Will the media perform any better in 2020?

[oraclebones]

After the 2016 election, there was much talk about how the media failed to do their job, in particular by failing to cover Trump as though he might have a chance of winning, by giving Trump endless coverage, and by the constant efforts to create false equivalency between him and Hillary Clinton.

I recognize there is a certain bias in this question, because perhaps someone who thinks Clinton was the devil incarnate wouldn't see false equivalency in the mainstream media's coverage. But for  those who felt that the media did an abysmal job in 2016, do you think they will meaningfully improve in 2020? And a related question could be, does it matter?

[Progressive Pessimist]

The mainstream media still has its problems-CNN, for example, can't stop with those "let's hear out both sides panels" but they have already demonstrated that they learned some lessons now that what was thought to be impossible has happened. Trump being President has forced them to change how they report on news stories, and that should extend to the 2020 race.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The media is garbage.

[Pandaguineapig]

After the 2016 election, there was much talk about how the media failed to do their job, in particular by failing to cover Trump as though he might have a chance of winning, by giving Trump endless coverage, and by the constant efforts to create false equivalency between him and Hillary Clinton.

I recognize there is a certain bias in this question, because perhaps someone who thinks Clinton was the devil incarnate wouldn't see false equivalency in the mainstream media's coverage. But for  those who felt that the media did an abysmal job in 2016, do you think they will meaningfully improve in 2020? And a related question could be, does it matter?

You were probably all for it when the media was going along with the pied piper strategy and pumping up trump for the nomination. Maybe you should mad because if the wapo released the access Hollywood tape when they first had it in the summer of 2015 rather than hold onto it an effort to deal Trump a death blow 15 months later, Trump would not have gotten the nomination and thus would not be president. Much of the media was all-in on Hillary Clinton as they had been for Obama in 08 and 12, they just pissed away enough of their credibility that it did not matter.

[Pandaguineapig]

Also I don't care to here any complaints from red-avatars over the coverage of Hillary's emails if they were ok with the media turning "binders full of women" and 47% into massive scandals

[Yank2133]

It depends on the Democratic nominee.

[Bidenworth2020]

After the 2016 election, there was much talk about how the media failed to do their job, in particular by failing to cover Trump as though he might have a chance of winning, by giving Trump endless coverage, and by the constant efforts to create false equivalency between him and Hillary Clinton.

I recognize there is a certain bias in this question, because perhaps someone who thinks Clinton was the devil incarnate wouldn't see false equivalency in the mainstream media's coverage. But for  those who felt that the media did an abysmal job in 2016, do you think they will meaningfully improve in 2020? And a related question could be, does it matter?

You were probably all for it when the media was going along with the pied piper strategy and pumping up trump for the nomination. Maybe you should mad because if the wapo released the access Hollywood tape when they first had it in the summer of 2015 rather than hold onto it an effort to deal Trump a death blow 15 months later, Trump would not have gotten the nomination and thus would not be president. Much of the media was all-in on Hillary Clinton as they had been for Obama in 08 and 12, they just pissed away enough of their credibility that it did not matter.

stop strawmanning. let him state his position before you criticize it. Also, lmao if you think the pussy tape wold have stopped him from winning the primary. Did you see his margin of victory?

Also I don't care to here any complaints from red-avatars over the coverage of Hillary's emails if they were ok with the media turning "binders full of women" and 47% into massive scandals

the, the 2012 election one of the most scandal free in recent memory. They covered the hell out of every semi-large scandal, scandals of both Obama and Romney. With Trump saying something new and crazy everyday, the news had a neutrality bias and felt they had to say bad things about Hillary too. Also, seriously, shut the hell up about the emails. It is done. How about the fact that Russians interfered in our election?

[Pandaguineapig]

After the 2016 election, there was much talk about how the media failed to do their job, in particular by failing to cover Trump as though he might have a chance of winning, by giving Trump endless coverage, and by the constant efforts to create false equivalency between him and Hillary Clinton.

I recognize there is a certain bias in this question, because perhaps someone who thinks Clinton was the devil incarnate wouldn't see false equivalency in the mainstream media's coverage. But for  those who felt that the media did an abysmal job in 2016, do you think they will meaningfully improve in 2020? And a related question could be, does it matter?

You were probably all for it when the media was going along with the pied piper strategy and pumping up trump for the nomination. Maybe you should mad because if the wapo released the access Hollywood tape when they first had it in the summer of 2015 rather than hold onto it an effort to deal Trump a death blow 15 months later, Trump would not have gotten the nomination and thus would not be president. Much of the media was all-in on Hillary Clinton as they had been for Obama in 08 and 12, they just pissed away enough of their credibility that it did not matter.

stop strawmanning. let him state his position before you criticize it. Also, lmao if you think the pussy tape wold have stopped him from winning the primary. Did you see his margin of victory?

Also I don't care to here any complaints from red-avatars over the coverage of Hillary's emails if they were ok with the media turning "binders full of women" and 47% into massive scandals

the, the 2012 election one of the most scandal free in recent memory. They covered the hell out of every semi-large scandal, scandals of both Obama and Romney. With Trump saying something new and crazy everyday, the news had a neutrality bias and felt they had to say bad things about Hillary too. Also, seriously, shut the hell up about the emails. It is done. How about the fact that Russians interfered in our election?

I mentioned the emails because that is the most common complaint from Hillary supporters who felt that the simple presence of Trump made all criticism of the announced one illegitimate. Also please spare me the faux outrage over russia, Yes Russia interfered into the election, no it did not really have any effect on the final result. You on the left didn't care about Russia before January 2017 and you certainly will find a new shiny object once Trump is gone.

[Bidenworth2020]

After the 2016 election, there was much talk about how the media failed to do their job, in particular by failing to cover Trump as though he might have a chance of winning, by giving Trump endless coverage, and by the constant efforts to create false equivalency between him and Hillary Clinton.

I recognize there is a certain bias in this question, because perhaps someone who thinks Clinton was the devil incarnate wouldn't see false equivalency in the mainstream media's coverage. But for  those who felt that the media did an abysmal job in 2016, do you think they will meaningfully improve in 2020? And a related question could be, does it matter?

You were probably all for it when the media was going along with the pied piper strategy and pumping up trump for the nomination. Maybe you should mad because if the wapo released the access Hollywood tape when they first had it in the summer of 2015 rather than hold onto it an effort to deal Trump a death blow 15 months later, Trump would not have gotten the nomination and thus would not be president. Much of the media was all-in on Hillary Clinton as they had been for Obama in 08 and 12, they just pissed away enough of their credibility that it did not matter.

stop strawmanning. let him state his position before you criticize it. Also, lmao if you think the pussy tape wold have stopped him from winning the primary. Did you see his margin of victory?

Also I don't care to here any complaints from red-avatars over the coverage of Hillary's emails if they were ok with the media turning "binders full of women" and 47% into massive scandals

the, the 2012 election one of the most scandal free in recent memory. They covered the hell out of every semi-large scandal, scandals of both Obama and Romney. With Trump saying something new and crazy everyday, the news had a neutrality bias and felt they had to say bad things about Hillary too. Also, seriously, shut the hell up about the emails. It is done. How about the fact that Russians interfered in our election?

I mentioned the emails because that is the most common complaint from Hillary supporters who felt that the simple presence of Trump made all criticism of the announced one illegitimate. Also please spare me the faux outrage over russia, Yes Russia interfered into the election, no it did not really have any effect on the final result. You on the left didn't care about Russia before January 2017 and you certainly will find a new shiny object once Trump is gone.

Again, stop the strawmanning, let us state our position before you argue against it. Also, I do recognize that Russian interference didnt do much to affect the election. But listen to yourself. "They only TRIED to interfere in our election, no big deal guys ". Also, we did care about Russia before Trump became president, thats a lie.

[NewYorkExpress]

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned the only time the media has blown an election in my memory was 2000, when they called Florida wrong at least twice.

[NeederNodder]

Probably not. MSNBC will still probably be the mouthpiece for centrist democrats, Fox News is beyond saving and CNN will continue to treat politics like a sport having panels of 10+ people screaming at each other for ratings.

[Rookie Yinzer]

After the 2016 election, there was much talk about how the media failed to do their job, in particular by failing to cover Trump as though he might have a chance of winning, by giving Trump endless coverage, and by the constant efforts to create false equivalency between him and Hillary Clinton.

I recognize there is a certain bias in this question, because perhaps someone who thinks Clinton was the devil incarnate wouldn't see false equivalency in the mainstream media's coverage. But for  those who felt that the media did an abysmal job in 2016, do you think they will meaningfully improve in 2020? And a related question could be, does it matter?

You were probably all for it when the media was going along with the pied piper strategy and pumping up trump for the nomination. Maybe you should mad because if the wapo released the access Hollywood tape when they first had it in the summer of 2015 rather than hold onto it an effort to deal Trump a death blow 15 months later, Trump would not have gotten the nomination and thus would not be president. Much of the media was all-in on Hillary Clinton as they had been for Obama in 08 and 12, they just pissed away enough of their credibility that it did not matter.

So all in that they ignored promoting her policies in favor of focusing on non stories like the emails and pay for play with the Clinton Foundation? K.

[Pandaguineapig]

After the 2016 election, there was much talk about how the media failed to do their job, in particular by failing to cover Trump as though he might have a chance of winning, by giving Trump endless coverage, and by the constant efforts to create false equivalency between him and Hillary Clinton.

I recognize there is a certain bias in this question, because perhaps someone who thinks Clinton was the devil incarnate wouldn't see false equivalency in the mainstream media's coverage. But for  those who felt that the media did an abysmal job in 2016, do you think they will meaningfully improve in 2020? And a related question could be, does it matter?

You were probably all for it when the media was going along with the pied piper strategy and pumping up trump for the nomination. Maybe you should mad because if the wapo released the access Hollywood tape when they first had it in the summer of 2015 rather than hold onto it an effort to deal Trump a death blow 15 months later, Trump would not have gotten the nomination and thus would not be president. Much of the media was all-in on Hillary Clinton as they had been for Obama in 08 and 12, they just pissed away enough of their credibility that it did not matter.

stop strawmanning. let him state his position before you criticize it. Also, lmao if you think the pussy tape wold have stopped him from winning the primary. Did you see his margin of victory?

Also I don't care to here any complaints from red-avatars over the coverage of Hillary's emails if they were ok with the media turning "binders full of women" and 47% into massive scandals

the, the 2012 election one of the most scandal free in recent memory. They covered the hell out of every semi-large scandal, scandals of both Obama and Romney. With Trump saying something new and crazy everyday, the news had a neutrality bias and felt they had to say bad things about Hillary too. Also, seriously, shut the hell up about the emails. It is done. How about the fact that Russians interfered in our election?

I mentioned the emails because that is the most common complaint from Hillary supporters who felt that the simple presence of Trump made all criticism of the announced one illegitimate. Also please spare me the faux outrage over russia, Yes Russia interfered into the election, no it did not really have any effect on the final result. You on the left didn't care about Russia before January 2017 and you certainly will find a new shiny object once Trump is gone.

Again, stop the strawmanning, let us state our position before you argue against it. Also, I do recognize that Russian interference didnt do much to affect the election. But listen to yourself. "They only TRIED to interfere in our election, no big deal guys ". Also, we did care about Russia before Trump became president, thats a lie.

Is that why the administration and democrats in Congress were very much willing to look the other way when it came to Russian invasions of Georgia and Ukriane, all while mocking republicans such as Mitt Romney and Lindsay Graham, who identified Russia as a geo-political threat, as throwbacks to the cold war era?

[junior chįmp]

The clowntards that make up the American media are useless and will NEVER get any better.

[Calthrina950]

The clowntards that make up the American media are useless and will NEVER get any better.

Though I would not use this kind of language, I agree with the point made here. The media's primary motivation is profit, and profit is derived from the ratings they generate. So unfortunately, they will be just as sensationalist as they were in 2016. ABC, in particular, is in my opinion the most sensationalist of all the traditional broadcast news networks, and they will definitely relish reporting about Trump's rallies, his gaffes, and his attacks upon his opponents.

[eastowilko]

I think a few more media groups will hold trump more accountable but fair. I hope they are tough on Democratic candidates as well, everyone needs to be held accountable. I think that's the Media's job is holding the powerful accountable where the public can see.

[Indy Texas]

After the 2016 election, there was much talk about how the media failed to do their job, in particular by failing to cover Trump as though he might have a chance of winning, by giving Trump endless coverage, and by the constant efforts to create false equivalency between him and Hillary Clinton.

I recognize there is a certain bias in this question, because perhaps someone who thinks Clinton was the devil incarnate wouldn't see false equivalency in the mainstream media's coverage. But for  those who felt that the media did an abysmal job in 2016, do you think they will meaningfully improve in 2020? And a related question could be, does it matter?

You were probably all for it when the media was going along with the pied piper strategy and pumping up trump for the nomination. Maybe you should mad because if the wapo released the access Hollywood tape when they first had it in the summer of 2015 rather than hold onto it an effort to deal Trump a death blow 15 months later, Trump would not have gotten the nomination and thus would not be president. Much of the media was all-in on Hillary Clinton as they had been for Obama in 08 and 12, they just pissed away enough of their credibility that it did not matter.

stop strawmanning. let him state his position before you criticize it. Also, lmao if you think the pussy tape wold have stopped him from winning the primary. Did you see his margin of victory?

Also I don't care to here any complaints from red-avatars over the coverage of Hillary's emails if they were ok with the media turning "binders full of women" and 47% into massive scandals

the, the 2012 election one of the most scandal free in recent memory. They covered the hell out of every semi-large scandal, scandals of both Obama and Romney. With Trump saying something new and crazy everyday, the news had a neutrality bias and felt they had to say bad things about Hillary too. Also, seriously, shut the hell up about the emails. It is done. How about the fact that Russians interfered in our election?

I mentioned the emails because that is the most common complaint from Hillary supporters who felt that the simple presence of Trump made all criticism of the announced one illegitimate. Also please spare me the faux outrage over russia, Yes Russia interfered into the election, no it did not really have any effect on the final result. You on the left didn't care about Russia before January 2017 and you certainly will find a new shiny object once Trump is gone.

Again, stop the strawmanning, let us state our position before you argue against it. Also, I do recognize that Russian interference didnt do much to affect the election. But listen to yourself. "They only TRIED to interfere in our election, no big deal guys ". Also, we did care about Russia before Trump became president, thats a lie.

Is that why the administration and democrats in Congress were very much willing to look the other way when it came to Russian invasions of Georgia and Ukriane, all while mocking republicans such as Mitt Romney and Lindsay Graham, who identified Russia as a geo-political threat, as throwbacks to the cold war era?

There is a BIG difference between Russia meddling in its own backyard and meddling in the elections and internal politics of our country.

Stop with the false equivalencies.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The secular media will do about the same, but more accurately predict a close or landslide defeat for Trump.

[136or142]

If the Democrats nominate a woman in 2020, I would expect the media to be somewhat better because a number of those who, at best, engaged in false equivalence and false balance, have since been fired for sexual harassment (Mark Halperin, Matt Lauer and Glenn Thrush.   Obviously not including the sleazebags at Fox 'News' because that's a whole different thing.)

[here2view]

I think they will, I don't think the majority of them can be any worse than in 2016. So many media pundits (and everyday people as well) had Clinton winning, but never gave Trump a chance. A lot of people thought her positioning was better than it actually was. 538 did a few good write-ups on how her standing in battleground states was worse than Obama in 2012.

I had her winning 302-236, so worse than Obama's 2012 performance. Not a blowout by any means, and if you take away the quintessential tossup of Florida it's 273-265. A lot of the public - so not really the media - thought she'd win outright but never looked at the individual states as much as they should have. I didn't think she'd win places like North Carolina and to a lesser extent Ohio like some did. Had she won those, then you're looking at the blowout that some people I spoke with before the election were predicting.

I'm kinda getting off the original topic, but anyways I hope in 2020 the media pays more attention to polling in those battleground states. A lot of people assumed that because polls showed Hillary winning the popular vote by 3 or 4 she'd win the EC. Where you get votes matters a great deal, and hopefully the media realizes that because they didn't so much in 2016. I don't think that's the main issue they encountered, but it's one of them.

[foxh8er]

After the 2016 election, there was much talk about how the media failed to do their job, in particular by failing to cover Trump as though he might have a chance of winning, by giving Trump endless coverage, and by the constant efforts to create false equivalency between him and Hillary Clinton.

I recognize there is a certain bias in this question, because perhaps someone who thinks Clinton was the devil incarnate wouldn't see false equivalency in the mainstream media's coverage. But for  those who felt that the media did an abysmal job in 2016, do you think they will meaningfully improve in 2020? And a related question could be, does it matter?

You were probably all for it when the media was going along with the pied piper strategy and pumping up trump for the nomination. Maybe you should mad because if the wapo released the access Hollywood tape when they first had it in the summer of 2015 rather than hold onto it an effort to deal Trump a death blow 15 months later, Trump would not have gotten the nomination and thus would not be president. Much of the media was all-in on Hillary Clinton as they had been for Obama in 08 and 12, they just pissed away enough of their credibility that it did not matter.

stop strawmanning. let him state his position before you criticize it. Also, lmao if you think the pussy tape wold have stopped him from winning the primary. Did you see his margin of victory?

Also I don't care to here any complaints from red-avatars over the coverage of Hillary's emails if they were ok with the media turning "binders full of women" and 47% into massive scandals

the, the 2012 election one of the most scandal free in recent memory. They covered the hell out of every semi-large scandal, scandals of both Obama and Romney. With Trump saying something new and crazy everyday, the news had a neutrality bias and felt they had to say bad things about Hillary too. Also, seriously, shut the hell up about the emails. It is done. How about the fact that Russians interfered in our election?

I mentioned the emails because that is the most common complaint from Hillary supporters who felt that the simple presence of Trump made all criticism of the announced one illegitimate. Also please spare me the faux outrage over russia, Yes Russia interfered into the election, no it did not really have any effect on the final result. You on the left didn't care about Russia before January 2017 and you certainly will find a new shiny object once Trump is gone.

Again, stop the strawmanning, let us state our position before you argue against it. Also, I do recognize that Russian interference didnt do much to affect the election. But listen to yourself. "They only TRIED to interfere in our election, no big deal guys ". Also, we did care about Russia before Trump became president, thats a lie.

Seconded. Russia was actually my reason for going all-in on Hillary in 2014.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I'm kinda getting off the original topic, but anyways I hope in 2020 the media pays more attention to polling in those battleground states. A lot of people assumed that because polls showed Hillary winning the popular vote by 3 or 4 she'd win the EC. Where you get votes matters a great deal, and hopefully the media realizes that because they didn't so much in 2016. I don't think that's the main issue they encountered, but it's one of them.

That's all that matters, unfortunately.

[pbrower2a]

President Trump has so baited the news media that he has created resolute opponents ready to expose him for what he is.

[Very Legal & Very Cool]

The media will follow the money