Does Trump inspire hate from his followers?

[Dill]

(10-18-2019, 03:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I've never claimed that it was fake. They've done a good enough job burying themselves with the half truths and misleading statements and cutting of interviewees in mid sentence to build a story. If you can't admit they do that, then tell me which network is a reliable evenly biased news source. I personally use a left and right source and try to find the middle ground. It's like 2 kids fighting, each has their own story, but the absolute truth lies somewhere in between.

For MSM it's all about baiting and getting those little clicks. Many people won't pay attention if it's not dramatized/sensationalized/and zingers batted back and forth. The days of Family Ties is long gone, people want Honey Boo Boo/NBA Wives drama now. It's just a cultural shift. Maybe in a few years, people will tire of it and it'll shift back or shift to the next big thing.

Thanks for the response O-Mike. Glad you are still hanging in there.

Like you, I get news from different sources.  "Right and left" are not my first consideration. I am not looking for "evenly biased sources" at all. I am FIRST concerned about competence, clear presentation of factual record, and required background information to contextualize events--in short quality, professional journalism.

Only SECOND am I concerned with how different (right/MSM/left) news sources report and drive differing narratives. I have to watch bad news/disinformation sources now, because they set the agenda as much as professional news sources.

So I don't really see "two kids fighting."  I see adults "adulting" and some kids trying to get attention. So some news organizations certainly seem more "kid-like" and less professional than others. Take Fox. They have people I think are professional, like Baer and Wallace, but they also put out HOURS of commentary analogous to Kremlin propaganda. They don't shy from conspiracy theories. They cannot see a quid pro quo in the summary of the Trump/Zelenskyy call, but they can see how Trump is fighting corruption when he demands the Ukraine and China investigate a political opponent. Tucker, Laura and Sean simply shill for the president. If you want to know about Trump's amazing stamina and how tired and saggy Pelosi looks they'll give you their impressions. Weak interviews. Loud but anxious laughter at Dems suffering Trump derangement syndrome, as Trump shoots himself in one foot when he insists the G7 meet at his golf resort (while an IMPEACHMENT inquiry is underway, no less), and shoots himself in the other foot when he abandons our allies and backs down from Erdogan. 

MSNBC and CNN have some propagandistic moments. I find Lawrence O'Donnell often tiresome, talking about personalities rather than news on and on.  But Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes are something else--first rate contextualization of news events. Serious interviews. But Trump supporters rarely appear. CNN has good debates and analysis.  Both are professional, much less drama, and so not the mirror-image of Fox.

As far as US newspapers and investigative journalism, the New York Times is still the gold standard. Followed by the Washington Post. They make errors and can get fooled (e.g., Saddam's WMDs) but they do better than anyone else.  WSJ is good for economic news and analysis. Some magazines are also good, not for news, but for more  in-depth contextualization--the Atlantic, the New Yorker, the Nation, sometimes the National Review.  At the other end of the spectrum, where conspiracy thrives, I see Breitbart, the WND, and Infowars, which has the president's ear.

Final point, book length treatments of political and historical issues, along with foreign policy journals, are really my ground for understanding and judging current politics, and assessing daily news.  Where possible I read primary sources as well--War Powers Act, Tower Commision, Iraq report, Green New Deal, Mueller Report, Supreme court decisions, etc.