negative press

[Keith&Co.]

My coworkers are going on and on about how much negative press the President is receiving. They think the same media that loyally reported his every claim and attack on Hillary before the election, is now out to kick him out of the WH.

I have a question, though.

If, for example, the president tells a lie, or his people tell a lie for him, and the media catches them out, does that count as negative reporting or as journalism?

 

[funinspace]

Move much closer to Fenway Park, and you will find more coworkers that think it is journalism. Of course it is journalism...

 

[fast]

My coworkers are going on and on about how much negative press the President is receiving. They think the same media that loyally reported his every claim and attack on Hillary before the election, is now out to kick him out of the WH.

I have a question, though.

If, for example, the president tells a lie, or his people tell a lie for him, and the media catches them out, does that count as negative reporting or as journalism?

I think there is an ambiguity with "negativity." A journalist can refrain, and I mean go out of his way to intentionally conceal his very own feelings or interpretive conclusion, and refrain from expressing internal biases. So, one can be positive (biased), neutral (not biased), or negative (biased). That is so whether the content is negative or positive overall. Down playing positive news is just as negative reporting as is upplaying negative news.

To announce to the world that the president of a country with such stature is lying is overwhelmingly negative news, but whether the journalist is negative reporting has to do with the tact of the journalist, not the news being reported.

 

[Malintent]

My coworkers are going on and on about how much negative press the President is receiving. They think the same media that loyally reported his every claim and attack on Hillary before the election, is now out to kick him out of the WH.

I have a question, though.

If, for example, the president tells a lie, or his people tell a lie for him, and the media catches them out, does that count as negative reporting or as journalism?

I think there is an ambiguity with "negativity." A journalist can refrain, and I mean go out of his way to intentionally conceal his very own feelings or interpretive conclusion, and refrain from expressing internal biases. So, one can be positive (biased), neutral (not biased), or negative (biased). That is so whether the content is negative or positive overall. Down playing positive news is just as negative reporting as is upplaying negative news.

To announce to the world that the president of a country with such stature is lying is overwhelmingly negative news, but whether the journalist is negative reporting has to do with the tact of the journalist, not the news being reported.

I don't necessarily disagree with your statement, but unfortunately the sentiment is a catch-22 the following two statements are conflicting:

one can be positive (biased), neutral (not biased), or negative (biased).

and

Down playing positive news is just as negative reporting as is upplaying negative news.

The problem with this, as I see it, is that one can always view the degree of positivity or negativity of the tone of delivery to be "upplayed" or downplayed", based on the biases of the one receiving the news. I don't see how there can be an objective standard of positivity (or negativity). It may just as well be in the eye of the beholder.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

My coworkers are going on and on about how much negative press the President is receiving. They think the same media that loyally reported his every claim and attack on Hillary before the election, is now out to kick him out of the WH.

I have a question, though.

If, for example, the president tells a lie, or his people tell a lie for him, and the media catches them out, does that count as negative reporting or as journalism?

I thought it was "fake news".

 

[Elixir]

My coworkers are going on and on about how much negative press the President is receiving. They think the same media that loyally reported his every claim and attack on Hillary before the election, is now out to kick him out of the WH.

I have a question, though.

If, for example, the president tells a lie, or his people tell a lie for him, and the media catches them out, does that count as negative reporting or as journalism?

I thought it was "fake news".

It would be stupid to expect a trumpster to discern the fine points of difference between "Fake News" and "news of the fake".

 

[funinspace]

I thought it was "fake news".

It would be stupid to expect a trumpster to discern the fine points of difference between "Fake News" and "news of the fake".

Would that be a trumpster dash?

 

[Elixir]

To announce to the world that the president of a country with such stature is lying is overwhelmingly negative news, but whether the journalist is negative reporting has to do with the tact of the journalist, not the news being reported.

Well, I'm sick of hearing how "Trump has a tenuous relationship with the truth" and "Trump's expressed version of reality differs from that of most people much of the time...".

He's a fucking psychopathic liar. Get over it, snowflakes!

 

[abaddon]

I wonder what the approval rating for Nixon was when he resigned? About 30-something percent maybe? Probably no fewer than a quarter of Americans "stood by his side" to the end and beyond it. There's always that group that can't deal with "negativity". They'll say "he's our president and we need to support him!" not just from patriotism or partisanship but also from "I need to feel things are normal and are ok".

It's not negativity to report news that happens to be negative, but it will portrayed as negativity by persons that don't want to hear it.

 

[Ford]

It's not negativity to report news that happens to be negative, but it will portrayed as negativity by persons that don't want to hear it.

Yep. I chalk a lot of this up to the decades-long right wing campaign to discredit the "mainstream" media.

I am old enough to remember a time when the news was just that...the news. You turned on the news and watched Cronkite or one of the other channels. Then talk radio took off by shouting at everyone that the news was part of a sinister conspiracy to mislead the nation. A generation later and it is taken as gospel truth by a significant portion of the populace that the news cannot be trusted, and if it tells you something you don't like it is because of liberal bias rather than the facts not lining up with your view of reality.

Now along comes a President to whom everything remotely critical of him is "fake news," and of course his supporters agree. It is only news if it tells you what you want to hear, instead of what's happening.

 

[fast]

I think there is an ambiguity with "negativity." A journalist can refrain, and I mean go out of his way to intentionally conceal his very own feelings or interpretive conclusion, and refrain from expressing internal biases. So, one can be positive (biased), neutral (not biased), or negative (biased). That is so whether the content is negative or positive overall. Down playing positive news is just as negative reporting as is upplaying negative news.

To announce to the world that the president of a country with such stature is lying is overwhelmingly negative news, but whether the journalist is negative reporting has to do with the tact of the journalist, not the news being reported.

I don't necessarily disagree with your statement, but unfortunately the sentiment is a catch-22 the following two statements are conflicting:

one can be positive (biased), neutral (not biased), or negative (biased).

and

Down playing positive news is just as negative reporting as is upplaying negative news.

The problem with this, as I see it, is that one can always view the degree of positivity or negativity of the tone of delivery to be "upplayed" or downplayed", based on the biases of the one receiving the news. I don't see how there can be an objective standard of positivity (or negativity). It may just as well be in the eye of the beholder.

As the ole saying goes, it's not what is said but how it's said. Deliberately withholding conclusions to the underlying claims as fact (even if those claims are themselves fact) and presenting opposing views as expressed by others whereby the deliverer of the claims remains neutral such that the viewer is left to make their own self-reliant conclusions, then the negativity of the content will be less likely regarded as negative reporting.

When I watch CNN, there's no guessing that they're pulling their punches and want to be even more harsh than they are. That is not remotely fair and balanced in the sense that matters.

I think there used to be a show named "fact or fiction." It wasn't always easy getting the answer right, and the fact the presentation depicted all scenarios evenly didn't make it any easier. If typical news reporting was like this, giving the viewer the option of figuring out how he or should feel on his own, we'd have less complaints, and if CNN (for example) was charged with the responsibility of hosting such a fact or fiction show, there would be no guessing, as it would be self-evident by their highly broadcasted biases.

I think an objective measure could be made. It would be complicated, but it could be done. How much time is committed to each side of a story is just one simple thing that comes to mind. How even is the respectability of the opposing sides presented. There's a lot that could be looked at to ensure they aren't trying to sway viewers to think one sidedly. There's a lot of little things too. When we're told that there was no response to our calls, that can't be the entirety of the presentation to encapsulate an opposing viewpoint.

 

[fast]

To announce to the world that the president of a country with such stature is lying is overwhelmingly negative news, but whether the journalist is negative reporting has to do with the tact of the journalist, not the news being reported.

Well, I'm sick of hearing how "Trump has a tenuous relationship with the truth" and "Trump's expressed version of reality differs from that of most people much of the time...".

He's a fucking psychopathic liar. Get over it, snowflakes!

Those are euphemisticly portrayed conclusions that is being presented to you. Of course you're thinking he's a pathological liar, as you're being repeated told that. Tell me he said blacks suck. Tell me he said blacks are ugly. Don't tell me he is a racist. Let me conclude that, but not before also telling me he donated to them and is continuing programs for them and the context in which these claims were made and why. I want to know the facts that lead to the claims. If all I hear are negative claim after negative claim amidst distortions of underlying sentiment with no fair and balanced delivery of his true mindset, then factually correct correct or not, it's still negative reporting. Again, it's not the negativity of the content but the biased nature of its delivery.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Yep. I chalk a lot of this up to the decades-long right wing campaign to discredit the "mainstream" media.

I am old enough to remember a time when the news was just that...the news.

Before I even read the next sentence; "And that's the way it is."

 

[Keith&Co.]

Again, it's not the negativity of the content but the biased nature of its delivery.

I was thinking more of the way any damned thing he said about Hillary was presented by the media during the campaign. I mean, that was pretty much it. Trump was quoted.
After he was elected, the press lost one of their punching dummies.
Trump didn't have to share the spotlight, he WAS the story. And suddenly, the press starts paying a little more attention. When he said that Obama had put him under surveillance was the first time i heard the media state 'without providing any evidence' in connection with one of his claims.

He never provides evidence, is the sudden attention to this detail a negative delivery? Or are we FINALLY getting journalism?

 

[Elixir]

Of course you're thinking he's a pathological liar, as you're being repeated told that.

Wrong, fast. I am thinking that because he lies constantly. "Biggest Crowd size in history"... "I won the popular vote" ... "Mexico is going to pay for the wall"... "I'm going to release my tax returns"... "I won't use executive orders" ... "I won't be playing golf" ... "I will defeat ISIS in thirty days"...
Would you like a few dozen more examples? I think you can find them for yourself if you have the courage.
It's is harder to think of anything he has ever said that was true than to find lies he has told. That's why I think he's a liar - HE TOLD ME SO.

Tell me he said blacks suck.

Why should I tell you that? I haven't heard him say such a thing, have you? Does that make him not a liar?

I want to know the facts that lead to the claims.

You might want to start by retracting your accusation that I say Trump is a liar because someone else told me so. Then go find our about all the lies he has told, and provide rationale for why an honest man would be so mendacious.

If all I hear are negative claim after negative claim amidst distortions of underlying sentiment with no fair and balanced delivery of his true mindset

You assume yourself privy to his "true mindset" (I doubt that there is anything "set" about his mind - he makes pronouncements based on the expedience of the moment).
I think you are hard-pressed to provide any evidence that Mr. Trump is anything but a lowlife conman and sexual predator.

 

[fast]

Wrong, fast. I am thinking that because he lies constantly. "Biggest Crowd size in history"... "I won the popular vote" ... "Mexico is going to pay for the wall"... "I'm going to release my tax returns"... "I won't use executive orders" ... "I won't be playing golf" ... "I will defeat ISIS in thirty days"...
Would you like a few dozen more examples? I think you can find them for yourself if you have the courage.
It's is harder to think of anything he has ever said that was true than to find lies he has told. That's why I think he's a liar - HE TOLD ME SO.

Tell me he said blacks suck.

Why should I tell you that? I haven't heard him say such a thing, have you? Does that make him not a liar?

I want to know the facts that lead to the claims.

You might want to start by retracting your accusation that I say Trump is a liar because someone else told me so. Then go find our about all the lies he has told, and provide rationale for why an honest man would be so mendacious.

If all I hear are negative claim after negative claim amidst distortions of underlying sentiment with no fair and balanced delivery of his true mindset

You assume yourself privy to his "true mindset" (I doubt that there is anything "set" about his mind - he makes pronouncements based on the expedience of the moment).
I think you are hard-pressed to provide any evidence that Mr. Trump is anything but a lowlife conman and sexual predator.

Retracted

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Trump is proven liar and a proven ignorant man who says ignorant things. He has been this ever since he decided to run for president. The problem is, it is easy to demonstrate that from his own words, and much of the press will do just that when he lies. The big problem with Trump is, he doesn't learn from the experience. A more sensible person would learn to choose his words more carefully. And to check his facts before he blurts out nonsense. Trump just barges ahead. Many of his policies suck. Such as supporting a budget that will bury us in massive debt. Attack on ACA, with no plan to replace it that actually protects the vulnerable and poor. As he promised. Of course he is going to get negative press, and he deserves it.

And that is life. It is going to be a long four years, if he lasts that long. Get used to it.