08-27-2017, 01:16 AM
(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?
