• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trump calls for a nuclear weapons reduction deal with President Putin of Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SatelliteOfLove

Member
Ollie Pooch said:
Between their endless coverage of Trump and focus on her emails?

I wish when people claimed 'liberal media' they could actually provide specific examples of bias or favouritism.
Click to expand...

Their reporting on the dossier throws them into fake news...or something. That's the crazy world we live in now, and perspective on what that is paramount.
 
M

metalslimer

Member
BKK said:
You're missing the point, Trump had plenty of coverage over that in the UK. But during elections TV stations have to give equal coverage to all parties.
Click to expand...

And CNN actually gave more coverage to Trump running his entire rallies for weeks. And they also put supporters of his on the panels going as far as to hire his former campaign manager while he was still being paid. I would argue CNNs coverage was essential to him winning the primary and played a not so small part in him winning the general. Trump got far more coverage than Hillary. When they did bother to mention Hillary is was to talk about how corrupt she was and emails.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about.
 
R

rjinaz

Member
Trump had free ad time his whole run just by being covered on the news stations pretty much 24/7. But the MSM was biased towards Trump, sure. Let's also ignore that all the media went heavy on that FBI crap against Hillary right before the election even though anybody informed knew it wasn't going to go anywhere.
 
B

BKK

Member
Carpe Libertatem said:
Or because.. the UK is an international market to CNN. Why show a US-focused news channel in another country?
Click to expand...

We used to get the US CNN, but you have to understand. UK media laws are different to the US. Newspapers are free to be as biased as they like, TV channels not so much, especially during elections when they are under strict rules.
 
E

EatinOlives

Member
So Cheeto Jesus just agreed to lift Russia's sanctions in return for essentially nothing.

I would consider him a dumb motherfucker who can't negotiate worth shit, but let's be honest, he's making purposefully bad deals with Russia as part of his puppetry deal.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
BKK said:
I know exactly what he's said, and it has been widely mis-reported in the "mainstream media". So liberal media basically report on the election with extreme bias for their favoured candidate. When their favoured candidate loses, they blame it on "fake news" and then instead of reporting unsourced ludicrous acusations themselves, they wait for some non-mainstream site to report it, and then report on other sources reporting it as if it has any sort of legitimacy.
Click to expand...

Good lord this assessment is so ridiculously off base I can't not comment on it.

1) Sure, the mainstream media totally preferred the candidate that they spent all their time ragging on emails. They totally preferred her despite giving completely unedited free air time to Trump's rallies. Tell me again just how liberal they are an how they totally preferred Hillary. They actually prefer ratings, and that's how they reported things.

2) They talked about Fake News because it is a real phenomenon happening in social media.

3) CNN didn't wait for a non-mainstream site to report it. Jesus Christ, Trump's propaganda is working really fucking well isn't it? CNN's report was that the briefing given to Obama and Trump talked about Trump being possibly compromised by Russia and that a 2 page summary included info from a dossier that had been cycling around. They did not print the dossier nor did their news have much to do with it. The news was that the briefings showed the IC thought Trump was possibly compromised by the Russians. After that report is when Buzzfeed actually released the dossier and pissed off a lot of that "liberal media." Then Trump's own fucking team conflated the two in a deliberate strategy to de-legitimize both at the same time through their "Fake news" propaganda. You fell for it, too.

4) You can scream up and down about how non-legitimate the dossier of info is, but the fact remains the IC obviously believes something is up enough to put some of it in the briefing and NOT come out and say it's false yet. There's an investigation going on, and that's on top of the fact the person who wrote it has a lot of credibility. It may be unverified, but as a document, it is legitimate, and it's also not fake news even remotely. It's a document that's being looked at by our government and a lot of international governments. Doesn't mean each detail is true, but it does mean we should know what's going on and it should be reported.

5) Again, if the mainstream media is so liberal than tell me why they sat on this dossier since October all while printing full front page headlines about the Clinton Email bullshit.
 
B

BKK

Member
metalslimer said:
And CNN actually gave more coverage to Trump running his entire rallies for weeks. And they also put supporters of his on the panels going as far as to hire his former campaign manager while he was still being paid. I would argue CNNs coverage was essential to him winning the primary and played a not so small part in him winning the general. Trump got far more coverage than Hillary. When they did bother to mention Hillary is was to talk about how corrupt she was and emails.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

I would argue that most CNN coverage of Trump was negative, it's just that he went with the old adage of "all news is good news". Anyway, I'm not a Trump fan, and arguing with you makes it seem that I am, so that's not my issue. Just pointing out that CNN supported the left wing candidate (as fox supported the right wing one). I don't think anything controversial in what I said there.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
BKK said:
We used to get the US CNN, but you have to understand. UK media laws are different to the US. Newspapers are free to be as biased as they like, TV channels not so much, especially during elections when they are under strict rules.
Click to expand...

No country besides the US and Canada ever broadcasted CNN domestic, sorry. You've always gotten CNN International. So if you're still getting that, nothing has changed.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
BKK said:
I would argue that most CNN coverage of Trump was negative, it's just that he went with the old adage of "all news is good news". Anyway, I'm not a Trump fan, and arguing with you makes it seem that I am, so that's not my issue. Just pointing out that CNN supported the left wing candidate (as fox supported the right wing one). I don't think anything controversial in what I said there.
Click to expand...

But that IS controversial. CNN is so ridiculously middle of the road it hurts. If you think they're liberal you're nuts, especially if you think they're liberal in the way Fox News is right wing. Fox is literally the propaganda wing of the Republican party for fuck's sake!
 
T

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Trump was just talking about going back to stockpiling nukes a few days ago. He has the attention span of a goldfish.
 
M

metalslimer

Member
BKK said:
I would argue that most CNN coverage of Trump was negative, it's just that he went with the old adage of "all news is good news". Anyway, I'm not a Trump fan, and arguing with you makes it seem that I am, so that's not my issue. Just pointing out that CNN supported the left wing candidate (as fox supported the right wing one). I don't think anything controversial in what I said there.
Click to expand...

Most of CNNs coverage of Hillary involved her emails and was negative. I can find the source if you want but very little time was actually given to her actual policy. They covered Trump more because he said more stupid shit. I can't believe I'm defending CNN because I hate them bUT they cared more about ratings than a political candidate. You are just wrong about this. If you said MSNBC than yes they were biased towards Hillary.
 
B

BKK

Member
Carpe Libertatem said:
No country besides the US and Canada ever broadcasted CNN domestic, sorry. You've always gotten CNN International. So if you're still getting that, nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

Why would you even argue about that? I used to be a "DXer". US CNN wasn't even hard to get, it was just broadcast on UK satellites. Years ago I used to pick up the US news feeds, but they would only display in black and white (NTSC) on my PAL TV.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
BKK said:
Why would you even argue about that? I used to be a "DXer". US CNN wasn't even hard to get, it was just broadcast on UK satellites. Years ago I used to pick up the US news feeds, but they would only display in black and white (NTSC) on my PAL TV.
Click to expand...

Because your entire point is that CNN is biased and isn't aired in the UK because of that. Which isn't true and if it was I'd be willing to be they wouldn't be showing CNN International, which has many of the same programs as the domestic one.

Your motives are entirely transparent here, nonetheless.
 
B

BKK

Member
metalslimer said:
Most of CNNs coverage of Hillary involved her emails and was negative. I can find the source if you want but very little time was actually given to her actual policy. They covered Trump more because he said more stupid shit. I can't believe I'm defending CNN because I hate them bUT they cared more about ratings than a political candidate. You are just wrong about this. If you said MSNBC than yes they were biased towards Hillary.
Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree then, because I see it different to you. Which is fine. I generally watch business channels. CNBC is biased to the right, Bloomberg biased to the left. You'd expect them to give you unbiased financial news right? But they don't ...
 
I

International Iron Man

Banned
Honestly the easiest fix for this, to basically make sure he's not a Russian stooge, is to have the US put sanctions on Russia until Trump is ineligible to be president, make it a law that the sanctions are unable to be lifted while he is president, and be done with it.

There, now you've basically neutralized that and if he takes any extreme measures to circumvent that you have him for treason and breaking multiple laws.
 
B

BKK

Member
Carpe Libertatem said:
Because your entire point is that CNN is biased and isn't aired in the UK because of that. Which isn't true and if it was I'd be willing to be they wouldn't be showing CNN International, which has many of the same programs as the domestic one.

Your motives are entirely transparent here, nonetheless.
Click to expand...

But that was my argument, you didn't use to have to "DX" to get CNN US in the UK, it was just on normal UK satellites, but not nowadays, they don't broadcast anymore.
 
L

Lord Frieza

Member
BKK said:
I would argue that most CNN coverage of Trump was negative, it's just that he went with the old adage of "all news is good news". Anyway, I'm not a Trump fan, and arguing with you makes it seem that I am, so that's not my issue. Just pointing out that CNN supported the left wing candidate (as fox supported the right wing one). I don't think anything controversial in what I said there.
Click to expand...

Not controversial, just wrong
 
B

Baron Aloha

A Shining Example
Setting the issues with no sanctions aside for a moment... the devil is in the details. When he talks reduction - is he referring to just the total number of warheads or a reduction in the overall payload/capabilities?

Russia has some scary ass nukes. Shit like the "Satan 2" should not exist. For those that don't know - just 1 of those could wipe out an area the size of Texas.
 
M

mo60

Member
backslashbunny said:
Impeach this orange shitstain daughterfucker already.

Do it before he even takes office. Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

If trump gets impeached it's going to be awhile after he is in office. Just hope the congress is not going to move away from being harsh on Russia after trump gets into office.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
BKK said:
But that was my argument, you didn't use to have to "DX" to get CNN US in the UK, it was just on normal UK satellites, but not nowadays, they don't broadcast anymore.
Click to expand...

No, it was never broadcast outside the US and Canada, outside of obscure methods that it sounds like you were using. The only CNN channel that airs in the UK is CNN International. Which has many of the same programs as the domestic one, so if CNN Domestic was banned for being "biased" it stands to reason that the International one which is very similar would also be banned.
 
T

tbm24

Member
i understand congress is all over the place with Trump, but I have to imagine them playing ball with Trump lifting Russian Sanctions.
 
K

K.Jack

Knowledge is power, guard it well
Man, I just hope that, one day, we find out what Russia is holding over Trump's head.

It must be something seriously gross, like him on tape with underage sex workers. Or he had a kid by one of them.
 
D

DXB-KNIGHT

Member
Sure
putin-winking.jpg
 
Z

Zenner

Member
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
No, it ends with Putin lining his pockets with US money in exchange for decommissioning weapons that are probably on their last legs, if they are even still working at all.
Click to expand...

That was pretty much a plot point in the book
Debt of Honor by Tom Clancy - most the Russian ICBMs being dismantled, in exchange for financial incentive, were in abandoned silos and unable to launch anyway.
.
 
J

JoeyJungle

Banned
mo60 said:
Couldn't trump work with the Russian administration to strengthen this treaty once he gets into office?
Click to expand...

He could do that. But lifting the economic sanctions on Russia in exchange for a minor adjustment to a treaty that's already in place is absolutely no achievement.
 
A

Aaronology

Member
BKK said:
I would argue that most CNN coverage of Trump was negative...
Click to expand...

Yup. However this negativity was displaced over a wide range of topics, broad but not deep, and nothing particularly stuck.

Just pointing out that CNN supported the left wing candidate (as fox supported the right wing one). I don't think anything controversial in what I said there.
Click to expand...
Inaccurate. CNN was the 4th most negative network wrt/Clinton and the network that spent the most time on her scandals behind Fox. To pull an excerpt from a post I wrote on this topic recently:

News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/
Figure 13. Tone of Clinton’s Coverage, by News Outlet
Figure-13-general-election-768x389.png


The horserace was the main focus of Clinton’s coverage, accounting for more than two-fifths of her coverage (see Figure 14). Her policy positions received less attention than did Trump’s (9 percent versus 12 percent) and the coverage was less focused. Whereas his position on immigration received considerable attention, she did not have a single policy issue that accounted for more than 1 percent of her coverage. If she had a policy agenda, it was not apparent in the news. Her lengthy record of public service also received scant attention.

On the other hand, Clinton’s controversies got more attention than Trump’s (19 percent versus 15 percent) and were more focused. Trump wallowed in a cascade of separate controversies. Clinton’s badgering had a laser-like focus. She was alleged to be scandal-prone. Clinton’s alleged scandals accounted for 16 percent of her coverage—four times the amount of press attention paid to Trump’s treatment of women and sixteen times the amount of news coverage given to Clinton’s most heavily covered policy position.

The ten news outlets in our study varied in their attention to the Clinton scandal allegations. The Los Angeles Times gave them the least space—7 percent of its Clinton coverage focused on the scandals. The Los Angeles Times actually gave more news space to Clinton’s policy positions than to the alleged scandals—the only one of the ten outlets to do so. Fox News was at the other extreme, spending 27 percent of its Clinton coverage on the scandals. CNN was second at 18 percent. The cable networks thrive on controversy, and Clinton’s alleged scandals were no exception. All three broadcast networks also played them up. The average for ABC, CBS, and NBC was 16 percent. The average for the newspapers in our study was several points lower (11 percent).

In all ten outlets, the tone of coverage of Clinton’s alleged scandals was highly negative. It equaled or exceeded 95 percent negative in every outlet except NBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. The Post was the least negative—its coverage divided 90 percent negative to 10 percent positive. With the possible exception of the Post, none of the outlets made a concerted effort to put the allegations in context. Was Clinton’s merging of her personal and official emails, which had also been the practice of other top officials, an egregious and possibly disqualifying error of judgment? The question went largely unanswered in the news coverage, as journalists wrote instead on how the email scandal was causing her to lose voter support.
Click to expand...

CNN's reliance on false equivalence between HRC and DJT in the interest of depicting a horserace between the two was extremely lucrative, for sure. That they're now being mauled by the man-eating monstrosity they fed flesh to is simply a form of karma.
 
B

BKK

Member
Carpe Libertatem said:
No, it was never broadcast outside the US and Canada, outside of obscure methods that it sounds like you were using. The only CNN channel that airs in the UK is CNN International. Which has many of the same programs as the domestic one, so if CNN Domestic was banned for being "biased" it stands to reason that the International one which is very similar would also be banned.
Click to expand...

OK, this is going off topic, but we could get "US" CNN which would have some obscure local channel in some place that I've never heard of in the US, where they would go live to some helicopter chase, it was quite fun! I never said that CNN (US) got banned, just that US (Fox News) got fined, then we lost CNN (US). My assumption was only that they realised it wasn't worth the risk of having a UK license for a live US channel.
 
B

BoboBrazil

Member
Evil Monkey DTT said:
So can trump ever be more obviously working for Russia or does he have to literally say "I wish America was russia"
Click to expand...

It's so obvious at this point with his comments, his cabinet picks, Flynn getting caught calling Russia, saying Russia will be his first meeting, etc, I can't even tell if he is serious or trolling at this point. He can't be this stupid with his positive Russian comments over and over again..He's already taken Russia's word over our intelligence agencies.
 
E

Earthstrike

Member
What a joke. In terms of politics, this makes no sense. If each country has 700 nukes, then reduces to 500, so the fuck what? What changed? The russians got their sanctions lifted for nothing.
 
B

BKK

Member
Aaronology said:
Yup. However this negativity was displaced over a wide range of topics, broad but not deep, and nothing particularly stuck.

Inaccurate. CNN was the 4th most negative network wrt/Clinton and the network that spent the most time on her scandals behind Fox. To pull an excerpt from a post I wrote on this topic recently:

News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/


CNN's reliance on false equivalence between HRC and DJT in the interest of depicting a horserace between the two was extremely lucrative, for sure. That they're now being mauled by the man-eating monstrosity they fed flesh to is simply a form of karma.
Click to expand...

Great post, thanks!
 
J

JoeyJungle

Banned
Aaronology said:
Yup. However this negativity was displaced over a wide range of topics, broad but not deep, and nothing particularly stuck.

Inaccurate. CNN was the 4th most negative network wrt/Clinton and the network that spent the most time on her scandals behind Fox. To pull an excerpt from a post I wrote on this topic recently:

News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/


CNN's reliance on false equivalence between HRC and DJT in the interest of depicting a horserace between the two was extremely lucrative, for sure. That they're now being mauled by the man-eating monstrosity they fed flesh to is simply a form of karma.
Click to expand...

Great article! Most interesting to me is that people saying that the coverage of their preferred candidate was mostly negative were right, regardless of their preferred candidate.
 
M

metalslimer

Member
JoeyJungle said:
Great article! Most interesting to me is that people saying that the coverage of their preferred candidate was mostly negative were right, regardless of their preferred candidate.
Click to expand...

Well yes this election was basically people talking about how much everyone hated both of them. It was actually amusing how much the news complained about how negative and exhausting the campaign was when they were responsible for showing the content.
 
A

Aaronology

Member
JoeyJungle said:
Great article! Most interesting to me is that people saying that the coverage of their preferred candidate was mostly negative were right, regardless of their preferred candidate.
Click to expand...
Yup. At the risk of digressing, I think this is an important segment of the Harvard report:

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/#Introduction_The_Medias_Negative_Bias
Introduction: The Media’s Negative Bias

Negative coverage was the order of the day in the general election. Not a week passed where the nominees’ coverage reached into positive territory. It peaked at 81 percent negative in mid-October, but there was not a single week where it dropped below 64 percent negative.

Even those numbers understate the level of negativity. Much of the candidates’ “good press” was in the context of the horserace—who is winning and who is losing and why. At any given moment in the campaign, one of the candidates has the momentum, which is a source of positive coverage. Figure 2 shows the tone of the nominees’ coverage on non-horserace topics, those that bear some relationship to the question of their fitness for office—their policy positions, personal qualities, leadership abilities, ethical standards, and the like. In Trump’s case, this coverage was 87 percent negative to 13 percent positive. Clinton’s ratio was identical—87 percent negative to 13 percent positive. “Just like Tweedledum and Tweedledee,” as Barry Goldwater said dismissively of America’s two parties in the 1960s.

...Not since 1984—eight elections ago—have the presidential nominees enjoyed positive press coverage. The 2016 campaign did not even top the record for negativity. That distinction belongs to the 2000 campaign when news reports questioned whether Al Gore was trustworthy enough and George W. Bush was smart enough to deserve the presidency.

The press’s negative bent is not confined to election politics (see Figure 4).[2] In recent years, when immigration has been the subject of news stories, the ratio of negative stories to positive ones has been 5-to-1. In that same period, news reports featuring Muslims have been 6-to-1 negative. News stories about health care policy, most of which centered on the 2010 Affordable Care Act, have been 2-to-1 negative. Although the nation’s economy has steadily improved since the financial crisis of 2008, one would not know that from the tone of news coverage. Since 2010, news stories about the nation’s economy have been 2-to-1 negative over positive.

The real bias of the press is not that it’s liberal. Its bias is a decided preference for the negative. As scholar Michael Robinson noted, the news media seem to have taken some motherly advice and turned it upside down. “If you don’t have anything bad to say about someone, don’t say anything at all.”[3] A New York Times columnist recently asserted that “the internet is distorting our collective grasp on the truth.”[4] There’s a degree of accuracy in that claim but the problem goes beyond the internet and the talk shows. The mainstream press highlights what’s wrong with politics without also telling us what’s right.

It’s a version of politics that rewards a particular brand of politics. When everything and everybody is portrayed as deeply flawed, there’s no sense making distinctions on that score, which works to the advantage of those who are more deeply flawed. Civility and sound proposals are no longer the stuff of headlines, which instead give voice to those who are skilled in the art of destruction. The car wreck that was the 2016 election had many drivers. Journalists were not alone in the car, but their fingerprints were all over the wheel.
Click to expand...

And I don't see things changing on this score unless Trump jeopardizes the media's existence as we know it. It's just making them too much money.
 
B

BKK

Member
To be fair, and I'm not American, so didn't get a chance to vote. I really didn't see any of the main candidates being that appealing to centrist voters. I know that there were alternatives (greens etc), but they couldn't do anything. This probably explains "populism" in many countries. There is a democratic deficit in many mainstream democracies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Financial Times: How Brad Smith used Microsoft’s $1bn law and lobbying machine to win Activision battle
News Drama Business 2 3
127
11K
Topher replied
Ancient Roman figures brought to life via AI
Science 2 3
100
10K
Dirk Benedict replied
Interview with Shuji Utsumi (SEGA Co-COO) by Japanese media outlet Seizo-Trend
Business Game Dev
1
2K
Unknown? replied
  • Locked
Trump "Owned by Russia for 30 years" says his "Art of Deal" Ghostwriter
2 3
131
10K
FStubbs replied
Russia's Putin unveils 'invincible' nuclear weapons: There are more mad 'Rocket Men' on suicide mission than you thought
2
64
7K
Atrus replied
Top Bottom