"On The Media" is now a political show? (All Trump all the time!) - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

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

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post
    Talking point for the winners? The losers were unprepared for the outcome due to the media blowing it as well.
    That's what happens in an election. You don't know who wins until the votes are counted. Don't you understand? If everyone who was polled actually voted, then the votes would reflect the polls. That didn't happen. People do unpredictable things. That's not the "media blowing it." People often do unpredictable things, and every report I saw included a list of things Trump would have to do to win. And guess what? He did those things. So the media didn't blow it. The voters did what they had to do to achieve the results they wanted.

    The polls all have what they call "margin of error." They always report that. And remember, the Democrats won the popular vote. So in that way, the polls were right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post
    It's your job to dig for the truth....and the polls weren't the truth. They reported bad information from bad sources.
    It wasn't bad information. It was the truth AT THE TIME. And the truth changed on election day. That's what happens sometimes. The polls told the Republicans what they had to do. What states to concentrate on, which they did. Trump explained this the next day. They only focused on states they had to win. They motivated their base. The Democrats didn't. Lots of people stayed home. That was not expected.

    It's like the weather. The media reports the weather forecast. They say it looks like a big storm is coming. Then at the last minute, there's a change in atmospheric pressure, and the storm blows off to sea. Or they say they expect a few inches of snow, and instead we get two feet. That's just what happens with the weather. Do you shoot the weather forecaster? No, of course not. That's what we have with political reporting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    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.
    You're confusing "support" with him winning. Not the same thing in this case. Trump himself is admitting this, when talking about the black voters who stayed home. They didn't support him. But by not voting, they helped him win. And a lot of this was reported in advance of election day. The best example I saw was a 60 Minutes piece with pollster Frank Luntz. This aired the Sunday before election day. It accurately predicted the mood of the country going into the election. Just one example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    Again, I am not talking about my politics (or yours).....just the way OTM has handled the Trump Presidency/Campaign.
    No, you're saying "the media blew it." That's not just one particular show. My point to you is "the media" DIDN'T blow it. You're cherry-picking certain particular things that prove your point, and ignore everything else. If you're saying one particular show blew it, fine. They blew it. But that's not what you're saying. Bob Garfield is just ONE commentator with one point of view. People who listen to that show enjoy his particular take on the story. Those who don't (like you) should choose something else.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    >>That's what happens in an election. You don't know who wins until the votes are counted. Don't you understand?
    I do....but thanks for the offer to explain it to me. ;-) If you are covering a horse race, and that's the way they covered it. And they covered it by telling me the wrong horse was winning, and the wrong horse was going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    >> It wasn't bad information. It was the truth AT THE TIME.
    It is obvious now, it was bad information from bad sources.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    >>You're confusing "support" with him winning.
    No, I'm referring to the "support" he was enjoying....that was underestimated.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    >>No, you're saying "the media blew it." That's not just one particular show.
    And this was the premise of OTM on 11-11.

    Now it appears you can't talk about what is happening on/to OTM...and want to turn this into a purely political discussion. In politics, you are entitled to your opinion. This is an NPR/Public Radio board....

    BTW..>This isn't simply reporting the polls, this is an ABC News [analysis[/i]....and, yes, they BLEW it!

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/longs...ry?id=42971946

    An ABC News analysis out today estimates Clinton is already poised to win at least 300 electoral votes –- even if Donald Trump wins every toss-up state.

    Still, a very narrow four-step path to the GOP nominee's victory remains. But it won't be easy since Clinton threatens to disrupt this road at every turn, running even in the polls with Trump in must-win states like North Carolina, Ohio and Florida.

    Even one wrong move would hand the White House to the Democrats for a third consecutive term. Trump must take all these steps in order to win the White House:


    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    <<You're cherry-picking certain particular things that prove your point, and ignore everything else.
    No, I'm backing up what I am saying with references.
    Last edited by Wimmmex; 12-11-2016 at 03:34 PM.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post
    I do....but thanks for the offer to explain it to me. ;-) If you are covering a horse race, and that's the way they covered it. And they covered it by telling me the wrong horse was winning, and the wrong horse was going to win.
    They told you who was winning at the time, within a margin of error. And when things changed, they reported that too. I fail to see the problem here. If they reported that Hillary won, when she didn't, you might have a point. No one did that.

    Also it doesn't matter who is winning before election day. No one is actually "winning" until the votes are counted, and they will preface poll numbers by saying "If the election was held today." It was pretty clear early Tuesday night who was winning the election.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post
    It is obvious now, it was bad information from bad sources.
    No, it's established sources that have been used for years, that both parties accepted. What source would you suggest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    Now it appears you can't talk about what is happening on/to OTM...and want to turn this into a purely political discussion. In politics, you are entitled to your opinion. This is an NPR/Public Radio board....
    Not at all. I haven't brought up politics once. I'm strictly talking about the media's coverage of a story. As for OTM, since the election, they've only done a few shows on media coverage. Yet you say it's become a political show, all Trump all the time. I don't see how that's possible, given the majority of their shows have been about completely unrelated subjects. You're obviously upset with what you heard on 11/11. That's fine. But throughout this thread you've gone way beyond complaining about one single show.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post
    BTW..>This isn't simply reporting the polls, this is an ABC News [analysis[/i]....and, yes, they BLEW it!
    The ABC News information you quote is exactly correct. They reported there was a four step path to victory, and he did everything he needed to do to win. What's the problem?
    Last edited by TheBigA; 12-11-2016 at 04:30 PM.

  4. #14
    Moderator/Assistant Administrator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    34,983
    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 but those critical of media bias never seem to have a problem with that.
    All of the prime time hours on Fox are filled with commentators, and they do not purport to be "news" shows. That is why they have separate newscasts within the shows.

    The issue here is not media bias, but a lack of understanding by writers, reporters and even commentators of the key element of polling: the margin of error. They took numbers as absolute, rather than the range they represent.

    They also failed to recognize that a poll is a snapshot of one moment in time, not a projection of the outcome of a race.

    And nobody figured in the fact that may Trump voters, particular ones fearful of reprisals and ostracism at work or in college classes, would not admit to their intentions to vote for that candidate. That's why the "undecided" voter percentage did not decline in the last few weeks of the campaigns; people simply deflected the question with that response.
    www.americanradiohistory.com
    Broadcasting Magazine and Yearbooks, RCA Broadcast News, Television Magazine, Radio Annual, Radio News, Sponsor, Television/Radio Age, R&R, Duncan's American Radio, M Street Directory, Broadcast Engineering, db, and more.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEduardo View Post

    The issue here is not media bias, but a lack of understanding by writers, reporters and even commentators of the key element of polling: the margin of error. They took numbers as absolute, rather than the range they represent.
    The other mistake is that the major polls, the one we see all the time, are strictly NATIONAL polls. They aren't state polls. You have to drill down further to see the internal state numbers, and we could see all of that on election night. The bad thing with national polls is they don't take into account that the election isn't based on popular vote. So it really doesn't matter what a national poll says. What matters is how a particular candidate is doing in key undecided states. So perhaps it's time to do away with the use of national polls, since they really have nothing to do with the outcome.
    Last edited by TheBigA; 12-11-2016 at 05:11 PM.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    >>They told you who was winning at the time, within a margin of error. And when things changed...
    They didn't change that dramatically within a week.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    >> No one is actually "winning" until the votes are counted
    Wrong...in a race....someone is always in the lead.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    >>No, it's established sources that have been used for years,
    That were wrong. And the job of the news media is not to vet and not print/broadcast wrong information. The Chicago Daily Tribune I'm sure used established sources and methods as well...but they told everyone that Dewey ran.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    >>I don't see how that's possible, given the majority of their shows have been about completely unrelated subjects.
    It's obvious you haven't been listening. I've listened to almost every show.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    >>But throughout this thread you've gone way beyond complaining about one single show.
    Seeing as the single show....covers other shows...and it is a show other shows ...yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    >>What's the problem?
    An ABC News analysis out today estimates Clinton is already poised to win at least 300 electoral votes –- even if Donald Trump wins every toss-up state

    We know know she wasn't poised to win 300 electoral votes.

    But, as we go around the bend with this discussion, it's about how OTM has become a political show....showing their absolute disdain for the candidate....while they try to cover how the media reported on his campaign.

    Not sure why you are dead set on going head to head with me on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    The bad thing with national polls is they don't take into account that the election isn't based on popular vote. What matters is how a particular candidate is doing in key undecided states. So perhaps it's time to do away with the use of national polls, since they really have nothing to do with the outcome.
    What channel were you watching? Too many of them were indeed counting electoral votes....and the "path to the nomination" and the "path to the Presidency". Calculating strategy for how they could win in the electoral college....state by state.

    And, again, no one could see that Donald trump would trounce Hillary in the electoral college. 232 to 306

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEduardo View Post

    The issue here is not media bias, but a lack of understanding by writers, reporters and even commentators of the key element of polling: the margin of error. They took numbers as absolute, rather than the range they represent.

    They also failed to recognize that a poll is a snapshot of one moment in time, not a projection of the outcome of a race.

    And nobody figured in the fact that may Trump voters, particular ones fearful of reprisals and ostracism at work or in college classes, would not admit to their intentions to vote for that candidate. That's why the "undecided" voter percentage did not decline in the last few weeks of the campaigns; people simply deflected the question with that response.
    Thank you David, I agree with your assessment.

    But in the case of On The Media...my (original) point is that they can't seem to analyses the media, the campaign strategies, and the assumptions the media made....without showing their disdain for Trump...it's as simple as that.
    Last edited by Wimmmex; 12-11-2016 at 07:23 PM.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    They didn't change that dramatically within a week.
    That's right...they changed in a day. And that's when it was reported.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    Wrong...in a race....someone is always in the lead.
    In this case, she was in the lead until she lost. Happens all the time in races.

    But as I said, being in the lead on any day other than election day doesn't matter. They don't pay "place" or "show" for elections, do they?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    That were wrong. And the job of the news media is not to vet and not print/broadcast wrong information. The Chicago Daily Tribune I'm sure used established sources and methods as well...but they told everyone that Dewey ran.
    That was different. They printed the paper before the results were announced. That didn't happen this time, because it was obvious at 9PM that Trump was winning a lot of states he wasn't expected to win.

    As I said, they didn't print "wrong information." The information was correct at the time, but later shown to be wrong. I might agree that SOME analysts drew wrong conclusions from the information they had. But to say "the media blew it" overstates the story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post
    An ABC News analysis out today estimates Clinton is already poised to win at least 300 electoral votes –- even if Donald Trump wins every toss-up state

    We know know she wasn't poised to win 300 electoral votes.
    The key word is "estimates." That's a guess. But they followed that guess with a stipulation. They explained what it would take for their analysis to change. Once again, as I've said several times in this thread, every time the media made a prediction, it was always coupled with various details. The small print, as lawyers say. The small print is important. If you read the whole story, it's very different from just the lead sentence. In writing class, they teach you to write the punchy stuff first. That's what they did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    But in the case of On The Media...my (original) point is that they can't seem to analyses the media, the campaign strategies, and the assumptions the media made....without showing their disdain for Trump...it's as simple as that.
    They're commentators. That's what commentators do. You either like it or you don't. But as I said, and continue to say, that's not the same thing as saying "the media got it wrong." Lots of other people have spent the last 30 years expressing disdain for the Clintons. Including Trump. I don't understand your problem. If you don't like these hosts, don't listen. It's real easy. Change the station. Lots of other stations who agree with you.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    >>>That's right...they changed in a day. And that's when it was reported.
    No one thinks the public's mind was changed in a day....you are free to believe it.,
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    >>That was different. They printed the paper before the results were announced.
    Oh, but they had established sources that were used for years! They were just reporting what they were told!

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    >>But to say "the media blew it" overstates the story.
    I quoted to you where the NY Times even felt the need to respond with a mea culpa.

    Here is another source. If you disagree....your disagreement is with the NY Times.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/ar...a-recover.html

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    But as I said, and continue to say, that's not the same thing as saying "the media got it wrong."
    And they did.....they missed the big story

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    >>They're commentators. That's what commentators do.
    There role is not as political commentators, but a look at the role of media.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post

    >> I don't understand your problem. If you don't like these hosts, don't listen. It's real easy. Change the station.
    If you had to get thru this many posts just to tell someone to change the station, then I think we hit a nerve.

    Brown Univ and Duke Univ both have safe-rooms if you feel triggered. ;-)

    I like the program, I like the hosts....I just think they should stick to their role of analyzing the media. That's pretty simple. If you don't understand that, then I think we're done!
    Last edited by Wimmmex; 12-11-2016 at 11:31 PM.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post
    No one thinks the public's mind was changed in a day....you are free to believe it.,
    I didn't say the public's mind changed. The story changed. And part of what changed the story was the campaign. That's part of the process. Some people who told pollsters they were voting for Hillary instead stayed home and didn't vote. Some people who told pollsters they were voting for Hillary instead voted for Trump. They lied. How does that factor into polling and reporting? Margin of error? But yes, one week before the election, a new email bombshell, and that I'm sure had an effect. Every day, something happens, and it has an effect. The final day of the campaign, Trump traveled to all of the battleground states and worked an 18 hour day. You don't think that changed some minds? You don't think the crowds who saw him that day didn't do something they hadn't planned on doing the next day? You don't think a lot of last minute news changed minds? And ALL of it happened IN THE MEDIA. Every single thing that happened in this campaign was reported. For both sides, not just one. You say "they missed the big story," but they were there presenting the story as it happened. They didn't miss it, they were there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wimmmex View Post

    I like the program, I like the hosts....I just think they should stick to their role of analyzing the media. That's pretty simple. If you don't understand that, then I think we're done!
    Me too.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post
    I didn't say the public's mind changed. The story changed. And part of what changed the story was the campaign. That's part of the process. Some people who told pollsters they were voting for Hillary instead stayed home and didn't vote. Some people who told pollsters they were voting for Hillary instead voted for Trump. They lied. How does that factor into polling and reporting? Margin of error? But yes, one week before the election, a new email bombshell, and that I'm sure had an effect. Every day, something happens, and it has an effect. The final day of the campaign, Trump traveled to all of the battleground states and worked an 18 hour day. You don't think that changed some minds? You don't think the crowds who saw him that day didn't do something they hadn't planned on doing the next day? You don't think a lot of last minute news changed minds? And ALL of it happened IN THE MEDIA. Every single thing that happened in this campaign was reported. For both sides, not just one. You say "they missed the big story," but they were there presenting the story as it happened. They didn't miss it, they were there.

    Again, your issue is with the NY Times and others...give them a call. ;-) I'm sure they'd welcome your critique. I provided references....you just provided your opinion in many words.

    You are clumsily trying to make some strange semantic point for some reason.

    It's late...I'm tired.

    You win!

    Have fun!
    Last edited by Wimmmex; 12-12-2016 at 01:23 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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