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

[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"?