I wonder why they would use Trump as the case study, he waged war on media, media fought back.

I think there would be better examples.

Trump put media in cages and taunted his rally audiences against them while insisting to the world stage they were nothing but liars ... he worked them as much as he is working the rest of us ... hopefully, future students will see THAT as the example

,Trump took advantage of what political scientists call the “Rule of Anticipated Importance.” The rule states that the media tend to cover candidates and issues in proportion to how much they’re expected to matter. As the first real front-runner, Trump enjoyed a higher level of anticipated importance than the other GOP candidates. This, in turn, encouraged more coverage. Had Trump’s outrageous comments about John McCain, Muslims, the 14th Amendment and all the rest resulted in falling poll numbers, the media might have pulled back. But as his numbers rose, the media obeyed the Rule of Anticipated Importance. The best answer to the question of which came first, Trump or the media? Trump.

As Trump the brand-builder transformed himself into Trump the candidate, all those years of almost never saying no to a media opportunity finally paid off. Already red-hot, Trump’s fame burned brighter than a magnesium fire when finally exposed to the concentrated media flame that is the presidential campaign. He brought the carnival style of his business practices to the gentlemanly art of campaigning,


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/did-media-reporters-create-trump-2016-campaign-213840

exactly, it is an EXAMPLE of what politicians will do to get elected more so than an EXAMPLE of media bias ...

personally I rather deal with a person that has common sense vs a high educated person with no common sense as we see in modern day post secondary institutions .

For example I dont know if you know this story but there was a Professor at a university her name is Randa Jarrar made an awful comment about the passing of Barbara Bush earlier this year.

This is a tenure professor, you cant tell me she has common sense,because anyone with common sense would not have said the things she said even though she is entitled to her opinions and free speech.

Well Jes, sorry to hear about misfortune with your lady friend , but it happens.


And as to the line of forming a logical conclusion and jumping to conclusion, well that is what makes the forums interesting because you can see who understands the difference between jumping to conclusions vs forming a logical conclusion.

I have been looked at as mean, when I ask every man, who messages me, if he is real.
I do this often, when I have that feeling.

Many don't. Message back.

Only a quarter of U.S. adults in a recent survey could fully identify factual statements - as opposed to opinion - in news stories, the Pew Research Center found in a study released on Monday.

The survey comes amid growing concerns about so-called fake news spread on the internet and social media. The term generally refers to fabricated news that has no basis in fact but is presented as being factually accurate.

Facebook Inc , Alphabet Inc's Google and other tech companies have recently come under scrutiny for failing to promptly tackle the problem of fake news as more Americans consume news on social media platforms.

The main portion of Pew's survey polled 5,035 adult Americans aged 18 and above in February and March. The study was intended to determine if respondents could differentiate between factual information and opinion statements in news stories.

Participants were given five factual statements such as "spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid make up the largest portion of the U.S. federal budget," and five opinion statements such as "democracy is the greatest form of government." They were asked to identify which ones were factual and which were opinions.

Only 26 percent were able to correctly identify all five factual statements. On opinions, about 35 percent were able to correctly identify all five statements. Roughly a quarter got most or all wrong in identifying facts and opinions, the research showed.

The study found that participants' ability to classify statements as factual or opinion varied widely based on their political awareness, trust in the news media, and "digital savviness" or degree to which they are confident in using digital devices and the internet.

"There is a striking difference in certain Americans in distinguishing what are factual statements and what are not and that depends on one's level of digital savviness, political savviness," Amy Mitchell, director of journalism research at Pew Research Center, said in an interview.

The study also found that when Americans call a statement "factual" they overwhelmingly also think it is accurate. They tend to disagree with factual statements they incorrectly label as opinions, Pew said.

The research showed Republicans and Democrats were also more likely to think news statements are factual when the statements appeal to their side, even if the statements were opinions.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/americans-grapple-recognizing-facts-news-stories-pew-survey-140456645.html


Whats the difference?
A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person's feelings that cannot be proven.

I think a lot of news is fake I personally attended a Trump campain apperance and a Bernie Sanders appearance(unable to get to the Hillary one)Over 12000 people were at Trumps event with maybe 50 protesters All the news talked about was the protesters.Bernies had less than 100 people but was made out to be huge on the news

Many people today, haven't studied the past enough to realize that news reporting has ALWAYS been susceptible to overt corruption, but even more of a problem it has been susceptible to subversion by fads, and by capitalism itself (that is, when it's PROFITABLE to feed wild stories to the public, we get more of them, whether any of them are true or not).

There have been MANY fads in the past, where it became "fashionable" for reporters to look for corruption in government, or scandals amongst the upper classes, or fantasy conspiracies amongst the lower classes. Once such a fad takes hold, people start to see the corruption or the conspiracies where nothing but coincidence exists, and everything goes off the rails.

One of the most ironic fads right now, is the fad of blaming "fake news" for any information people prefer to disbelieve. What I find most ironic, is that it is the people more to the RIGHT end of the political spectrum who want to pretend all bad news is fake news now. They are behaving IDENTICALLY to the left end of the spectrum people of the 1970's, who claimed that the entire mass media was a tool of the "establishment," and therefore never to be believed.

I dont understand your capitalism analogy? what does capitalism have to do with it?

You probably didn't see the edit I added about that, to try to clarify it.

Expanding on it a bit, the news business is, first and foremost A BUSINESS. And AS a business, it has customers to please, in order to get profits.

Just as capitalism's basics have always ignored whether or not a product or service is WISE for people to buy into, so too, because the PROFITABILITY of reporting the news isn't directly linked to factuality or to overall truth or insight, only to popularity, capitalism tends to drive news reporting to be based on what people are attracted to watch, rather than by what is truly important.

One of the single BIGGEST reasons why news reporting is so bad these days, goes back directly to the shift that took place back in the seventies, from having news be considered a pure SERVICE that the media companies put on, to partially repay the government for access to the airwaves, and was declared to instead, be required to be a PROFIT CENTER OF IT'S OWN. As soon as that modern "business science" concept was put into place, our news shifted away from what was going on, to whatever titillated, or upset people, because if people are upset, they tend to stay through commercials.