2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Valmy]

I was about to say: the media was Trump's campaign staff and the entire reason for his career. Seems weird to suggest they were his enemy somehow. He played them like he always does.

Particularly true during the primaries.  I'd say less so during the general.  Whether or not he played them, I think it's fair to say there was some bias against Trump.  I expect a certain bias against any GOP candidate.

The bias doesn't matter. And especially in this case where he was such an unsuitable candidate not even you voted for him.

[Savonarola]

The Ann Arbor News reports that a few weeks before the Nov. 8 election, Lind and Stevens decided to work with a friend and professional illustrator, Jason Stafne, to create a celebratory memento for what they thought was an inevitable Clinton victory.

They dedicated long hours to bringing the idea to fruition, dealing with people from Ann Arbor to Hong Kong, ultimately ending up with 1,000 custom-designed soap boxes — 500 that feature a smiling Clinton and 500 that feature a pouting Trump.

The "Nasty Woman Soap" box shows Clinton flexing like Rosie the Riveter, with "nasty" tattooed on her bicep. On the back, it proclaims, "Hooray! America has our first female President ... and she's a Nasty Woman!"

The box for "Donald's Sad Hombre Soap" promises a "Swamp Fresh Scent." The text on the back claims Trump's "mudslinging" brought "Nasty Americans" together to elect the nation's first female president.

Of course, Trump ended up winning.

Speaking inside their downtown Ann Arbor apartment on a recent afternoon, Lind and Stevens said they, like many others, were shocked Clinton lost.

While unhappy with the outcome, they can laugh about their entrepreneurial faux pas.

"We're laughing at maybe just our personal arrogance," Lind said of their assumption of a Clinton victory.

The couple was inspired to start the Nasty Soap Co. after hearing the story of how Airbnb started with the company's founders selling "Obama O's" cereal for $40 a box in 2008 to raise their first $30,000.

They plan to use the money from selling the soaps to finance a couple of ideas they have for startups. One is a paid subscription service that would let members have rotating artworks from all over the world come through their homes for a couple months at a time, an idea inspired by the art prints available for checkout at the Ann Arbor District Library.

They said they've seen a lot of "nasty woman" novelty products, including soaps, since Trump made the remark about Clinton at an Oct. 19 debate, but they weren't necessarily well designed. They're feeling confident they've created a good brand, and they're already talking about doing more soaps, possibly some featuring the likes of Michelle Obama or Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The best-laid schemes o' mice an 'men
Gang aft agley,
An'lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

[Solmyr]

Any chance Twitter could ban Trump like they did Milo?

[Barrister]

Any chance Twitter could ban Trump like they did Milo?

You been reading slate recently?

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2016/11/would_facebook_or_twitter_ban_president_trump.html

[Admiral Yi]

I'm saying trump's actions were more scrutinized by the media. people ultimately cared a lot less than what the reporters/editors thought were important. a lot of the articles were written for a specific audience, and the people who ultimately voted trump weren't part of that audience. to them, they probably saw trump hounded for small/trivial things, while hillary got off pretty nicely

What I hear you saying now is that the fact that the media did not perfectly mirror the biases of the electorate (such as Hillary is crooked, the election is rigged, Benghazi + verb, etc.) shows the media was biased.

[grumbler]

agree with the first part and mostly agree with the second. i'd add journalists/editors also probably mostly hated trump and/or hated what they imagined he stood for (whether he actually stood for it). this has an effect on the reporting, it just does.

"The media" aren't nearly as monolithic as you seem to believe.  *It is a plural term, not a singular one.

Some media were biased in trump's favor, some were biased against him, some were not noticeably biased one way or the other.

But Trump is entirely a creation of his ego and the media (pro/con/indifferent).  The reason why you didn't see stories analyzing his proposed policies is that he never promised any policies.  he was just a stream of bumper-sticker sayings, all dutifully reported by the various media.

[LaCroix]

I'm saying trump's actions were more scrutinized by the media. people ultimately cared a lot less than what the reporters/editors thought were important. a lot of the articles were written for a specific audience, and the people who ultimately voted trump weren't part of that audience. to them, they probably saw trump hounded for small/trivial things, while hillary got off pretty nicely

What I hear you saying now is that the fact that the media did not perfectly mirror the biases of the electorate (such as Hillary is crooked, the election is rigged, Benghazi + verb, etc.) shows the media was biased.

I'm saying the barrage of media against trump wasn't the result of 100% entirely neutral fact reporting

@grumbler, "media" in these past few posts has referred to the standard media companies pretty widely respected. I don't mean slate, breitbart, huffpo, etc.

[Valmy]

I'm saying the barrage of media against trump wasn't the result of 100% entirely neutral fact reporting

If it was perhaps people would have realized how empty a candidate he was. Instead they painted him as some political radical, which was a very good thing to be painted as in this political cycle.

I mean he won and he has zero substance, he is just an incompetent blowhard. He owes his success entirely to being a media personality. Claiming the media was a hindrance makes no sense. Do you think he got elected because of his astounding credentials despite repeated media attacks? Laughable. If the media treated him fairly he never would have gotten out of the primaries.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm saying the barrage of media against trump wasn't the result of 100% entirely neutral fact reporting

And the test you used to determine whether this barrage was neutral or not was, AFAICT, the opinions of the voting public.

Whereas I saw Donald doing and saying lots and lots and lots of ridiculous shit, and the media reporting it as he said it or did it.

[derspiess]

One of the biggest failings of the press (and Hillary for that matter) was focusing too much on how big a meanie Trump is and not on things like his inevitable conflicts of interest and, you know, actual issues.

[LaCroix]

I'm saying the barrage of media against trump wasn't the result of 100% entirely neutral fact reporting

And the test you used to determine whether this barrage was neutral or not was, AFAICT, the opinions of the voting public.

Whereas I saw Donald doing and saying lots and lots and lots of ridiculous shit, and the media reporting it as he said it or did it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/

there were lots and lots of articles over the past several months written by plenty of different people who wrote things that weren't literally only what trump said or did.

[Valmy]

One of the biggest failings of the press (and Hillary for that matter) was focusing too much on how big a meanie Trump is and not on things like his inevitable conflicts of interest and, you know, actual issues.

Yep. Played right into his hands.

[frunk]

One of the biggest failings of the press (and Hillary for that matter) was focusing too much on how big a meanie Trump is and not on things like his inevitable conflicts of interest and, you know, actual issues.

The candidates who tried that (Kasich, Rubio, Bush) got crushed.  The people wanted "oooh, look what crazy things people said or did" and they got it.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's probably true that on average, media people are more left and less likely to vote Trump than an average American.  It's also true that probably impacts reporting.  But exactly how it impacts reporting is a bit more complicated than LaCroix seems to be assuming.  And it ignores a number of other significant considerations and other potential sources of bias that can effect coverage.

I don't think it can be seriously disputed that Trump got a big benefit from the media coverage in the race.  It was a huge benefit in the primaries, easily the biggest contributor to his victory.  It was not so lopsided in the general (primarily due to self-inflicted wounds like the Khans) but it is still the case that Trump got significantly more benefit from the media and media coverage then HRC did.  Media people may have wanted HRC to win but they didn't cover the race in a way to help her.   That's why her only strong moments were when she had complete control over her own presentation - i.e. the convention and the debates.

[LaCroix]

I wasn't ignoring the other considerations and sources of bias. rather, I think the underlying dislike for trump, a dislike so great it caused a SCOTUS Justice to speak out and a sitting president to campaign for the opponent, won out over those considerations. (it also didnt help that it was probably very profitable to continue the barrage). I also wasn't suggesting there was a plan to make hillary win. that requires intent, and most forms of bias usually aren't intentional