Posted on 10/18/2017 12:44:55 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
I would like to say, "You can't make this stuff up." But, apparently about half of you will think that I am.
According to a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll released Wednesday (Oct. 18), nearly half of voters across the nation -- 46 percent -- believe the news media fabricate news stories about President Donald Trump and his administration. Just 37 percent of voters think the media do not fabricate stories, the poll shows, while the remaining 17 percent are undecided.
Fabricate: Invent or concoct (something), typically with deceitful intent; make up for the purpose of deception.
That means just one in three voters trust that the media is reporting honestly on the Trump administration. Assuming that the voters are primarily thinking of mainstream media outlets and not fringe internet creations, the results have to be sobering for many news organizations.
It means that the president has succeeded in eroding the media's credibility, which could be key if he follows through on recent threats to "review the licenses" of broadcast outlets or urge boycotts of print media.
Trump has already seized the upper hand if almost half of the voters believe that the media is making up stories about him.
"Actually, dishonesty in the media is one of the things that surprised me the most," Trump told radio host Chris Plante last week. "I thought after I won, the media would become much more stable and much more honest. They've gone crazy. CNN is a joke. NBC is a total joke. You watch what they report, it bears no relationship to what I'm doing. But the media is absolutely dishone
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
“It means that the president has succeeded in eroding the media’s credibility”
Or that the media has succeeded in eroding its own credibility. If you included falsification by omission (or emphasis) then there is no question about it.
There is no doubt in my mind that he is winning.
“It means that the president has succeeded in eroding the media’s credibility...”
This is false, the media itself have eroded their credibility by being caught reporting fake stories from “anonymous” sources, and by being so blatantly biased.
The media have succeeded in eroding the media's credibility. We have credible evidence of the cover-up of a $145 million bribe paid to a sitting Secretary of State and all they can cover is a phony phone call setup on the part of a Democrat congresswoman and the sexual practices of Hollywood Democrat donors?
NOPE, the media did it willingly and willfully to themselves. They know they are peddling horse rubbish fake anti-Trump news and if they don't they must at least know that their personal hatred for Trump is influencing their reports, and if not then they are flat out morons.
It means that the president has succeeded in eroding the media's credibility, which could be key if he follows through on recent threats to "review the licenses" of broadcast outlets or urge boycotts of print media.
With no disrespect to Trump implied, the media succeeded in eroding it's own credibility over the last 40 years.
The best accurate words to describe the pile of rubble that is left is...
C O M P L E T E L Y . D I S C R E D I T E D
The Ministry of Propaganda has been exposed.
There is no unseeing the truth once you have seen it.
Amen to your analysis.
The MSM is a total manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I don’t agree with the chart. My estimation of “tone of coverage” is:
Trump 90% negative
Obama 10% negative
G.W. Bush 75% negative
Clinton 30% negative
The msm is responsible for its own credibility. When they show they can’t be trusted, then they need to be called out.
5.56mm
The MSM had already ‘destroyed’ itself and it took them a while to completely involve the entire bunch
Back to the open lies and hostility during Vietnam and continuing on and in the Gulf War CNN(?) had openly declared they knew what the Iraqis were mostly up to but ‘sat on it’ so as not to lose favor with the Iraqi Govt.
The Dan Rather fiasco about G Bushs NG service are just a couple of major incidents that come to mind.
This 24 hr non stop assault against a sitting president is unprecedented but - in a sense - PDT is ‘teasing’ them with twits or tweets or whatever and they (MSM) are dumb enough to broadcast/challenge/deride etc ...
However, in a respect PDT is giving them the rope to finish the job of hanging themselves and hope enough survive to finish nailing the coffin shut.
All of PDT’s ‘lies’ are compounded BUT I ‘knew’ he was stepping in $hiite when he ‘claimed’ no other Prez had called families....ESPECIALLY when we all know the $hiite storm aroused over BO and the traitors (Bergdahl(sp??) family and the trade for the ISIS operatives(Or whatever name they were going under)
Kind of like when Klintoon was asked if he and Monica were ever alone in the White House and he had the gonads to answer - no there was always at least a guard around AND he walked with that very true but meaningless answer.
We didn’t believe the media before President Trump, he just gave voice their it
I wonder which of them will fill the Julius Streicher role. Dan Rather would’ve been a good candidate at one time, but he is far too irrelavant now.
“I don’t agree with the chart. My estimation of “tone of coverage” is:
Trump 90% negative
Obama 10% negative
G.W. Bush 75% negative
Clinton 30% negative”
I think your chart is more realistic.
The money keeps going to the DNC, as long as the DNC media slants the news against Trump. They will cover-up positive Trump news if they are paid by liberals like Soros.
A lot of us knew the press was dishonest. It has been for a long time.
But I got to agree with Trump, they’ve gone nuts.
Seriously, they won’t report that Hillary took bribes from Russia over the Uranium deal and that the Senate Judiciary has opened an investigation into it. But they will report with no proof that Trump called the family of a fallen soldier to disrespect the soldier.
I wonder which outlets they used in their estimate, Fox was never as pro-obama as NBC. CNN has always been more pro-Clinton than pro-obama.
Also GW Bush got fairly positive coverage in the ~18 months immediately after 9/11. What was jarring was that the outlets that were Rabidly anti Bush for the last 3 years of his term, only wrote hagiography about Obama for his entire time in office, then went even more rabid after Trump than they did Bush in the last year he was in office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.