Fake news

As Mollie Hemingway says, if a poll shows that 53% of D's, 79% of I's, and 92% of R's believe the press lies to us on purpose, and then the press reports only that 92% of Rs don't trust them, that's an example of fake news right there.

The figure works out to 72% of everyone put together.  The press couldn't even get the support of a majority of Democrats, for Pete's sake.  CNN's ratings have dropped below those of the Food Channel.  Yet somehow commentators don't conclude that Trump gets support from people disgusted with the press, they conclude people are disgusted with the press because Trump undermined their sterling reputation.

Update:  Sheryl Attkisson's 52 times the press misrepresented the news about President Trump.


douglas said...

I think that poll is the best news I've heard in a long time. I think people generally for quite a while have taken the media's word for things too easily for too long, and a healthy skepticism is a good thing in my book. Maybe too much of this isn't a 'healthy skepticism', but it's still a step in the right direction so far as I can see.

Gringo said...

Yet somehow commentators don't conclude that Trump gets support from people disgusted with the press, they conclude people are disgusted with the press because Trump undermined their sterling reputation.

Precisely so.
They also ignore Obama's attacks on the press- which were admittedly much less than Trump's. (Fewer attacks from Obama just maybe because the press was much more supportive of Obama.) It is also not difficult to find polls showing that support for the press began its decline decades ago. I also recall seeing a poll that indicate that belief in the press declined at about the same pace for both Democrats and Republicans from ~2007 to 2016.

E Hines said...

The headline writer at the Update link is being generous.

These were not "mistakes;" the smartest personages in the room were being deliberately misleading.

Eric Hines

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Suppressing stories has been obvious since the Reagan years, at least. In the reports of Republicans, or conservatives, or just "people" not trusting the media, notice something that is never mentioned: the writer does not even entertain the question whether it is deserved. At the very most, there will be a passing reference to an anecdote or two that something minor occurred which they think the critics are wildly overvaluing. The article is always framed in terms of something being wrong with the critics, not the media, and explanations are sought as to why they would have this false impression.

There are two related exceptions. I am betting that among the Democrats who acknowledged fake news only meant "yeah, Fox. Rush. Breitbart." Also, when a Democrat gets elected, there will be an anguish of self-examination and the media says "Y'know, maybe we have been too negative in our coverage, gosh darn it. Let's strive to do better and be more positive."

This has been going on for decades, and the information is easily available. Whether they are dishonest or cowardly about facing the truth doesn't much matter at this point.

Texan99 said...

I don't remember paying that much attention to biased media until the 2000 election, when I was startled by the difference in coverage between Fox news and all the others. When I was very young and paying only casual attention to Viet Nam war coverage, I gave the idea very little thought. It was only later that I began to read about the fury of people with firsthand knowledge of the war as they read about what the American public was being told.

E Hines said...

Walter Cronkite during the Tet Offensive: "What's going on here?"

What was going on there, as Cronkite knew d*n well, was prompt recovery to the surprise of the offensive and the utter destruction of the VC as a military, political, and social entity in that war. That destruction was well underway when Cronkite made that faux cry of crocodile anguish.

That's when I was woke to the dishonesty of the NLMSM. I was paying attention to that war because at the time, I was in ROTC's POC program with a draft number of 1--and a deferment because of that enrollment.

Eric Hines

J Melcher said...

Not that there is not political bias, but ...

Journalists are elitist, sensationalist, and innumerate. It drives priorities. The placement and extent of coverage is given to "high-priority" stories given this sequence.

A story about -- for instance, today -- the opinions of Arnold Schwartznegger will be prefered over a story about some no name coal miner, or anybody in the coal rather than movie industry. This even though, of course, coal is not a particularly time sensitive topic and that everybody in the industry knows more about coal than anybody in the entertainment business. Today, Arnold said sometime bad about "fellow Republican" Trump, referencing coal, and it's news. Because, celebrity, fame, elite, super cool name recognition.

A story a little girl's tears that tugs the heart strings will be prioritized over an Indonesian adult's frustration with legal immigration paperwork; or a soldier's bride attempting to get a Social Security Card, or any other related problem with coming to American, legally or otherwise. A crying child is news. Especially one in a cage. Even from a protest in 2015 against Obama. It's sensational, so today it is news.

Innumeracy is picking a story without any thought whatever to the quantities or proportions of the country represented. So, IF Greenland melts, bad things happen on the coast. How high do polar temperatures actually have to rise to make the ice cap melt? And given that the declared problem is "Global" warming, how much higher will be the temperature in Kansas or Utah when the related temperatures in Greenland reach that point? How many of the DACA recipients, today, are under ten, or 11 to 20, or 21 to 30, or even over 30 (given the rule they had to be 30 years of age or under in 2012)? How many of these people can honestly be referred to as "Children"? What is the comparison between the percentage of public school teachers who've molested students to Catholic priests who've molested parishioners? Can we get some numbers? No! "Even one is too many," and the narrative stops there.

Journalism sucks, but political bias is only an easy way to recognize more subtle problems.

Texan99 said...

I find it easier to deal with simple stupidity or sensationalism in journalism than a sneaky political bias. Opinion pieces are fine, but editors suppressing one news story and pushing another in order to influence an election is a good way to lose me as a paying audience and expose the news outlet to my contempt. Anyway, it's worse than that: they're just making the facts up now, and barely bothering to correct the record when they're caught at it. Then whining about losing the respect of the public, and deploring the public's reliance on "less reputable" sources.

As the old joke goes, if I'm going to read a Pravda article, I prefer it in the original Russian.

E Hines said...

How high do polar temperatures actually have to rise to make the ice cap melt?

Carefully ignored in that sort of discussion--by members of the global warming funding industry, not only of the NLMSM--is what happens when it's warm enough to melt the polar ice caps. Every time since life appeared that that's happened, life has been lush. Related to that is the geologic trend line for Earth's warming (because the sun has been getting hotter since it formed)--we're a few degrees below that trend line. We have to warm up just to get to normal.

But the press and the industry ignore that. Again, I don't believe that the smartest kids in the room are innumerate. It's where the bucks, and almost as importantly, where the egos are.

How many of these people [elder DACA] can honestly be referred to as "Children"?

Nearly all of them, if 26-yr-olds are child enough to stay on Mumsy and Pop-pop's health coverage plans. Or consistency being a hobgoblin gone mainstream?

Eric Hines