"On The Media" is now a political show? (All Trump all the time!)
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: "On The Media" is now a political show? (All Trump all the time!)

  1. #1

    "On The Media" is now a political show? (All Trump all the time!)

    So, it appears that OTM has now jumped the shark and is now simply a show about politics.

    Instead of examining "the media" and, quite possibly, taking a look at the story that the media missed in this election, the show host (Bob Garfield), is simply an elite clueless NPR-type Liberal, who is using the show to bemoan the campaign and election of Donald Trump.

    I suppose the host can have his opinions, but considering that they gave a free ride to Hillary and her campaign faux pas....the show has lost it's focus on being a straightforward examination of the media.

    There ARE some questions OTM could pursue.

    1.) How did the media miss the story that Trump's campaign was indeed resonating as much as it was.

    2.) Why did the media spend so much time on "fake outrage" ("OMG, he said he would put Hillary in jail!")...that apparently didn't matter to voters.

    3.) Why did the media give Hillary a pass on so many things about her character...and yet express outrage (shocked! shocked I say!), whenever Donald Trump would say something somewhat colorful?

    4.) Did the media "take sides"? Wasn't it obvious they were rooting for Hillary?

    5.) Is Garfield really advocating reporters go beyond the Who, What Where, When and WHhy...and start 'advocating' for candidates...and see their role as 'warning' the populous about 'dangerous candidates' (Garfields words).

    I would love to see the show delve into some of these issues....instead of simply bemoaning the fact that the host never gave a second thought to the idea that Trump might be President.

    Anyone else notice this trend on On The Media?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    Anyone else notice this trend on On The Media?
    Obviously not to the degree that you have.

  3. #3
    Before you talk about anybody else's bias, look at your own: This is one episode, dealing with one topic. That's not all the time.

    But, what do you expect? They are not an outside, disinterested, third party looking at the media. They are in the club. Just like NPR's "ombudsman." They go "tsk, tsk" and "we're not perfect" from time to time but they still "root, root, root for the home team."

    Over the past several weeks, they did a multi-part series about poverty having little to do with media. A significant issue, sure. Start a separate podcast or whatever. But not on a show supposedly about media. Why is it there? Because Brooke has a personal interest from her own life experience. Maybe somebody should do a show on how so-called "journalists" start thinking everything it about them. Exhibit A: Scott Simon.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar Madison View Post

    Before you talk about anybody else's bias, look at your own: This is one episode, dealing with one topic. That's not all the time.
    No, it's all the time....basically every show....dripping with sarcastic disdain. It just got under my skin because the election is over...and they just can't seem to let it go. (Or hide their disdain.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar Madison View Post

    Over the past several weeks, they did a multi-part series about poverty having little to do with media. A significant issue, sure. Start a separate podcast or whatever. But not on a show supposedly about media. Why is it there? Because Brooke has a personal interest from her own life experience.
    I enjoyed the poverty reports....and to be honest, they talked about how the media covers it...so I thought it was somewhat relevant to the show.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar Madison View Post

    Maybe somebody should do a show on how so-called "journalists" start thinking everything it about them. Exhibit A: Scott Simon.
    LOL! For sure!

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    Obviously not to the degree that you have.
    Considering their hadn't been a post on this board for over 2 weeks, maybe it's just that no NPR-types read this board! LOL!

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    Considering their hadn't been a post on this board for over 2 weeks, maybe it's just that no NPR-types read this board! LOL!
    No, it's because this isn't a political board. And it's obvious that YOU can't seem to let it go either.

    The fact is that the media has been on the receiving end of a lot of criticism from the winners, who feel the media was attempting to throw the election, when at the same time, Trump was an obvious beneficiary of media coverage during the primaries. In fact the media's coverage actually ended up motivating his base in ways that political advertising or positive press could not. The more the media said Hillary was winning, the more it motivated the other side. That's the real story. You can't downplay the power of negative thinking. Had the other side won, you would have had a lot of the exact same disdain coming from the losers, led by the candidate himself, who called the process "rigged." So maybe he was right.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post
    No, it's because this isn't a political board. And it's obvious that YOU can't seem to let it go either.
    No, but it IS a radio board and deals with radio content. And how, in turn, a media analysis program is simply turning political.

    I can certainly let it go...but every time I turn on a program about the media. I am reminded of the angst of the Left.

    There ARE some questions OTM could pursue.

    1.) How did the media miss the story that Trump's campaign was indeed resonating as much as it was.

    2.) Why did the media spend so much time on "fake outrage" ("OMG, he said he would put Hillary in jail!")...that apparently didn't matter to voters.

    3.) Why did the media give Hillary a pass on so many things about her character...and yet express outrage (shocked! shocked I say!), whenever Donald Trump would say something somewhat colorful?

    4.) Did the media "take sides"? Wasn't it obvious they were rooting for Hillary?

    5.) Is Garfield really advocating reporters go beyond the Who, What Where, When and Why...and start 'advocating' for candidates...and see their role as 'warning' the populous about 'dangerous candidates' (Garfield's words).
    Last edited by Wimmmex; 12-10-2016 at 02:22 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    I can certainly let it go...but every time I turn on a program about the media. I am reminded of the angst of the Left.
    Every time I hear Kellyanne Conway on a Sunday morning show (for example her appearance on Meet The Press this past week) or watch Trump during his current victory tour, you hear the angst of the winners. In fact, she was asked about being a sore winner, and she deflected the question. The campaign seems to be having trouble accepting the fact that they won, and they now have to lead. They can't keep blaming others. There will be no one to blame any more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    1.) How did the media miss the story that Trump's campaign was indeed resonating as much as it was.
    I don't know that the media "missed" anything. They reported the polls. The polls ended up being wrong. Who's fault is that? To say either campaign is "resonating" is in fact a bias. The right way to report it would be to let the "resonating" show up in the polls, which it wasn't. Otherwise, all you're doing is repeating campaign talking points, which got reported when the candidate or his team spoke to the media. That's why I say that the media didn't "miss the story." It was there, if anyone was willing to se it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    2.) Why did the media spend so much time on "fake outrage" ("OMG, he said he would put Hillary in jail!")...that apparently didn't matter to voters.
    I don't know if it was "fake," because certainly the Republican party didn't embrace it either. No one outside the campaign agreed with it. It was historically unprecedented, and like many other things, it had no basis in fact. It was just more campaign hyperbole. Once again, it did what it was supposed to do, which was mobilize the base. Also, the people who expressed what you call "fake outrage" were political analysts, not reporters, who were in panels with Trump supporters, so the other side was being heard, and they were equally uncomfortable with it. When analyzing media coverage, it's important to identify who said what, and not lump everyone in the same "media" category.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    3.) Why did the media give Hillary a pass on so many things about her character...and yet express outrage (shocked! shocked I say!), whenever Donald Trump would say something somewhat colorful?
    Maybe you missed all the coverage about the emails, all of the hearings on her role at the State Department, the coverage of the second Justice department investigation, and everything else. Your points read like O'Reilly Talking Points rather than unbiased media criticism. The coverage was there, yet you focus on what a couple of analysts or commentators say. That's why they're there...to say things on one side, that is contrasted by someone on the other side. That's what's mean by "fair & balanced."

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    4.) Did the media "take sides"? Wasn't it obvious they were rooting for Hillary?
    Once again, my question is: Who are you talking about? Did Scott Pelley take sides? Did Sean Hannity take sides? Did Mark Levin take sides? The media is a big thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    5.) Is Garfield really advocating reporters go beyond the Who, What Where, When and Why...and start 'advocating' for candidates...and see their role as 'warning' the populous about 'dangerous candidates' (Garfield's words).
    Not really just Garfield. Mitt Romney used similar words, didn't he? Most of the establishment Republicans used similar words. When the media reported that the Speaker of the House was distancing himself from Trump, and refused to appear at Wisconsin campaign stops with him, was that advocating for Hillary, or was that simply reporting the facts?

    My point here is that media analysis isn't as simple as you seem to think. It's not a black and white thing.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post
    No, it's all the time....basically every show....dripping with sarcastic disdain. It just got under my skin because the election is over...and they just can't seem to let it go. (Or hide their disdain.)
    There's a fine line between talking about the election (and campaign) and talking about the issues you raise dealing with how the media blew it.

    I have to wonder if you object to the media "warning" about "dangerous" candidate you like, as opposed to candidates you don't like. Fox News warns about and advocates for candidates all the time but those critical of media bias never seem to have a problem with that.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar Madison View Post
    There's a fine line between talking about the election (and campaign) and talking about the issues you raise dealing with how the media blew it.
    If, in fact, the media "blew it." Because that view has actually become a talking point for the winners. So repeating it can't be unbiased analysis if it's simply repeating what one side is saying.

    My question is this: If you report what the polls are saying, and all the polls say one side is winning, is that biased reporting? If you report what all the established Republicans are saying, and they're all saying the candidate is dangerous, is that biased reporting or rooting for the other candidate? And if reporting that one candidate has a 70% chance of winning in fact motivates the opposition to get out to vote, while having the opposite effect on the other side, does that mean the media "blew it" or their coverage is promoting the election of one candidate? Because if the media's reporting was biased, then we should be talking now about President Hillary. In the same way that if conservative talk radio is unfairly biased towards conservative candidates, then we just experienced four years under President Romney.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    If, in fact, the media "blew it." Because that view has actually become a talking point for the winners. So repeating it can't be unbiased analysis if it's simply repeating what one side is saying.
    Talking point for the winners? The losers were unprepared for the outcome due to the media blowing it as well.

    And, OTM even covered/interviewed many editors who will say they did not see Trump coming, they did not see the states where his support was stronger than everyone thought....and couldn't imagine that he could win.

    Even the NY Times...not known for Republican talking points....had their own mea culpa:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us...itor.html?_r=0

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    My question is this: If you report what the polls are saying, and all the polls say one side is winning, is that biased reporting?
    It's your job to dig for the truth....and the polls weren't the truth. They reported bad information from bad sources.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    If you report what all the established Republicans are saying, and they're all saying the candidate is dangerous, is that biased reporting or rooting for the other candidate?
    Only if you are reporting that the Democrat is dangerous as well ;-)


    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    And if reporting that one candidate has a 70% chance of winning in fact motivates the opposition to get out to vote,
    They can report anything they want....and any facts they want....but it's obvious for all of their "facts" they presented, they missed the biggest story of the year, and that was the support Trump was enjoying.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    if conservative talk radio is unfairly biased towards conservative candidates, then we just experienced four years under President Romney.
    Political talkradio has always been right leaning....but it's impact has been waning and one form of (declining) media was not going to win the election for ROmney..

    It seems we've touched a nerve here.....and stopped talking about the program OTM.

    Do you even listen to that program? Do you know anything about their coverage in the past year? Or are you just giving us knee-jerk political responses.

    (BTW...I sent you a PM.)

    Wim

    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar Madison View Post
    I have to wonder if you object to the media "warning" about "dangerous" candidate you like, as opposed to candidates you don't like. Fox News warns about and advocates for candidates all the time
    If it's commentary, like Fox News is....then it's fine.

    Again, I am not talking about my politics (or yours).....just the way OTM has handled the Trump Presidency/Campaign.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post
    Once again, my question is: Who are you talking about? Did Scott Pelley take sides? Did Sean Hannity take sides? Did Mark Levin take sides?
    I am talking about OTM. Scott Pelley is a Reporter. Hannity is a Commentator.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post
    Not really just Garfield. Mitt Romney used similar words, didn't he?
    Mitt Romney is a politician, he can espouse whatever opinion he wants. Bob Garfield is supposed to be doing "media analysis".

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post
    I don't know if it was "fake," because
    https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102

    We could set up a ‘demo’ where we pretend that Trump just said a really offensive thing and then the process of clipping video and getting a release out the door… i.e...pretend.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/us...p-rallies.html

    Two operatives who were working with the Democratic National Committee to help elect Hillary Clinton....after an undercover video appeared to show them plotting to incite violence at Donald J. Trump’s rallies. i.e...fake demonstrations.

    But again, outside of politics, if you to (or can) discuss OTM...that would be where my beef is. If you don't know of the program....then....
    Last edited by Wimmmex; 12-11-2016 at 04:33 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




     
Our Conferences
Useful Contacts
Community


Contact Us