46% of Americans think the media make up stories about Trump

[John Q. Public]

Hard for me to grasp, but in a Politico/Morning Consult poll released yesterday, a whopping 46% of Americans think the media make **** up about Trump. Even people who don't like him think that way! But then I think, "Fox is 'media' and they actually got caught doing it." And Breitbart is "media" as well, so I guess, yeah. They do make stuff up. I'm not sure if the respondents were thinking that deeply, though.

Just 37 percent of voters think the media do not fabricate stories, the poll shows, while the remaining 17 percent are undecided.

More than three-quarters of Republican voters, 76 percent, think the news media invent stories about Trump and his administration, compared with only 11 percent who don’t think so. Among Democrats, one-in-five think the media make up stories, but a 65 percent majority think they do not. Forty-four percent of independent voters think the media make up stories about Trump, and 31 percent think they do not.

Among the voters who strongly approve of Trump’s job performance in the poll, 85 percent believe the media fabricate stories about the president and his administration.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/1 ... oll-243884

On the idea of the government revoking broadcasting licenses of major media companies, only 28% think it should be able to, with 46% of Republicans saying it should. About a third of Republicans and 68% of Democrats think it should not. No idea if there was a box for "Media companies aren't required to have licenses, ya doof!"

Scary numbers. I'd like to see a breakdown by organization to see if it explains why the numbers are so high but I'm not sure how that could be done accurately or impartially. It's hard, from what was released, to know exactly who those people were thinking about - especially the non-Trump fans. It's also hard to know if they're considering spinning stories a certain way as making stuff up. Plenty of blame to go around on that one, but I'd like to see a better explanation on the actual "making stuff up" part.

[cruiser]

Wow, nearly half of Americans believe the general media make up stuff about Trump, even
a percentage of liberals,that's pretty significant, no? The media did it to themselves with
over the top stuff about Trump - the common person could see through it even though their own individual philosophy has not changed, interesting...

[John Q. Public]

Trump fans and some Republicans I can understand, but the non-Republicans and non-fans are the ones that surprise me. CNN seems to have a vendetta against him - which he's encouraged, but that doesn't justify it. They've lost credibility with me (long ago, actually) but we're talking about making stuff up rather than just spinning it, and I haven't seen them do that.

But then again, a lot of the "over-the-top" stuff is because he's over the top, himself. How are they supposed to report blatant lies without calling them blatant lies? Or how are they supposed to report intentionally divisive statements without calling them that? How do they report stopping the Obamacare funding without mentioning its effect? How do they cover his Twitter bombast without calling it just that? How do they cover the North Korea situation without calling it a war of words between two lunatics? I try to stick to impartial sources and I try to read beyond any spin, but in most cases even impartial sources are going to be negative on the guy, just because so much of what he says and does is idiocy.

[Fordama]

Doesn't surprise me too much. The idiocy level of the country has become high. People don't believe mainstream science, much less journalism.

[Bick]

A better poll question would be whether the mainstream media presents news objectively or not, or is a credible source of information.

I think there was a poll last year before Trump got elected that indicated about a 20% credibility rating. Pretty sure it hasn't gotten much better.

[John Q. Public]

That would depend entirely on how you define "mainstream". Fox's numbers would definitely put it into the mainstream but I don't think that's what you meant.

[broman]

Specifically speaking, what story about Trump has been proven to be fabricated? Going back before Trump, what specific media action caused conservatives to turn away from "mainstream media"?

[kramer]

Doesn't surprise me too much. The idiocy level of the country has become high. People don't believe mainstream science,

We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.

- Scientist James Lovelock

A Scientist Didn’t Disclose Important Data —and Let Everyone Believe a Popular Weedkiller Causes Cancer
- MotherJones.com

False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research
-The Guardian

[broman]

So.. the responsible thing to do is deny all climate science?

[kramer]

No, but you should be somewhat skeptical of climate science given that the policy implications are enormous and political.

[Omar Bongo]

It's also hard to know if they're considering spinning stories a certain way as making stuff up.

This an important point because Trump and his minions purposely conflate unfavorable news presented in a somewhat biased manner with BS that is 100% fabricated. The former is unfortunately commonplace (on both sides) but the latter is still relatively rare. That's what the "Fake News" label does - it's meant to mislead by dismissing anything critical of him as completely fabricated. Whatever PR firm thought up that meme for him scored a direct hit by deftly manipulating people's frustration and targeting it with not-so-subtle populist, nationalist and racist dog whistles...

A better poll question would be whether the mainstream media presents news objectively or not, or is a credible source of information.

1) That would depend on what one considers to be "objectively" or "credible", I doubt whether any two people could agree on what that is, let alone an entire nation

2) I wish people would stop saying "mainstream media", it's a purposely nebulous term meant to imply "liberal"...do Breitbart or Infowars get a free pass? How about Trump's twitter account, it doesn't get any more mainstream than that...

[John Q. Public]

"Liberal" is just as meaningless, since it's most often used to describe any and all media that aren't admittedly biased toward the conservative side.

[John Q. Public]

Specifically speaking, what story about Trump has been proven to be fabricated?

The only one I can think of is the one created by Trump and Hannity. Sorry I can't remember which one it was. All of Donald's lies have run together into one big "Pants On Fire" blur for me.

Going back before Trump, what specific media action caused conservatives to turn away from "mainstream media"?

I'd like to know the answer to that one too, but I'm having my doubts as to whether it was something the media actually did.

[Wabash]

I think the pivotal moment was Nixon's silent majority speech coupled with the Southern Strategy.

White conservatives have been playing their own victim card ever since.

[John Q. Public]

An article in the Atlantic says the first use of "Liberal" media was by Conservative media in the '50's and '60's. William F. Buckley thought that news should be able to be presented factually but with a Conservative slant. But the Fairness Doctrine got in the way. The major networks, which had striven to present news without bias, were reluctant to air Conservative "editorial" material because it meant they'd have to give away air time for the Liberal view. Thus was born the false bogeyman of network bias against Conservatives.

Goldwater was the first major candidate to blame the "Liberal" media and alleged fabrication for his lack of popularity and his landslide loss to Johnson. I'm guessing he was also the first to call moderate Republicans Liberals, considering how far to the right he was and how he wasn't at all popular with them. Our old friend Dick and his buddy Spiro were the first to really capitalize on the term and make claims of "Liberal media bias" a part of their strategy. If Donald wants to compare IQ's, let's put his up against Nixon's. The guy was an absolute genius.

The substitution of "mainstream" for "Liberal" is thought to have started with talk radio. I'm guessing Rush.

[Tommy Tar]

Just a day or two ago someone on Twitter made a joke about President Trump using a body double for Melania Trump. This was re-reported by the MSM as a possibility as they all know Melenia hates the President.



So put me in the 46%.

[John Q. Public]

How big do they have to print "according to the Internet" for you to understand that they're only reporting the story? And how big would they have had to make this caption for you to have seen it?

[John Q. Public]

Damn that totally made-up "MSM"!

[MDDad]

How big do they have to print "according to the Internet" for you to understand that they're only reporting the story?

The point is, and I think the one Tommy Tar was trying to make is this: With all the news stories in the world, why would an otherwise reputable institution like the Washington Post give this "story" any time at all? The reason is likely that it's another jab at Trump and his credibility. Something like this only needs to be printed or aired before a certain percentage of Americans will believe it (I'm sure Wabash does), and that's just plain bad journalism.

If some Twitter fool joked that Hillary Clinton has a penis, I wonder if the Post would also "report the story".

[Fordama]

Well, the story was all over social media, and social media now matters, that's why.