The Fake News Lie that makes Trump look like a Boy Scout in compariso

[D.W.]

Forgive the snark, but I find that anyone still watches evening news even more outlandish. 

I've seen this one pop up on my news feeds, though I'll agree it's not getting tons of attention and your suggestion that it would be a huge deal if the party were reversed to be a likely one.

[scifibum]

It was pointed out to me that the trial of Robert Menendez, a sitting Senator, for corruption has received zero evening news coverage on NBC, CBS and ABC. 

It didn't take me very long to determine that this is not true. 

How much coverage on the nightly news on those networks was there?  It wasn't zero, that much was easy.  But I don't have a handy, exhaustive list of the stories that they DID run, so I don't know.  Why did you believe it was zero? How did you confirm that?

Why is this the benchmark we're using?  I have a feeling it's because someone wanted to find an angle that demonstrated the bias of the mainstream news media, and not the outcome of dispassionate analysis.

We also have two mass shootings, one of which was the worst ever, in the same time frame, the aftermath of some of the most destructive hurricanes ever, and a president who doesn't stop generating news - from simple gaffes to international incidents - on a daily basis even if we exclude everything Russia.

If that's not enough, how about you recall that there's also ubiquitous coverage of scandals involving HRC and the DNC.

I'm afraid your case isn't very persuasive. 

[TheDeamon]

Forgive the snark, but I find that anyone still watches evening news even more outlandish. 

I know someone who does, but they're retired and collecting Social Security while enjoying their 70's.

[yossarian22c]

Sorry to resurrect this old post, but I was reminded today of the power the media wields by ignoring real stories as well.  It was pointed out to me that the trial of Robert Menendez, a sitting Senator, for corruption has received zero evening news coverage on NBC, CBS and ABC.  How is that even possible?  There is absolutely no chance, that if Menendez was a Republican and not a Democrat that it wouldn't have been on multiple times a week, and that's true without regard to whether Trump is in the Whitehouse or Obama was in the Whitehouse.

How can we have anything other than a manipulated understanding of the world when the press absolutely refuses to even try to cover things on a fair basis?

May I suggest you listen to NPR more, I've heard them talk about the trial several times in my commute (20 min one way) to and from work in the last couple weeks.

[TheDrake]

I think it was more prominent when the indictments were being handed out.

But by comparison, do you really think that Republican Bob McDonnell was covered so much more?

And Blagojevich (D) was splattered all over the news for an extended period of time by virtually all media outlets, late night comedy, etc.

[Seriati]

It was pointed out to me that the trial of Robert Menendez, a sitting Senator, for corruption has received zero evening news coverage on NBC, CBS and ABC. 

It didn't take me very long to determine that this is not true.

How exactly did you do so? 

There's a bunch of articles on the issue, but they all source back to the Media Research Center.  The Media Research Center is pretty conservative in their position pieces, but when they do this kind of coverage, they just sit there with stop watches.  Seems fairly reliable. 

How much coverage on the nightly news on those networks was there?  It wasn't zero, that much was easy.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mike-ciandella/2017/10/31/mueller-focused-evening-shows-still-havent-covered-bob-menendez

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/07/media-fails-in-coverage-of-sen-menendez-corruption-trial/

Just a couple by the way.  I'm pretty sure they all have the same source, but I'm not aware of any other group that does the same kind of analysis.  In any event the original article  I saw had claimed zero coverage on the nightly news on ABC, CBS and NBC through  Oct 31st.  The first link above, says they did cover on Sept 6, but not since.  The updated versions haven't shown much of an increase in coverage.

But I don't have a handy, exhaustive list of the stories that they DID run, so I don't know.  Why did you believe it was zero? How did you confirm that?

Because that's virtually all the MRC does, time stories and look for bias.  Do you have a reason to doubt their measures on something that can obviously be measured on an objective basis?

Why is this the benchmark we're using?  I have a feeling it's because someone wanted to find an angle that demonstrated the bias of the mainstream news media, and not the outcome of dispassionate analysis.

Because network evening news has a LOT of viewers and, in my view, they're more passive than other news consumers.  They are the most persuadable, because they are the least likely to be active consumers of news, and it's it been my specific thesis all along that the media distorts the world to support the left and pull down the right.  Choosing to ignore a Senator's corruption trial because of party, when it would be on every night if the parties were reversed is good evidence of that.  I think the comparison between the Bridgegate coverage and the non-coverage here was really on point.  Christie's impact on the country on a national basis, is it really so much more than a Senator's that one would get hours of coverage and the other zero?  I don't think you can make a reasonable argument that the NJ governor is more of a national issue than a senator at all, but it gets really tough to claim he's FAR more.

We also have two mass shootings, one of which was the worst ever, in the same time frame, the aftermath of some of the most destructive hurricanes ever, and a president who doesn't stop generating news - from simple gaffes to international incidents - on a daily basis even if we exclude everything Russia.

I see.  Your argument is that in 2 months, there wasn't any time to cover the first trial of sitting senator for corruption since the 80's   Really?  Not enough time for a one minute update?  Lol.

Take a look at the stories they found time to cover.

If that's not enough, how about you recall that there's also ubiquitous coverage of scandals involving HRC and the DNC.

It's true, and more the half the time, people are on this board and everywhere else claiming that coverage is nothing but a "distraction" from Trump and the "real" story.  Lol.

Maybe you would cite how much coverage Hillary gets on the evening news.  Ubiquitous is not the right test for us, everyone here consumes news deliberately.  I might read Hillary all day, you might read Trump, but what you pulled isn't the same as what was pushed.

I'm afraid your case isn't very persuasive.

I'm not sure you've responded to my "case".  Like I said, as far as I can tell, the lack of coverage is just a fact, an objective fact, not a your facts/my facts fact.

If you don't know what's covered on the nightly news how can you have an opinion that they aren't pushing an agenda?

[velcro]

Seriati said

So Trump made an unsupported claim about Obama wire tapping Trump tower, and the left made an unsupported claim about Trump and Russia colluding.   Why is the first on the order in the MSM of a crime against humanity and the latter allowed to continually run as true without any evidence?

Where to start.

First of all, this is "whataboutism".  Go ahead, impeach "the left" for their horrible behavior.  But while you are at it, address the fact that Trump lied through his teeth about the whole issue.

Trump is the President of the United States.  His words carry a lot of weight.  He did not make a claim.  He made a very specific accusation of a felony, and said he had proof. (He produced none, other than general intelligence gathering of conversations his staff had with foreign nationals.  Nothing about his phones, or his office).  And just so you know, nobody in any intelligence agency has come forward with any hint of evidence to support Trump's claims.  Those who have commented said that it did not happen.

"The left", whatever that means, did not make definite claims.  They are raising issues, and investigating.  About half a dozen members of the Trump campaign had meetings with Russians who offered help on the campaign.

Nobody said Trump lying about wiretapping is a crime against humanity, except you.
Nobody with any position of responsibility on "the left" said that Trump unequivocally colluded with Russia, and that they have proof which they never provide, and that Trump is a bad (or sick) guy because he colluded with Russia.

[yossarian22c]

... and that Trump is a bad (or sick) guy because he colluded with Russia.

Plenty of people on the left say Trump is a bad guy. I say it because he is a narcissistic, pathological liar, and serial harasser of women. I know different reason but, figured I would through this up there before someone else purposely ignored the because in your statement in a rebuttal.

[Wayward Son]

In case anyone else is curious, Seriati's quote comes from the first page of the thread.  (It took me a couple of minutes to search for it.)

[scifibum]

How exactly did you do so? 

I used google for something like 60 seconds and found a clip from the time frame and sources that were supposed to have completely neglected the trial.  The clip was about the trial.

So the claim you posted was false, easily disprovable, and doesn't speak well to the reliability of the MRC if they are the source of the claim.

Because that's virtually all the MRC does, time stories and look for bias.  Do you have a reason to doubt their measures on something that can obviously be measured on an objective basis?

Yeah, I doubt them because the claim was easy to disprove.  The claim was zero coverage on nightly news programs on ABC, CBS, and NBC.  That's not true. 

Because network evening news has a LOT of viewers and, in my view, they're more passive than other news consumers.  They are the most persuadable, because they are the least likely to be active consumers of news, and it's it been my specific thesis all along that the media distorts the world to support the left and pull down the right.  Choosing to ignore a Senator's corruption trial because of party, when it would be on every night if the parties were reversed is good evidence of that.

What I was asking you is why the benchmark is MENENDEZ.  The MRC cherry picks its data if this is the measurement taken in isolation from other stories that are about the same type of thing, like the supposed corruption in the Clinton foundation. 

I see.  Your argument is that in 2 months, there wasn't any time to cover the first trial of sitting senator for corruption since the 80's   Really?  Not enough time for a one minute update?  Lol.

As I pointed out, this is a false straw man, and you still apparently haven't checked whether it's true.

the lack of coverage is just a fact, an objective fact

Yeah, how much coverage there was is an objective fact, but what that means is not.  MRC is not out to provide objective analysis, they are out to prove a conclusion that they formed decades ago. 

In my opinion, much of what is termed "liberal bias" is actually a more informed point of view.  "Conservative" viewpoints include creationism, widespread voter fraud, Trump isn't an embarrassing disaster, and a bunch of other erroneous positions based on ignorance.

[Seriati]

Which source please?  I'm interested.

[Seriati]

Lol, just to update, while apparently Menendez's trial was barely worthy of covering on CNN, the DOJ's decision not retry him after a mistrial is front page news!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/31/politics/menendez-charges-dismiss/index.html

[Wayward Son]

Out of curiosity, how did you determine that CNN thought Menendez's trial was "barely worthy of covering?"

Doing a search of the CNN site, I found what looks like well over a hundred links to the trial and accusations, dating back to at least 2015.

Sure, Fox News will tell you that no one else is covering it at all, but they're biased.  Remember, they'll tell you they are the "fair and balanced" network, too. 

[Seriati]

Fair enough, CNN did more than I remembered.