• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will the main stream media loose credibility?

CLAX1911

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
82,041
Reaction score
19,726
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Back during the primaries my money was on Trump (I was never really a supporter.) But over the pased couple of weeks the MSM was basically telling us that hillary had this in the bag. Every poll had her winning. People were convinced.

My question is why do they never lose credibility? Who trusts these people. Hillary voters, they lied to you, do you trust them?

Anti-hillary people don't trust them.
 
I think CNN said it best... and consequently they deferred blame in the process with... "(If Trump wins tonight then) polling organizations are going out of business."
 
The final collapse has already happened.

Now we see if they can get their act together, reform themselves back to relevance.
 
The MSM has had no credibility with me for 15 years or so, and very little before that.

That said, I too was caught up in their pre-election predictions, and was completely surprised to read of Trump's victory this morning. It is funny.
 
The Pollsters seemed to be sold out, just like the overall Mainstream Media, to print only positive articles about Hillary. Hot dam, but the Capitalist/Corporate Media seems to have sold us out for a few silver favors. Will there be retributiion? There already is. Many citizens now know that their old and reliable Media is a relic of the past. The Internet has brought the people closer to the truth, with some discreet operator overview. The NY Times, LA Times, Wash Post, WSJ, AP and many others revealed they were in the bag. "Throw the bums out."
 
CLAX1911 said:
Back during the primaries my money was on Trump (I was never really a supporter.) But over the pased couple of weeks the MSM was basically telling us that hillary had this in the bag. Every poll had her winning. People were convinced.

My question is why do they never lose credibility? Who trusts these people. Hillary voters, they lied to you, do you trust them?

Anti-hillary people don't trust them.
Click to expand...

Selective ethics has been the MO for media outlets ever since the business model shifted from journalism to opinion and entertainment for profit.

Look at the owners of media if you want try to establish the possible reasons that they have become a ****ed up institution. Well, if the word "institution" is still applicable.
 
This election was the first I ever watched as the votes came in and I was disgusted with how they handled it. They called Washington for Clinton when 1% of the vote was in and the state was red(there was actually a lot of examples of this trash on the board), they called California for Clinton when nothing was even there yet, and they utterly refused to call several states well past the point of any reason like Georgia and Pennsylvania.
 
Last edited:
The mainstream media lost tons of credibility. It was totally in the tank for the Democrats; always have been.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Back during the primaries my money was on Trump (I was never really a supporter.) But over the pased couple of weeks the MSM was basically telling us that hillary had this in the bag. Every poll had her winning. People were convinced.

My question is why do they never lose credibility? Who trusts these people. Hillary voters, they lied to you, do you trust them?

Anti-hillary people don't trust them.
Click to expand...

They're news-entertainment, they already lost credibility long ago. The issue isn't that they are now going to lose credibility, it's that we've accepted this outcome despite the news-entertainment industry having lost credibility so long ago.

So ain't nothing going to change.
 
Henrin said:
This election was the first I ever watched as the votes came in and I was disgusted with how they handled it. They called Washington for Clinton when 1% of the vote was in and the state was red(there was actually a lot of examples of this trash on the board), they called California for Clinton when nothing was even there yet, and they utterly refused to call several states well past the point of any reason like Georgia and Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

They tried to rig the election.
 
Will they think of better of, oh, going 100 miles out of their way into some podunk little Indiana town, purposely finding a pizza shop owner who says what they're looking to find, and making a mockery of them on national news just for the sheer, vicious hell of it?

Probably not.
 
Last two presidential elections, only 2 polls were spot on. LA Times & IBD; I believe they both use "alternative" methodologies.

Those methodologies are likely the new normal.
 
Henrin said:
This election was the first I ever watched as the votes came in and I was disgusted with how they handled it. They called Washington for Clinton when 1% of the vote was in and the state was red(there was actually a lot of examples of this trash on the board), they called California for Clinton when nothing was even there yet, and they utterly refused to call several states well past the point of any reason like Georgia and Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

It all depends on the individual precinct reports; I agree with you though.

There is zero sense in reporting exit polls or calling a state, etc before the votes are cast; all it does is disenfranchise votes is locals that are still open to vote.
 
Removable Mind said:
Selective ethics has been the MO for media outlets ever since the business model shifted from journalism to opinion and entertainment for profit.

Look at the owners of media if you want try to establish the possible reasons that they have become a ****ed up institution. Well, if the word "institution" is still applicable.
Click to expand...
I agree, but my question is how do they maintain credibility? Do they?
 
Henrin said:
This election was the first I ever watched as the votes came in and I was disgusted with how they handled it. They called Washington for Clinton when 1% of the vote was in and the state was red(there was actually a lot of examples of this trash on the board), they called California for Clinton when nothing was even there yet, and they utterly refused to call several states well past the point of any reason like Georgia and Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

If you look at Reagan's campaign he wasn't supposed to win. Everyone was predicting Carter would just smash Reagan.
 
Cw2bM_MWEAAVYdx.jpg
 
CLAX1911 said:
Back during the primaries my money was on Trump (I was never really a supporter.) But over the pased couple of weeks the MSM was basically telling us that hillary had this in the bag. Every poll had her winning. People were convinced.

My question is why do they never lose credibility? Who trusts these people. Hillary voters, they lied to you, do you trust them?

Anti-hillary people don't trust them.
Click to expand...
Will the main stream media loose credibility?
No, they have none left to lose.
 
Thoreau72 said:
The MSM has had no credibility with me for 15 years or so, and very little before that.

That said, I too was caught up in their pre-election predictions, and was completely surprised to read of Trump's victory this morning. It is funny.
Click to expand...
I think they hold a little more credibility with you than you let on.
 
In my opinion the MSM has been a profit driven propaganda machine since I was a boy. I don't pay attention, nor have I ever to anything they say. Heck I don't even have cable or satellite, I research all my own info independently online, and usually don't believe anything that's not properly sourced.

I believe that our press is no longer free, its shackled by the need to generate profit. And we should amend our constitution to create a not for profit press, immune to the corporate greed that fuels partisan bickering via the airwaves.

I am interested to see if Trump will live up to his threat to open up the libel laws, allowing him to sue the media. Which isn't the first unconstitutional thing he's proposed. Just the only one that may do some good in the long wrong.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Back during the primaries my money was on Trump (I was never really a supporter.) But over the pased couple of weeks the MSM was basically telling us that hillary had this in the bag. Every poll had her winning. People were convinced.

My question is why do they never lose credibility? Who trusts these people. Hillary voters, they lied to you, do you trust them?

Anti-hillary people don't trust them.
Click to expand...

The answer is no since they had little credibility, along with the right leaning "news" sources. Been that way for a long time now.
 
sanman said:
Cw2bM_MWEAAVYdx.jpg
Click to expand...

It disgusts me that cities can turn an entire state blue. I mean really, when you lose every single county except a handful you should lose the state. Just look at Washington for example. That **** right there disgusts me. If it wasn't for Jefferson and King county they would get their ass kicked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom