In the 2016 presidential election, most major news agencies completely lost all objectivity. The look on the journalist's faces as Trump racked up the electoral votes was priceless. Martha Raddatz, like most of the others, with her Clinton loving tears, should be ashamed to call themselves journalist. Maintaining objectivity should always be the compelling backbone of journalism.

And now after the election, most major news agencies have been focused on trying to explain how they got it so wrong. News Flash - people that liked Trump voted for Trump / people that didn't like Trump voted for Clinton / people that liked Clinton voted for Clinton / people that didn't like Clinton voted for Trump. Some people voted for other candidates. Yes it was really that simple. Yet most major news medias are still hung up on the same kind of analysis that they have already proved that they really didn't have a clue about.

And it also seems that the other news media focus these days is in trying to catch Trump in a lie or a contradiction. Take Trumps tweets about the protestors. Can someone definitely say Trumps tweets were about the same group of protestors? And what about how Obamacare is being covered. Trump hasn't reversed or contradicted or compromised his position on Obamacare. A person has always been able to buy insurance policies other than Obamacare that included pre existing conditions and also always buy policies that keep their children covered after a certain age. I don't recall anyone reporting that Trump said that these provisions which can be a part of any insurance policy were horrible ideas. The heart and soul of Obamacare was the individual mandate requiring everyone to purchase insurance. I'm pretty sure that one will get repealed. Obamacare will quickly die without the individual mandate provision cause the remaining insurers will flee. So how do these secondary provisions of Obamacare now become the major news story that Trump is somehow contradicting or reversing his position on Obamacare? Answer - once again there is no objectivity.

True objective journalism could really go a long way in rectifying the divide among Americans. That will never happen but at least most people can now see just how dishonest the news media was in the 2016 election.

''FOLLOW THE MONEY''

For the most part ; journalism is dead. And it has been dead a very long, long time.

Most Americans know this now, by Trump becoming President elect because they ignored or saw through the main stream media, and voted for him.

Some knew it when Obama was put on up on a pedestal before he became President.

Some realized it when Obama was appointed a second term.

Some knew it when the European Union turned countries into States.

Some knew it when United Nations was established.

And  sadly... some still and never will know it.

there hasn't been any in a long while!

But here is a theory

"The Real Clinton Conspiracy" Which Backfired Dramatically









This is by far the WORST campaign in history and it was all orchestrated by Hillary to be intentionally divisive for the nation all to win the presidency at all costs. She has torched the constitution and the country. No wonder Hillary could not go to the stage to thank her supporters. She never counted on them and saw the people as fools. The entire strategy was to take the White House with a manipulation of the entire election process. Just unbelievable. Any Democrat who is not angry at this is clearly just a biased fool. Wake up and smell the roses. You just got what you deserve.

I agree with some of your observations, but I don't find that you carry them quite far enough in some areas, and I think you are off the mark in some others.

First of all, the News Business has ALWAYS been biased. Always. The idea that reporters and newspresenters should behave even more saintly than a Supreme Court Justice, is a fairly recent ideal. That doesn't mean that everyone should knuckle under and accept bias, it means that it is a non-stop responsibility of each citizen to pay attention to the fact that because we are all humans (so far as we can prove), that bias will inevitably intrude. During the election, we saw plenty of pro and anti Clinton bias. And plenty of pro and anti Trump bias. Someone who pretends it was all one way, is simply showing their OWN bias.

As for the journalists who are going down Trumps campaign promises, and declaring already that he isn't adhering to them, I am more in agreement with you. Many "reports" I have seen, more resemble wishful thinking, than professional journalism.

However, it's not all true the other way, that Trump ISN'T reversing course. He reversed course plenty of times during his campaign, even occasionally declaring that he never said something that there was actual recent video recordings of him specifically saying. So it is certainly not a sure sign of media bias, EVERY time that his reversals or "rewordings" are pointed out.

Sparkyae5 says "follow the money," and that's a good idea. But you have to ACTUALLY follow the money, and not just allow your own bias to hide factuality from you.

The number one source of money for modern major news media companies, is NOT rich voluntary contributions.

It's private enterprise companies buying advertising. Capitalist commercial bias is FAR more powerful than political bias in the news, because that is where the money comes from.

And the news media CUSTOMER BASE isn't passive at all. People tend to choose to watch or listen to other people who say what they want to hear. That's why there ARE successful media businesses with bias both left and right.

One of the greatest DISSERVICES I saw the Left promote back in the last century, is what the Right is now promoting in this century. That is, the idea that everyone should pick the bias that they enjoy, and refuse to hear any input to the contrary.

Finally, I disagree with your simplified decision to think that the outcome of the election was just that more people like Trump, or disliked Clinton, than the other way around.

It's way more complicated than that. There have already been plenty of non-biased reports where people were asked why they voted as they did, and many people reported directly into the camera (that's how we know they aren't biased) that they heard and did NOT like what their chosen candidate said or did, but voted for him or her anyway, for reasons unrelated to any of the actual ideals or policies of the campaigns. Classic case in point: the large number of people who said that they did not like Trump as a person, thought he was outright lying during the campaign, but voted him in to office anyway, because they "wanted an outsider."

You are yourself an example of this complexity, if you pretend that Trump is NOT going back on his vows such as to repeal the ACA entirely, now that he's won the election. During the campaign, Trump made everything sound 100% one way or the other, and it was an effective trick. But all it was, was a trick. Now he DOES need to be more realistic, and change away from those 100% promises, because the real problems were never as simple as those promises made them seem (the Wall is a case in point).

But again, I agree that many reporters who didn't like Trump are emphasizing that more gleefully than I would expect from unbiased people. Just don't get carried away, and start ASSUMING bias against you, every time you hear a report you don't like.

Right on the money

IF I WANTED NBC'S OPINION I WOULD AS FOR IT...!!!!!I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT

HAPPENED NOT SOME STUPID BIOS OPINION....NBC, ''IF IT BLEEDS IT READS''....AND

NOT A BUNCH OF MAG PIES SITTING AROUND SPEWING LIBERAL HATE PROPAGANDA .....

sometimes , I could hug you

to my memory, OBama went through the same thing

the idea that anything was different in this election,besides the campaign style, is a case of pointig a finger at others while three point back at you

nitpicking always happens, during and after a campaign,, our own mingle threads are proof

I think journalism is a reflection of the viewers watching it,, consumers

when the consumers/citizens become educated about government , the constitution, and how it is all meant to run,,(unbiased education of facts, that is)

journalism will also report for the more informed and those who insist on factual reporting instead of reporting that matches their bias

Nobody is pretending anything - Some of your talking point analysis of my conclusions are worded far too general to invalidate my specific observations. One thing for sure though is that Trump is definitely not going back on his vow to repeal Obamacare. The individual mandate provision is the only stipulation that doesn't exist anywhere else in other insurance policies. If you have evidence where Trump said these other provisions now being talked about in the news were horrible I might then entertain your conclusions. Obamacare IS and ALWAYS has been 100% about the individual mandate and I'm pretty sure Trump hasn't moved even
.00000000000000000000000000001 per cent on that.

The point of Healthcare Reform was 'affordable' health care,,

lamborghinis are available too,, but most cant afford them


the millions who didnt have healthcare before could not AFFORD it,, whether it was available or not wasnt the issue

are u futching joking!!

who is that directed to?

There was always personal bias.
But "in the past" a lot of people attempted to overcome it, to minimize it, to report everything relevant.
IMO now it's more of a case of pushing an agenda, of celebrating a bias, cherry picking information to support a premade conclusion, foster confirmation bias.
And a lot of news sites that used to have useful information (yahoo news, business insider, RT, bloomberg, zerohedge, aljazeera) have gravitated towards or wholeheartedly jumped on the click bait bandwagon.


IMO not really. Providing all facts, sources, and their accuracy, should be the "backbone" of journalism.


What do you mean by "focused?"
Going to "major news agencies" websites like CNN, MSNBC, CBS news, ABC news, USA today, Huffington Post, Drudge report, New York Times, over the last couple of days I've seen maybe 2-3 stories and/or opinion pieces regarding explaining "how they got it so wrong."
None of which are really major stories. You have to dig.
At best you have Lena Dunham's loquacious whine, with links to it on Drudge and Zerohedge and Yahoo.
Then you've got the NYT "we's gonna be mo' objective!" mea culpa, with links on drudge and other sites.

Is that what you mean by "most major news agencies have been focused?" One person writes an opinion, then a bunch of other popular "news" sites have links to it?


It's not really that simple. Are you under the impression it's just total votes that matter and the electoral college doesn't exist and there's absolutely no importance whatsoever in the difference between a popular majority and an electoral win?


That's been happening since at least the first Bush.
"Read my lips, no new taxes!" That created all sorts of "gotcha!"


He kinda is.
Seems he's turning more towards amendment than blanket repeal.
At best he's using a Clinton trick. "I'm going to repeal it by leaving a bunch of it in place and changing it. Since I used the magic word repeal it, then it's repealing it, not amending it. It matters what I say, not what I do. I get to define the terms and they mean what I say they mean."


"Always?" or do you mean "Always since Obamacare was enacted."
Because people with preexisting conditions couldn't "always" get health insurance. Those insurance companies would fail overnight if they offered it. Preexisting conditions offer 100% risk to insurance companies.


They are horrible ideas.
Preexisting conditions are 100% risk. You can't charge someone 1k a month to cover a guaranteed 2k month healthcare charge.
You either have to raise premiums to the person with a preexisting condition greater than what they consume in healthcare (insurance companies need to pay their paper pushers and make a profit), or you have to take from their neighbor to make up the difference, which just socializes healthcare losses, driving up taxes and healthcare costs as the money has to go through government and insurance companies for skimming before being put in the hands of the people providing actual care.

Keeping kids over 18 on their parents plan is a good idea only if there is no socialized healthcare or medicine whatsoever.
Otherwise it keeps the healthiest people out of the insurance marketplace (healthy people that have to buy insurance, but never use it, never consume healthcare), keeping them from paying into the social system themselves.

What are two major factors driving the failure of Obamacare? Healthy people not buying insurance, too many unhealthy people consuming more healthcare than they're actually paying for.

The two provisions Trump wants to keep...are directly related to why healthcare and the Obamacare system is failing and costs are rising.

It's a horrible idea to keep them if your plan is to repeal or amend Obamacare because it's failing.
Why is it not reported as such?
Probably because there's so much other stuff going on and no one knows what Trump is actually going to do. Only what he's saying now.
And they are reporting on what Trump is saying now.


Not really.
Americans would have to become true objective readers.
Consumers of journalism have just as much responsibility as the producers.
Might as well say "if guns were sold with locks and safety features it could really go a long way in rectifying the divide in the gun control debate."
People buying guns have just as much responsibility to not use them to shoot a bunch of random people or themselves as gun manufacturers have in providing safety features.


...So you've just invalidated your entire thread.
"People need to grow wings and fly! Here are the reasons why! And this is what would happen if they did! This bad stuff will happen if they don't....but people will never grow wings..."


"Most people" anymore have the attention span less than a goldfish, and read either only the headlines or the first paragraph of a news story.
"Most people" seek out stories and information that confirm their bias.
"Most people" aren't going to see anything.
You said it yourself.
"That will never happen."

Fun to bloviate about it though! Thanks!

ah I believe the issue in the thread was how this applies to Trump somehow reversing/compromising his position on Obamacare and certainly not what you just stated.

smh, it gets so hard to keep up

I was sure someone else brought up that things in 'obamacare' were always available,,,



but I got it off topic


please carry on,,,

So many holes in your analysis. I don't have time to rebuke all of these but let me point out one example - my comment "that will never happen" refers to true objectivity in journalism but you chose to apply it to American divide. Kinda the exact same thing that so often happened with the news media in this election.

the whole thread x

lets hear your take on the Topic!

crickstergo:

Your PREDICTION that Trump "is definitely not going back on his vow to repeal Obamacare" is just that. We will see what actually happens.

Part of this will be a matter of politically biased opinion. Some people already see backpedaling by Trump, with his announcement that some provisions of the ACA should be retained. You might have chosen on your own, to decide in advance that 100% repeal of the ACA is not 100%, and that's okay with you.