Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth

[James_Gale]

Donald Trump is indeed a creation of the liberal media.  Were they not covering everything he said, wrote or thought about, his bubble would have burst already.  As it is, America loves nothing better than sticking it to the NY Times and NBC

Ironically, voting for Trump helps the New York Times, NBC, and the rest of the media.  Trump is a ratings bonanza. 

Here is a collection of other media comments from last August--before Trump's appalling consistency had been demonstrated--that puts the blame where it perhaps ought to be: not on the "liberal media" but on Fox News:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/11/media-watch-fox-news-reap-what-it-has-sown-with/204886

The Daily Beast: Fox Has "Only Got Themselves To Blame" For Trump.

The Atlantic: Fox Is "Reaping What It Has Sown" With Donald Trump's Popularity Amid Attacks. The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf described how Fox News was "reaping what it has sown" after years of instructing its viewers to mistrust media attacks against Republican politicians and to trust the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin

Rolling Stone: Fox News "Finally Tries To Call Off The Smug Monster It Created." Rolling Stone noted how in July, Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus "called Trump to personally beg him to 'tone it down,'" while "Fox News was promoting the hell out of Donald Trump"

Salon: "It's Hard To Destroy A Monster Of Your Own Creation." Salon writer and former Media Matters employee Simon Maloy detailed how "Fox helped give Donald Trump political relevance and championed his campaign -- and then tried to take him down"

Trump Has Received More Airtime On Fox News Than Any Other GOP Candidate By Far. According to a Media Matters report detailing the amount of coverage Fox News gave each of the Republican candidates since the beginning of May, Trump has received more airtime and made more appearances than any other Republican primary candidate. He was given 4 hours and 45 minutes of airtime over 31 appearances on Fox, easily beating out Mike Huckabee, who received 3 hours and 21 minutes of airtime, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who appeared 28 times

Extended quotations are given from each of those outlets. And this was back in August 2015.

Peace,
Michael

As you may know, Media Matters is run by David Brock (a left-wing activist) and bankrolled by George Soros and other wealthy donors from the left.  Media Matters, according to the New York Times, "has staked its claim in Washington punditry with aggressive attacks on Fox News and conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck."  There's nothing wrong with this, of course.  But when evaluating accusations against Fox News by an organization that exists in very large part to attack Fox News, you might want to apply a bit of scrutiny.


The scattered quotes pulled together by Media Matters seem to make two major points. 


1.  Fox News brainwashed the masses not to trust the media and instead to trust the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck --  This is a very big stretch.  Fox News came into being because of pre-existing distrust among conservatives of the media (which is higher among Republicans and independents than among Democrats but is rising steadily across the political spectrum).  But Trump supporters are not particularly conservative.  And they certainly haven't taken their cues from Sarah Palin (who endorsed Trump very late in the process), Beck (who hates Trump and has endorsed Cruz), or Limbaugh (who doesn't endorse but doesn't much like Trump).  The Trumpkins didn't need Fox News to teach them not to trust the media or other prominent voices.  Spend some time on Twitter and you'll see that they hate, well, everybody -- including "GOPe" Rupert Murdoch and his amnesty loving network.  They are the perpetual distrustful in our society.


2.  Fox News has given Trump too much attention and airtime, thereby rewarding his antics -- Fox is certainly very guilty of this.  But so is every major news outlet.  That's why I cited Nate Silver's tweet.  Silver leans left, of course.  But he's one of the era's smartest political thinkers (and a master of data analysis).  His point was that even the New York Times -- the grandest of all US newspapers -- has fallen prey to the drive to focus on the superficial.  All the broadcast networks have covered Trump extensively while largely downplaying coverage of the others.  Fox is guilty.  But to place all or most of the blame of Fox strikes me as a Pilate-like attempt by a left-leaning group at washing away the evident guilt of that group's liberal media allies.  (Trump, after all, worked for years at NBC (I believe), not Fox.)

Back to my original point in citing Silver -- Rubio's current line of attack is explained by the fact that even the most respected media outlets have chosen to highlight the clown show instead of the substantive debate. 

 

[Michael Slusser]

Ironically, voting for Trump helps the New York Times, NBC, and the rest of the media.  Trump is a ratings bonanza. 

Here is a collection of other media comments from last August--before Trump's appalling consistency had been demonstrated--that puts the blame where it perhaps ought to be: not on the "liberal media" but on Fox News:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/11/media-watch-fox-news-reap-what-it-has-sown-with/204886
Extended quotations are given from each of those outlets. And this was back in August 2015.

As you may know, Media Matters is run by David Brock (a left-wing activist) and bankrolled by George Soros and other wealthy donors from the left.  Media Matters, according to the New York Times, "has staked its claim in Washington punditry with aggressive attacks on Fox News and conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck."  There's nothing wrong with this, of course.  But when evaluating accusations against Fox News by an organization that exists in very large part to attack Fox News, you might want to apply a bit of scrutiny.

The scattered quotes pulled together by Media Matters seem to make two major points. 

1.  Fox News brainwashed the masses not to trust the media and instead to trust the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck --  This is a very big stretch.  Fox News came into being because of pre-existing distrust among conservatives of the media (which is higher among Republicans and independents than among Democrats but is rising steadily across the political spectrum).  But Trump supporters are not particularly conservative.  And they certainly haven't taken their cues from Sarah Palin (who endorsed Trump very late in the process), Beck (who hates Trump and has endorsed Cruz), or Limbaugh (who doesn't endorse but doesn't much like Trump).  The Trumpkins didn't need Fox News to teach them not to trust the media or other prominent voices.  Spend some time on Twitter and you'll see that they hate, well, everybody -- including "GOPe" Rupert Murdoch and his amnesty loving network.  They are the perpetual distrustful in our society.

2.  Fox News has given Trump too much attention and airtime, thereby rewarding his antics -- Fox is certainly very guilty of this.  But so is every major news outlet.  That's why I cited Nate Silver's tweet.  Silver leans left, of course.  But he's one of the era's smartest political thinkers (and a master of data analysis).  His point was that even the New York Times -- the grandest of all US newspapers -- has fallen prey to the drive to focus on the superficial.  All the broadcast networks have covered Trump extensively while largely downplaying coverage of the others.  Fox is guilty.  But to place all or most of the blame of Fox strikes me as a Pilate-like attempt by a left-leaning group at washing away the evident guilt of that group's liberal media allies.  (Trump, after all, worked for years at NBC (I believe), not Fox.)

Back to my original point in citing Silver -- Rubio's current line of attack is explained by the fact that even the most respected media outlets have chosen to highlight the clown show instead of the substantive debate.

I have no idea who David Brock is, nor did I know he runs Media Matters. The question is whether the quotes and the information in them are accurate.

I likewise don't know who Nate Silver is, and your link led only to ALPB. Is Nate one of us? Does one now have to keep up with everyone's tweets? He's concerned that the NYT focuses more than it used to on the superficial. But that doesn't explain why Trump was rising and being puffed by Fox News 6-9 months ago.

And how does VOTING for Trump help the NYT and NBC? Do they get a %? In other words, if someone in Nebraska votes for Trump, the NYT's circulation or ad linage goes up? How do you work that, actually?

Peace,
Michael

[James_Gale]

Ironically, voting for Trump helps the New York Times, NBC, and the rest of the media.  Trump is a ratings bonanza. 

Here is a collection of other media comments from last August--before Trump's appalling consistency had been demonstrated--that puts the blame where it perhaps ought to be: not on the "liberal media" but on Fox News:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/11/media-watch-fox-news-reap-what-it-has-sown-with/204886
Extended quotations are given from each of those outlets. And this was back in August 2015.

As you may know, Media Matters is run by David Brock (a left-wing activist) and bankrolled by George Soros and other wealthy donors from the left.  Media Matters, according to the New York Times, "has staked its claim in Washington punditry with aggressive attacks on Fox News and conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck."  There's nothing wrong with this, of course.  But when evaluating accusations against Fox News by an organization that exists in very large part to attack Fox News, you might want to apply a bit of scrutiny.

The scattered quotes pulled together by Media Matters seem to make two major points. 

1.  Fox News brainwashed the masses not to trust the media and instead to trust the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck --  This is a very big stretch.  Fox News came into being because of pre-existing distrust among conservatives of the media (which is higher among Republicans and independents than among Democrats but is rising steadily across the political spectrum).  But Trump supporters are not particularly conservative.  And they certainly haven't taken their cues from Sarah Palin (who endorsed Trump very late in the process), Beck (who hates Trump and has endorsed Cruz), or Limbaugh (who doesn't endorse but doesn't much like Trump).  The Trumpkins didn't need Fox News to teach them not to trust the media or other prominent voices.  Spend some time on Twitter and you'll see that they hate, well, everybody -- including "GOPe" Rupert Murdoch and his amnesty loving network.  They are the perpetual distrustful in our society.

2.  Fox News has given Trump too much attention and airtime, thereby rewarding his antics -- Fox is certainly very guilty of this.  But so is every major news outlet.  That's why I cited Nate Silver's tweet.  Silver leans left, of course.  But he's one of the era's smartest political thinkers (and a master of data analysis).  His point was that even the New York Times -- the grandest of all US newspapers -- has fallen prey to the drive to focus on the superficial.  All the broadcast networks have covered Trump extensively while largely downplaying coverage of the others.  Fox is guilty.  But to place all or most of the blame of Fox strikes me as a Pilate-like attempt by a left-leaning group at washing away the evident guilt of that group's liberal media allies.  (Trump, after all, worked for years at NBC (I believe), not Fox.)

Back to my original point in citing Silver -- Rubio's current line of attack is explained by the fact that even the most respected media outlets have chosen to highlight the clown show instead of the substantive debate.

I have no idea who David Brock is, nor did I know he runs Media Matters. The question is whether the quotes and the information in them are accurate.

I likewise don't know who Nate Silver is, and your link led only to ALPB. Is Nate one of us? Does one now have to keep up with everyone's tweets? He's concerned that the NYT focuses more than it used to on the superficial. But that doesn't explain why Trump was rising and being puffed by Fox News 6-9 months ago.

And how does VOTING for Trump help the NYT and NBC? Do they get a %? In other words, if someone in Nebraska votes for Trump, the NYT's circulation or ad linage goes up? How do you work that, actually?

Peace,
Michael

The media interest isn't primarily in who gets votes. The media care about ratings. Trump stories drive ratings. Simple as that.

Fox wasn't puffing Trump any more than the other networks. The Fox-phobia of Media Matters leads to it blaming Fox alone for what they all were doing. Heck, Fox and Trump were feuding. But that drives ratings as well. 

I'm surprised that you don't know who Brock and Silver are.  When you live in DC, your scope of common knowledge is different from that in the real world (to the real world's credit).

[mariemeyer]

Donald Trump is indeed a creation of the liberal media.  Were they not covering everything he said, wrote or thought about, his bubble would have burst already.  As it is, America loves nothing better than sticking it to the NY Times and NBC

Ironically, voting for Trump helps the New York Times, NBC, and the rest of the media.  Trump is a ratings bonanza. 

Here is a collection of other media comments from last August--before Trump's appalling consistency had been demonstrated--that puts the blame where it perhaps ought to be: not on the "liberal media" but on Fox News:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/11/media-watch-fox-news-reap-what-it-has-sown-with/204886

The Daily Beast: Fox Has "Only Got Themselves To Blame" For Trump.

The Atlantic: Fox Is "Reaping What It Has Sown" With Donald Trump's Popularity Amid Attacks. The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf described how Fox News was "reaping what it has sown" after years of instructing its viewers to mistrust media attacks against Republican politicians and to trust the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin

Rolling Stone: Fox News "Finally Tries To Call Off The Smug Monster It Created." Rolling Stone noted how in July, Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus "called Trump to personally beg him to 'tone it down,'" while "Fox News was promoting the hell out of Donald Trump"

Salon: "It's Hard To Destroy A Monster Of Your Own Creation." Salon writer and former Media Matters employee Simon Maloy detailed how "Fox helped give Donald Trump political relevance and championed his campaign -- and then tried to take him down"

Trump Has Received More Airtime On Fox News Than Any Other GOP Candidate By Far. According to a Media Matters report detailing the amount of coverage Fox News gave each of the Republican candidates since the beginning of May, Trump has received more airtime and made more appearances than any other Republican primary candidate. He was given 4 hours and 45 minutes of airtime over 31 appearances on Fox, easily beating out Mike Huckabee, who received 3 hours and 21 minutes of airtime, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who appeared 28 times

Extended quotations are given from each of those outlets. And this was back in August 2015.

Peace,
Michael

My husband and I subscribe to home delivery of the NY Times. There is much in the Times with which I strongly disagree, particularly same sex-marriage and abortion.  At the same time they provide the most complete coverage of world wide events of any paper in our area.

If the Times were to report more favorably on Clinton than Saunders, they would be faulted. Note that an editorial last week called on Clinton to release the tapes of her speeches before Wall Street banks.  Neither articles or editorials are giving her a pass. 

If the Times would intentionally report unfavorably on Trump there would be cries of their "liberal" bias.  They are reporting on the debates as they take place and are not giving Trump more time than they are giving to Clinton. 

Last week a regular Fox program interviewed a Southern Baptist pastor from Houston who openly claimed to speak for Evangelicals. He proceeded to state why Evangelical  are for Trump.  Listening to him explain why Trumps private life had no bearing on why Evangelicals could support the man made no sense to me as an evangelical Lutheran.  I resented that Fox gave this man the right to speak up in support of Trump.

Worth reading in the Business section of today's Times in article reports on how European papers are responding to the possible nomination of Trump.  What they once thought was a joke is now a feared reality.
D
Marie Meyer

I thought Rev Jeffress gave a fairly good analysis of why evangelicals would support Trump in his analogizing to why they would vote for Reagan in 1980. I didn't resent Fox News in the least for allowing Jeffress to voice his opinion.

BTW, they're using a different definition of evangelical, but you know that.

Yes, I know there are different definitions of "evangelical," but FOX viewers may not.   I do not care who FOX invites IF the person or FOX makes it clear that they are not speaking for all "evangelicals."  I suspect there are Baptists who did not identify with the speaker any more than the many "evangelicals" who read Christianity Today.

In my personal opinion church leaders, regardless of their church affiliation, ought neither use the media to express their personal political views nor claim they are speaking for any group of Christians.     

Marie Meyer         

[James_Gale]

I'm surprised that you don't know who Brock and Silver are.  When you live in DC, your scope of common knowledge is different from that in the real world (to the real world's credit).

Is DC where you live?

Michael

Yep.

[peter_speckhard]

When Trump first announced his candidacy last summer I posted a funny fake poster of him with the caption "We shall overcomb" on facebook and added this comment: "This isn't just sour grapes because of my relative lack of hair. Well, maybe a little. But this is still funny in a gentle, loving, 'don't kid yourself, nobody is ever going to vote for you' kind of way."

Sigh.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Yes, I know there are different definitions of "evangelical," but FOX viewers may not.

Indeed, some viewers might not be aware of your definition. They do know the definition being used in the context of a voting block.

I do not care who FOX invites IF the person or FOX makes it clear that they are not speaking for all "evangelicals."  I suspect there are Baptists who did not identify with the speaker any more than the many "evangelicals" who read Christianity Today.

In my personal opinion church leaders, regardless of their church affiliation, ought neither use the media to express their personal political views nor claim they are speaking for any group of Christians.         

Obviously, others think differently, especially in the context of speaking out, e.g., against abortion. Furthermore, Jeffress gave his opinion, beginning with, "I think..." and going on to cite a Bloomberg Poll as well as the evangelical support for Reagan instead of the born-again Carter in 1980 as the basis for his view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQu0l94HLCM

[mariemeyer]

Yes, I know there are different definitions of "evangelical," but FOX viewers may not.

Indeed, some viewers might not be aware of your definition. They do know the definition being used in the context of a voting block.

I do not care who FOX invites IF the person or FOX makes it clear that they are not speaking for all "evangelicals."  I suspect there are Baptists who did not identify with the speaker any more than the many "evangelicals" who read Christianity Today.

In my personal opinion church leaders, regardless of their church affiliation, ought neither use the media to express their personal political views nor claim they are speaking for any group of Christians.         

Obviously, others think differently, especially in the context of speaking out, e.g., against abortion. Furthermore, Jeffress gave his opinion, beginning with, "I think..." and going on to cite a Bloomberg Poll as well as the evangelical support for Reagan instead of the born-again Carter in 1980 as the basis for his view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQu0l94HLCM

Thanks for informing ALPB readers where they might hear the interview to which I referred.  In the event they do not watch Fox regularly, they might this interview interesting.

BTW, the reference to speaking for others was not in regard to speaking in opposition to abortion, but to a stating a voting preference and providing the rational for the preference.

marie 

[Donald_Kirchner]

BTW, the reference to speaking for others was not in regard to speaking in opposition to abortion, but to a stating a voting preference and providing the rational for the preference.

If it was not clear before, I deny your premise.

Others have different opinions. E.g.:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/02/29/hobby-lobby-founder-endorses-rubio-calls-trump-bully.html

I listened to the  interview. Cavuto began by laying out the rationale put forth by Jeffress, and Green responded, taking a different view and voting rationale.

[Steven Tibbetts]

If the Times would intentionally report unfavorably on Trump there would be cries of their "liberal" bias. 

How could reporting unfavorably on someone with no conservative credentials be "'liberal' bias"?

Pax, Steven+

[mariemeyer]

BTW, the reference to speaking for others was not in regard to speaking in opposition to abortion, but to a stating a voting preference and providing the rational for the preference.

If it was not clear before, I deny your premise.

Others have different opinions. E.g.:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/02/29/hobby-lobby-founder-endorses-rubio-calls-trump-bully.html

I listened to the  interview. Cavuto began by laying out the rationale put forth by Jeffress, and Green responded, taking a different view and voting rationale.

I'm having trouble following you.  Green is not a religious leader.  During the interview he was clearly speaking for himself as a man of faith.  He went on to say whether one is a person of faith or not, Trump is not someone he thinks is a role model for our children.  As an individual who happens to be the owner of Hobby-Lobby he expressed his opinion.  IMO, this interview is not at all similar to the interview with Pastor Jeffress.

Not sure what premise you deny.  I happen to think there is a difference between a business leader and a pastor called to be the spiritual leader of his entire congregation coming out on Fox to state why they support a particular candidate in a national election. 

Marie 




























 

[Charles Austin]

Credentials or not, Steven, Mr. Trump seeks to be the candidate of the party which claims to be "conservative". That is a conundrum for the Republicans to unravel, as they unravel.

[Robert Johnson]

I have no idea who David Brock is, nor did I know he runs Media Matters.

Then you should refrain from commentary based on their assertions.

[Matt Hummel]

Credentials or not, Steven, Mr. Trump seeks to be the candidate of the party which claims to be "conservative". That is a conundrum for the Republicans to unravel, as they unravel.

In much the same way that the Dems need to explain how, if they are not hard core socialists, they have a creditable candidate who is.

Truth be told, while I disagree with Sen Sanders on most everything, he seems to be a man of the integrity and  concern. Unlike his opponent, and unlike Trump.

[James_Gale]

Ironically, voting for Trump helps the New York Times, NBC, and the rest of the media.  Trump is a ratings bonanza. 

Here is a collection of other media comments from last August--before Trump's appalling consistency had been demonstrated--that puts the blame where it perhaps ought to be: not on the "liberal media" but on Fox News:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/11/media-watch-fox-news-reap-what-it-has-sown-with/204886
Extended quotations are given from each of those outlets. And this was back in August 2015.

As you may know, Media Matters is run by David Brock (a left-wing activist) and bankrolled by George Soros and other wealthy donors from the left.  Media Matters, according to the New York Times, "has staked its claim in Washington punditry with aggressive attacks on Fox News and conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck."  There's nothing wrong with this, of course.  But when evaluating accusations against Fox News by an organization that exists in very large part to attack Fox News, you might want to apply a bit of scrutiny.

The scattered quotes pulled together by Media Matters seem to make two major points. 

1.  Fox News brainwashed the masses not to trust the media and instead to trust the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck --  This is a very big stretch.  Fox News came into being because of pre-existing distrust among conservatives of the media (which is higher among Republicans and independents than among Democrats but is rising steadily across the political spectrum).  But Trump supporters are not particularly conservative.  And they certainly haven't taken their cues from Sarah Palin (who endorsed Trump very late in the process), Beck (who hates Trump and has endorsed Cruz), or Limbaugh (who doesn't endorse but doesn't much like Trump).  The Trumpkins didn't need Fox News to teach them not to trust the media or other prominent voices.  Spend some time on Twitter and you'll see that they hate, well, everybody -- including "GOPe" Rupert Murdoch and his amnesty loving network.  They are the perpetual distrustful in our society.

2.  Fox News has given Trump too much attention and airtime, thereby rewarding his antics -- Fox is certainly very guilty of this.  But so is every major news outlet.  That's why I cited Nate Silver's tweet.  Silver leans left, of course.  But he's one of the era's smartest political thinkers (and a master of data analysis).  His point was that even the New York Times -- the grandest of all US newspapers -- has fallen prey to the drive to focus on the superficial.  All the broadcast networks have covered Trump extensively while largely downplaying coverage of the others.  Fox is guilty.  But to place all or most of the blame of Fox strikes me as a Pilate-like attempt by a left-leaning group at washing away the evident guilt of that group's liberal media allies.  (Trump, after all, worked for years at NBC (I believe), not Fox.)

Back to my original point in citing Silver -- Rubio's current line of attack is explained by the fact that even the most respected media outlets have chosen to highlight the clown show instead of the substantive debate.

I have no idea who David Brock is, nor did I know he runs Media Matters. The question is whether the quotes and the information in them are accurate.

I likewise don't know who Nate Silver is, and your link led only to ALPB. Is Nate one of us? Does one now have to keep up with everyone's tweets? He's concerned that the NYT focuses more than it used to on the superficial. But that doesn't explain why Trump was rising and being puffed by Fox News 6-9 months ago.

And how does VOTING for Trump help the NYT and NBC? Do they get a %? In other words, if someone in Nebraska votes for Trump, the NYT's circulation or ad linage goes up? How do you work that, actually?

Peace,
Michael

Everybody is trying to blame/credit somebody for the rise of Trump.  Here's an article about the close relationship between Jeff Zucker (who hired Trump at NBC (thereby introducing him to a new generation) and has guided coverage of Trump at CNN).  There's probably a bit of truth underlying all these theories.