The narratives about Trump thread.


There’s different kinds of dishonesty and maliciousness though. The examples I listed are plain stupid, easy to catch.

then there is jumping on the bandwagon of stories another publication has gone with “Bombshell if true” kind of stories. Usually from anonymous sources, like Buzzfeed runs a story that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress. The MSM then goes with that non stop till Mueller comes out and says. “Not true”.

We haven’t even got to the symbiotic relationships that exists between the intelligence community and some newspapers or cable channels.



This chart seems fairly reliable.


News, Politics, and Entertainment have been dangerously conflated as well.

I personally can’t stand Ann Coulter but she said one thing in her life that I thought was a great idea: When congressmen and women are talking on CSPAN there should be an infographic on the page listing their corporate donors, and how much they’ve been paid to lay their biases clear for everyone to see. Maybe we can label media sites the same way, some sort of tag or color coding system.



Goowardian and CNN need to be moved left, into firmly skew liberal if not wholly placed in Hyper-Partisan Liberal. That Fox is further right than OAN with a foot in “Most Extreme” tells you (or should tell you) that your parabola is itself news designed to lie, distort, and specifically mislead its readership for political aims.


Well, if any information that doesn’t support your assumptions is discarded as a lie, then there’s not much point in discussion is there?

True = confirms what you believe
Lies = does not confirm what you already believe


In this case it’s distort.




I think that’s the same graphic that was in my head as it hit the pillow on election night.

It was a little jarring to wake up and read the news, as you can imagine. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


That’s a crappy prediction and example of wildly inaccurate polling, not intentionally misleading statements in a news story.


Of course, nothing misleading at all!


Or, they just really screwed up and polled inaccurately.

It’s hard to imagine that it’s not a all a giant conspiracy sometimes. But try.


It was an attempt by NYT to give their readers some peace of mind.

Which has continued, and is one reason they lie, distort, and mislead for political aims to this day. You know, the walls closing in, Mueller! etc.


I find it so funny that someone whines about “ confirmation bias” ,with” confirmation bias “:joy:


For example. Your graphic has CBS, ABC and NBC as “neutral”. Those networks gave Russia Collusion story over 2,202 minutes of coverage. Senate Intelligence Committee a couple of days ago had one ranking member from the Republican side say there was zero evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians, the Democrat said he didn’t disagree with what the republican had said but that there would be a report coming out in 6 months or so that won’t be good for trump. But basically on Trump colluding with Russians both sides agree.

Yet that got zero coverage on any evening newscast. Does that sound “balanced” “fair” or “balanced bias” to you?


So to reiterate,

there’s a media conspiracy, and whenever a site not curated towards your biases reports something that doesn’t agree with your assumptions, it’s proof there’s a conspiracy.

got it


No conspiracy. It was just a great coincidence that all the media that now bashes Trump 24/7 for futile readons, in 2016 predicted in mass that he had basically 0% chance of winning and voting for him was a waste of time. Just stay home, fellas!

I repeat: obviously a coincidence, only far right nut jobs could believe that a large portion of the media was pushing their candidate in any way possible.


Or, they possibly failed to grasp political trends and did a sh*tty job of polling.

Even Fox News knows they’re less credible. By their own admission. I guess it must be fake … news…tho…?


Yes, it was the great coincidence of 2016, there was no bias in the reporting or polling, just some honest mistakes.
Some could argue that it was Trump’s fault for being so divisive.




I’m trying to sift through the snark to get at what you’re actually trying to say.

Are you saying you can’t envision a scenario where NY Times made an inaccurate prediction, or polled inaccurately? This lousy poll is clear proof they were pushing an agenda?

It’s funny how you never heard these conspiracy theories when they were stupid enough to buy W’s rationale for the Iraq war back in the day.