What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Brain]

You people are shambling towards a civil war; as painful as it is to say...

I wonder how many of you guys will be left when this is over?



G.

It's just a thread.

[Syt]

Yo, Brain. Trump said this at his rally yesterday:

"You look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden! Who would believe this?"

Any idea what he's referring to?

[Tamas]

Yo, Brain. Trump said this at his rally yesterday:

"You look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden! Who would believe this?"

Any idea what he's referring to?

He saw a documentary on Fox before he was talking, about the rise of crime in Sweden due to migrants.

[Syt]

Is he aware that some things he sees on TV are not happening live?

[The Brain]

Yo, Brain. Trump said this at his rally yesterday:

"You look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden! Who would believe this?"

Any idea what he's referring to?

Former PM and former Foreign Minister Carl Bildt tweeted "Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound."

[dps]

Here's my view on bias in the media.  It's not a new POV;  I've felt this way for years.

Very few, if any, mainstream media outlets are blatantly, deliberately biased in their reporting of the news.  (Their editorial, as opposed to news content, is a different story, but that's OK, because almost all of them are up-front about the editorial POV.)  However, it's fairly clear that a sizable majority of the people who work in broadcast journalism for the networks are on the liberal Democratic side of the political divide, so while few of them deliberately misreport facts, they do have a personal bias which will influence which facts get reported on, and how facts are presented.  (There was a poll taken at the time of the 1980 election that said that something like 90% of the people who worked in the news divisions of the national TV networks of the time had voted for someone other than Ronald Reagan in the 1980 Presidential election;  clearly that's not in sync with the general public.  Fox Network didn't exist at the time, and while I'm reasonably sure that their news staff skews the other way, I'd guess that the results for the older networks would still be about the same.)

So, an example of how this can work--a news network decides to do a major piece on homelessness in America.  First off, just doing a major piece on the issue might be a sign of bias, because a liberal might assume that homelessness is a major social problem, while a conservative might assume that it's not a major social problem (obviously it's a major problem for individuals who are homeless).  A major part of the piece might be reporting on the activities of advocates for the homeless, who may be quoted as saying that there are X number of homeless people in America (where X is some large number in the millions or 10s of millions;  let' say 60 million for our example).  Now, nobody really knows how many homeless people there are in America, and the piece won't actually say, "There are 60 million homeless people in America",  no, it's say something like "Advocates for the homeless estimate that there are up to 60 million homeless Americans".  That statement will be strictly true--some of the advocates will have said that.  But the estimate given by the advocates won't really be refuted, and the impression left to the viewing audience will be that there are 60 million homeless people in America.  (There's another bias in play here, too, that's not political or ideological--sensationalism.  They may have interviewed 20 different advocates for the homeless, who gave estimates for the numbers ranging from 5 million to 60 million, with an average of, say, 25 million, but the number reported will be "up to 60 million" because it's more dramatic.)

I've focuses on network because traditionally that's been the primary source of national news for most Americans ("More people get their news from ABC News than from any other source"). 

Summary:  Mainstream media in not part of some liberal conspiracy, but the people who report the news have personal biases which influence their reporting, even if subconsciously, and most of those people are liberals.

[CountDeMoney]

Yo, Brain. Trump said this at his rally yesterday:

"You look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden! Who would believe this?"

Any idea what he's referring to?

I don't know, but I can't fucking believe it, either.  I mean, Sweden?  Who knew?

[Liep]

Yo, Brain. Trump said this at his rally yesterday:

"You look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden! Who would believe this?"

Any idea what he's referring to?

I don't know, but I can't fucking believe it, either.  I mean, Sweden?  Who knew?

Swedish news comes to the rescue with an English version of that day's top stories:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/a/Vn17J

[mongers]

Yo, Brain. Trump said this at his rally yesterday:

"You look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden! Who would believe this?"

Any idea what he's referring to?

I don't know, but I can't fucking believe it, either.  I mean, Sweden?  Who knew?

Swedish news comes to the rescue with an English version of that day's top stories:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/a/Vn17J

So, no one any clear about what it was about?

[mongers]

On the topic of press freedom, he's an item about McCain's response to Trump's enemies of the people comment:

Also included this, almost 'world's apart' comment:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel emphasized the importance of a free press at the conference on Saturday, saying, "I have high respect for journalists. We've always had good results, at least in Germany, by relying on mutual respect."

[HisMajestyBOB]

Yo, Brain. Trump said this at his rally yesterday:

"You look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden! Who would believe this?"

Any idea what he's referring to?

I don't know, but I can't fucking believe it, either.  I mean, Sweden?  Who knew?

Swedish news comes to the rescue with an English version of that day's top stories:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/a/Vn17J

A wooden moose got the attention of a lovesick moose bull. It all happened in 79 year old Ove Lindqvist's garden in Byske outside Skellefteå, northern Sweden. "I thought it was going to start a fight, instead it humped the wooden moose thrice", he said.

Build the wall with Canada before horny moose hump our lawn ornaments!

[grumbler]

Here's my view on bias in the media.  It's not a new POV;  I've felt this way for years.

Very few, if any, mainstream media outlets are blatantly, deliberately biased in their reporting of the news.  (Their editorial, as opposed to news content, is a different story, but that's OK, because almost all of them are up-front about the editorial POV.)  However, it's fairly clear that a sizable majority of the people who work in broadcast journalism for the networks are on the liberal Democratic side of the political divide, so while few of them deliberately misreport facts, they do have a personal bias which will influence which facts get reported on, and how facts are presented.  (There was a poll taken at the time of the 1980 election that said that something like 90% of the people who worked in the news divisions of the national TV networks of the time had voted for someone other than Ronald Reagan in the 1980 Presidential election;  clearly that's not in sync with the general public.  Fox Network didn't exist at the time, and while I'm reasonably sure that their news staff skews the other way, I'd guess that the results for the older networks would still be about the same.)

So, an example of how this can work--a news network decides to do a major piece on homelessness in America.  First off, just doing a major piece on the issue might be a sign of bias, because a liberal might assume that homelessness is a major social problem, while a conservative might assume that it's not a major social problem (obviously it's a major problem for individuals who are homeless).  A major part of the piece might be reporting on the activities of advocates for the homeless, who may be quoted as saying that there are X number of homeless people in America (where X is some large number in the millions or 10s of millions;  let' say 60 million for our example).  Now, nobody really knows how many homeless people there are in America, and the piece won't actually say, "There are 60 million homeless people in America",  no, it's say something like "Advocates for the homeless estimate that there are up to 60 million homeless Americans".  That statement will be strictly true--some of the advocates will have said that.  But the estimate given by the advocates won't really be refuted, and the impression left to the viewing audience will be that there are 60 million homeless people in America.  (There's another bias in play here, too, that's not political or ideological--sensationalism.  They may have interviewed 20 different advocates for the homeless, who gave estimates for the numbers ranging from 5 million to 60 million, with an average of, say, 25 million, but the number reported will be "up to 60 million" because it's more dramatic.)

I've focuses on network because traditionally that's been the primary source of national news for most Americans ("More people get their news from ABC News than from any other source"). 

Summary:  Mainstream media in not part of some liberal conspiracy, but the people who report the news have personal biases which influence their reporting, even if subconsciously, and most of those people are liberals.

Summary of summary: All people have biases. People who go into self-expressive fields (art, music, writing (thus the press), theoretical sciences, etc) tend to be left-leaning.  Those who go into rules-based fields (law enforcement, military, to some extent politics themselves) tend to be right-leaning.  There is a natural tension between these groups, and this is good.

You are correct to note that bias impacts the choice of what to cover as well as how it is covered, and that sensationalism matters.  The degree to which sensationalism matters, though varies quite widely.  The NYT has a pretty stiff policy against sensationalism, for instance, while the tabloids are based on it.

[saskganesh]

Summary:  Mainstream media in not part of some liberal conspiracy, but the people who report the news have personal biases which influence their reporting, even if subconsciously, and most of those people are liberals.

Leading on this, why do you think most people who work in media have a non-conservative world view?  Take your time...

Edit: I think the Grognard answered it!

[Admiral Yi]

The most common ways I see bias manifested in the media are first through selection of "man on the street views" of a given issue. Pretty common to load up with views that agree with the writers and give the false impression that that particular pov is more widespread than it really is.  Second through selection of "expert opinion." Expert opinions that agree with the writers tend to be more eloquent and forceful, those that disagree tend to be lamer. Third through selection of what constitutes a newsworthy story.

On self-selection bias: the left is concerned more with marginalized minorities, and reporters feel more heroic advocating heroically on behalf of marginalized minorities being oppressed by big bad business or nefarious government.  Little guys being treated badly by big guys makes for better stories too.

[Admiral Yi]

Another thing I just thought of is the statist view that *everything* is a problem that the government should solve dovetails with media's thirst for new stories.  A little similar to academia's need to generate new thesis topics.