"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?

Wimmmex said:

Anyone else notice this trend on On The Media?

Click to expand...

Obviously not to the degree that you have.

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.

Oscar Madison said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.)

Oscar Madison said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Oscar Madison said:

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

Click to expand...

LOL! For sure!

TheBigA said:

Obviously not to the degree that you have.

Click to expand...

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!

Wimmmex said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

TheBigA said:

No, it's because this isn't a political board. And it's obvious that YOU can't seem to let it go either.

Click to expand...

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).

Wimmmex said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Wimmmex said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Wimmmex said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Wimmmex said:

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?

Click to expand...

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."

Wimmmex said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Wimmmex said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Wimmmex said:

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.)

Click to expand...

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.

Oscar Madison said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

TheBigA said:

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.

Click to expand...

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/u...-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html?_r=0

TheBigA said:

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?

Click to expand...

It's your job to dig for the truth....and the polls weren't the truth. They reported bad information from bad sources.

TheBigA said:

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?

Click to expand...

Only if you are reporting that the Democrat is dangerous as well ;-)

TheBigA said:

And if reporting that one candidate has a 70% chance of winning in fact motivates the opposition to get out to vote,

Click to expand...

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.

TheBigA said:

if conservative talk radio is unfairly biased towards conservative candidates, then we just experienced four years under President Romney.

Click to expand...

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

Oscar Madison said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

TheBigA said:

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?

Click to expand...

I am talking about OTM. Scott Pelley is a Reporter. Hannity is a Commentator.

TheBigA said:

Not really just Garfield. Mitt Romney used similar words, didn't he?

Click to expand...

Mitt Romney is a politician, he can espouse whatever opinion he wants. Bob Garfield is supposed to be doing "media analysis".

TheBigA said:

I don't know if it was "fake," because

Click to expand...

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/politics/dnc-video-trump-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....

Wimmmex said:

Talking point for the winners? The losers were unprepared for the outcome due to the media blowing it as well.

Click to expand...

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.

Wimmmex said:

It's your job to dig for the truth....and the polls weren't the truth. They reported bad information from bad sources.

Click to expand...

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.

Wimmmex said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Wimmmex said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

TheBigA said:

>>That's what happens in an election. You don't know who wins until the votes are counted. Don't you understand?

Click to expand...

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.

TheBigA said:

>> It wasn't bad information. It was the truth AT THE TIME.

Click to expand...

It is obvious now, it was bad information from bad sources.

TheBigA said:

>>You're confusing "support" with him winning.

Click to expand...

No, I'm referring to the "support" he was enjoying....that was underestimated.

TheBigA said:

>>No, you're saying "the media blew it." That's not just one particular show.

Click to expand...

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/longshot-path-donald-trump-win-270-electoral-votes/story?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:

TheBigA said:

<<You're cherry-picking certain particular things that prove your point, and ignore everything else.

Click to expand...

No, I'm backing up what I am saying with references.

Wimmmex said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Wimmmex said:

It is obvious now, it was bad information from bad sources.

Click to expand...

No, it's established sources that have been used for years, that both parties accepted. What source would you suggest?

Wimmmex said:

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....

Click to expand...

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.

Wimmmex said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

DavidEduardo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

TheBigA said:

>>They told you who was winning at the time, within a margin of error. And when things changed...

Click to expand...

They didn't change that dramatically within a week.

TheBigA said:

>> No one is actually "winning" until the votes are counted

Click to expand...

Wrong...in a race....someone is always in the lead.

TheBigA said:

>>No, it's established sources that have been used for years,

Click to expand...

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.

TheBigA said:

>>I don't see how that's possible, given the majority of their shows have been about completely unrelated subjects.

Click to expand...

It's obvious you haven't been listening. I've listened to almost every show.

TheBigA said:

>>But throughout this thread you've gone way beyond complaining about one single show.

Click to expand...

Seeing as the single show....covers other shows...and it is a show other shows ...yes.

TheBigA said:

>>What's the problem?

Click to expand...

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.

TheBigA said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

DavidEduardo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Wimmmex said:

They didn't change that dramatically within a week.

Click to expand...

That's right...they changed in a day. And that's when it was reported.

Wimmmex said:

Wrong...in a race....someone is always in the lead.

Click to expand...

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?

Wimmmex said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Wimmmex said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Wimmmex said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

TheBigA said:

>>>That's right...they changed in a day. And that's when it was reported.

Click to expand...

No one thinks the public's mind was changed in a day....you are free to believe it.,

TheBigA said:

>>That was different. They printed the paper before the results were announced.

Click to expand...

Oh, but they had established sources that were used for years! They were just reporting what they were told!

TheBigA said:

>>But to say "the media blew it" overstates the story.

Click to expand...

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/arts/television/after-this-election-can-the-media-recover.html

TheBigA said:

But as I said, and continue to say, that's not the same thing as saying "the media got it wrong."

Click to expand...

And they did.....they missed the big story

TheBigA said:

>>They're commentators. That's what commentators do.

Click to expand...

There role is not as political commentators, but a look at the role of media.

TheBigA said:

>> I don't understand your problem. If you don't like these hosts, don't listen. It's real easy. Change the station.

Click to expand...

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!

Wimmmex said:

No one thinks the public's mind was changed in a day....you are free to believe it.,

Click to expand...

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.

Wimmmex said:

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!

Click to expand...

Me too.

TheBigA said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!