Donald Trump for President Thread
- Thread starter longers
- Start date
- Status
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/1...bandoned-policy-coverage-2016-campaign/214120
"Since the beginning of 2016, ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News have devoted just 32 minutes to issues coverage, according to Andrew Tyndall.
Differentiating issues coverage from daily campaign coverage where policy topics might be addressed, Tyndall defines issues coverage by a newscast this way: “It takes a public policy, outlines the societal problem that needs to be addressed, describes the candidates' platform positions and proposed solutions, and evaluates their efficacy.”
And this remarkable finding from Tyndall [emphasis added]:
No trade, no healthcare, no climate change, no drugs, no poverty, no guns, no infrastructure, no deficits. To the extent that these issues have been mentioned, it has been on the candidates' terms, not on the networks' initiative.
These numbers are staggering in terms of the complete retreat they represent from issues-orientated campaign coverage. Just eight years ago, the last time both parties nominated new candidates for the White House, the network newscasts devoted 220 minutes to issues coverage, compared to only 32 minutes so far this year. (CBS Evening News went from 119 minutes of issues coverage in 2008 to 16 this year.)
Note that during the Republican primary season alone, the networks spent 333 minutes focusing on Donald Trump. Yet for all of 2016, they have set aside just one-tenth of that for issue reporting.
And look at this: Combined, the three network newscasts have slotted 100 minutes so far this year for reporting on Hillary Clinton’s emails while she served as secretary of state, but just 32 minutes for all issues coverage. (NBC’s Nightly News has spent 31 minutes on the emails this year; just eight minutes on issues.)
Indeed, this approach used to be a hallmark of presidential campaign reporting; outline what candidates stand for, describe what their presidency might look like, and compare and contrast that platform with his or her opponents. i.e. What would the new president’s top priorities be on the first day of his or her new administration?
It seems clear that the media’s abandonment of issues coverage benefits Trump since his campaign has done very little to outline the candidate’s core beliefs. Clinton, by contrast, has done the opposite.
As the Associated Press reported, “Trump’s campaign has posted just seven policy proposals on his website, totaling just over 9,000 words. There are 38 on Clinton’s ‘issues’ page, ranging from efforts to cure Alzheimer’s disease to Wall Street and criminal justice reform, and her campaign boasts that it has now released 65 policy fact sheets, totaling 112,735 words.”
"Since the beginning of 2016, ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News have devoted just 32 minutes to issues coverage, according to Andrew Tyndall.
Differentiating issues coverage from daily campaign coverage where policy topics might be addressed, Tyndall defines issues coverage by a newscast this way: “It takes a public policy, outlines the societal problem that needs to be addressed, describes the candidates' platform positions and proposed solutions, and evaluates their efficacy.”
And this remarkable finding from Tyndall [emphasis added]:
No trade, no healthcare, no climate change, no drugs, no poverty, no guns, no infrastructure, no deficits. To the extent that these issues have been mentioned, it has been on the candidates' terms, not on the networks' initiative.
These numbers are staggering in terms of the complete retreat they represent from issues-orientated campaign coverage. Just eight years ago, the last time both parties nominated new candidates for the White House, the network newscasts devoted 220 minutes to issues coverage, compared to only 32 minutes so far this year. (CBS Evening News went from 119 minutes of issues coverage in 2008 to 16 this year.)
Note that during the Republican primary season alone, the networks spent 333 minutes focusing on Donald Trump. Yet for all of 2016, they have set aside just one-tenth of that for issue reporting.
And look at this: Combined, the three network newscasts have slotted 100 minutes so far this year for reporting on Hillary Clinton’s emails while she served as secretary of state, but just 32 minutes for all issues coverage. (NBC’s Nightly News has spent 31 minutes on the emails this year; just eight minutes on issues.)
Indeed, this approach used to be a hallmark of presidential campaign reporting; outline what candidates stand for, describe what their presidency might look like, and compare and contrast that platform with his or her opponents. i.e. What would the new president’s top priorities be on the first day of his or her new administration?
It seems clear that the media’s abandonment of issues coverage benefits Trump since his campaign has done very little to outline the candidate’s core beliefs. Clinton, by contrast, has done the opposite.
As the Associated Press reported, “Trump’s campaign has posted just seven policy proposals on his website, totaling just over 9,000 words. There are 38 on Clinton’s ‘issues’ page, ranging from efforts to cure Alzheimer’s disease to Wall Street and criminal justice reform, and her campaign boasts that it has now released 65 policy fact sheets, totaling 112,735 words.”
SNova
Player Valuation: £15m
The president has a lot of power, but they aren't dictator.
Fortunately Trump won the Rebulicans the Whitehouse, the Senate and the House, as well as some supreme court appointments.
TheFinnFan
Finners
Obama has stole their dough
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/the-only-thing-that-makes-the-media-better-is-diversity-1788805055
some excerpts, before the Real 'Muricans choke on their barbecue
guns back in your holsters, boys.
"The problem is not that the New York Times (who we are using here as a representative of the prestige media at large) failed to cover “middle America.” The problem is that the New York Times covers middle America as if it was venturing into a strange and foreign land where the most mundane aspects of life must be explained as exotic novelties. In Kansas City they eat “barbecue”—crazy! The sincere efforts of the Times to cover this entire nation often devolve into farce. It’s not that they’re not trying. It’s that they don’t have the proper tools.
What does the media need? Diversity. Period. Diversity in the newsrooms, diversity among editors, diversity among executives. All news publications are ultimately the product of the collective lived experience of the people who put them out. There is no super-intelligent omniscient robot deciding what goes in the New York Times; it is the product of a bunch of people sitting in a room, using their own best judgment. Their own best judgment is shaped by their own lives. If you do not have people in that room who lived a very wide array of different types of lives, your publication will have holes. This is why the New York Times can write very credible analyses of barbecue restaurants in Williamsburg, yet a trip to Kansas City comes off as the equivalent of a trip to the moon.
Of course, every media outlet will tell you they value diversity. The deeper problem is what places like the New York Times think diversity is. The Times’ approach to diversity is to hire a black person who went to Columbia Journalism School and a woman who went to Princeton and someone who grew up in rural West Virginia who went to Harvard. This is not what diversity means. Elite institutions that can recruit anyone they want often achieve a surface-level visual diversity that leaves in place the fundamental problem of everyone seeing the world in basically the same way. The media needs racial diversity. It needs gender diversity. It needs geographic diversity. But it also needs economic diversity, a diversity of background and class, and this has been a resolute blind spot. Many of the smartest writers in America never graduated from college. I’ve worked with them! Writing is a talent that can be developed in isolation and is distributed widely. Some of the most perceptive political commentators on America are random people on Twitter who have day jobs. There are great journalists working at crappy small town papers and dreary trade magazines and in the black press and all over everywhere. Go get them! You’re the [Poor language removed] New York Times. You can hire anyone. Going out and raiding other prestige publications for non-white-male writers and then being satisfied that you have achieved diversity ensures you will never achieve real diversity. (Let’s not even discuss the misguided quest for ideological diversity, which is responsible for the career of David Brooks.) The “elite media,” to the extent such a thing still exists, must recruit young writers who are not [Poor language removed] Ivy League graduates, who may not be friends with people who already work there, and who may not be wealthy enough to run in the same social circles. These are the writers who will bring a true diversity of lived experience to your publication, which will translate into a true diversity of stories, and will hopefully prevent you from sounding ridiculous when you cover certain people, places, and things. And this diverse staff must constantly be replenished. Once someone has spent a decade working for the New York Times, they have probably ceased to provide a lot of economic diversity."
some excerpts, before the Real 'Muricans choke on their barbecue
guns back in your holsters, boys.
"The problem is not that the New York Times (who we are using here as a representative of the prestige media at large) failed to cover “middle America.” The problem is that the New York Times covers middle America as if it was venturing into a strange and foreign land where the most mundane aspects of life must be explained as exotic novelties. In Kansas City they eat “barbecue”—crazy! The sincere efforts of the Times to cover this entire nation often devolve into farce. It’s not that they’re not trying. It’s that they don’t have the proper tools.
What does the media need? Diversity. Period. Diversity in the newsrooms, diversity among editors, diversity among executives. All news publications are ultimately the product of the collective lived experience of the people who put them out. There is no super-intelligent omniscient robot deciding what goes in the New York Times; it is the product of a bunch of people sitting in a room, using their own best judgment. Their own best judgment is shaped by their own lives. If you do not have people in that room who lived a very wide array of different types of lives, your publication will have holes. This is why the New York Times can write very credible analyses of barbecue restaurants in Williamsburg, yet a trip to Kansas City comes off as the equivalent of a trip to the moon.
Of course, every media outlet will tell you they value diversity. The deeper problem is what places like the New York Times think diversity is. The Times’ approach to diversity is to hire a black person who went to Columbia Journalism School and a woman who went to Princeton and someone who grew up in rural West Virginia who went to Harvard. This is not what diversity means. Elite institutions that can recruit anyone they want often achieve a surface-level visual diversity that leaves in place the fundamental problem of everyone seeing the world in basically the same way. The media needs racial diversity. It needs gender diversity. It needs geographic diversity. But it also needs economic diversity, a diversity of background and class, and this has been a resolute blind spot. Many of the smartest writers in America never graduated from college. I’ve worked with them! Writing is a talent that can be developed in isolation and is distributed widely. Some of the most perceptive political commentators on America are random people on Twitter who have day jobs. There are great journalists working at crappy small town papers and dreary trade magazines and in the black press and all over everywhere. Go get them! You’re the [Poor language removed] New York Times. You can hire anyone. Going out and raiding other prestige publications for non-white-male writers and then being satisfied that you have achieved diversity ensures you will never achieve real diversity. (Let’s not even discuss the misguided quest for ideological diversity, which is responsible for the career of David Brooks.) The “elite media,” to the extent such a thing still exists, must recruit young writers who are not [Poor language removed] Ivy League graduates, who may not be friends with people who already work there, and who may not be wealthy enough to run in the same social circles. These are the writers who will bring a true diversity of lived experience to your publication, which will translate into a true diversity of stories, and will hopefully prevent you from sounding ridiculous when you cover certain people, places, and things. And this diverse staff must constantly be replenished. Once someone has spent a decade working for the New York Times, they have probably ceased to provide a lot of economic diversity."
I'm convinced that what's put him in the WH - his arrogance, his unwavering self assurance, his "I know best" attitude, lack of political experience etc, etc.. will be his undoing. He's a demigod who'll be surrounded by yes men (and idiots like Palin). He's got so much power he won't know when to stop.
TheFinnFan
Finners
Those protesters should just pack it in and go hit the books. People have spoken. Time to unite under new Commander-in-Chief
Toast
Player Valuation: £80m
I preferred Tim when he had Tourette's.
TheFinnFan
Finners
Check out the secret escape Door. ...ffs...not so secret anymore x
Weird.
- Status