your personal bias is the only standard you are left with.  Same goes for your judgment of the "lying corrupt mainstream media," which left the standard of truth-telling behind long ago.  

Incidentally, the issue was never just WHAT Trump spoke about, but HOW--promising that solutions to domestic and foreign problems would be easy, he would pick "the best people" and have policies in place in 30 days to repeal Obamacare, wipe out ISIS, punish China, etc. etc. etc. Remember when he had the fundraiser on a battleship for a veteran's group that only had one member?   Mexico was going to pay for the wall? 

What is the profile of the Trump voter persuaded by the Trump show--and not only to vote against Hillary, but against all the other candidates as well? Claiming that Hillary sucks hardly explains the bad judgement of millions of voters who selected Trump from a brace of conservative Republicans who knew how government works. The study provides a piece of the puzzle, as does your response to it.

[Dill]

(08-26-2017, 07:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I actually have to apologize for this misconception on this graphic. I, for some reason, took it as the partisan leaning of the site itself. That graph actually shows the proportion of people that visit based on their political leanings. So those sites don't necessarily lean left based on this graph, but the people that visit them do.

Interestingly enough, this was also the result of media coverage. Clinton's campaign had white papers on white papers. Her campaign put out a ton of stuff on policy, and she spoke a ton about policy and the issues. But, that's not what the media would cover. You could have a 20 minute stump speech where 17 minutes of it was about the issues and policy, 3 minutes talked about Trump, and the media covered only those 3 minutes. The perception that she focused more on Trump than the issues is one that was created by the media, and then the media pundits have criticized her for it.

That's an important qualification regarding the graph.

For anyone who actually watched Clinton's speeches and her debates with the other Democrats, it was clear she was a policy wonk. Her website then offered in-depth support to the speeches (what a comparison to the redundant, unorganized presentation of Trump's website). Media pundits did point this out, but how can you keep talking about that when Trump has insulted veterans or warned of Mexican "rapists" inundating the border or grabbed a ######--and his numbers went up rather than down?

[Dill]

(08-27-2017, 10:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: Whats missing is that there was no "policy" to discuss with Trump.  In order to even cover him it had to about that latest crazy thing he said or did.  If Trump knows anything it's how to get publicity with no substance.  That he did right for himself.

Sadly people must have thought it was a reality show and not voting for the POTUS because they didn't pay attention to what he was saying and what he wasn't saying.

Now, 8 months in, we have a "man" who still thinks he is running his company and everyone should just do things his way so it will be easier.

A President who is alienating everyone except the small, sad group that refuses to understand that he is a dim witted, uneducated, small minded person who might get lucky and have something good happen under his watch but will spend the majority of the time making a fool out of himself with his childish actions.

Or maybe that's what they wanted?

Two things disturbing about the election results:

1. There is a kind of "substance" to Trumps pronouncements regarding women, Muslims, and Mexicans. And it attracted more voters than any other Republican candidate.

2. The group of Trump voters is not "small."