Media watch – Saturday

20 May 2017

MediaWatch

Media Watch is a focus on New Zealand media, blogs and social media. You can post any items of interested related to media.

A primary aim here is to hold media to account in the political arena. A credible and questioning media is an essential part of a healthy democracy.

A general guideline – post opinion on or excerpts from and links to blog posts or comments of interest, whether they are praise, criticism, pointing out issues or sharing useful information.

30 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  May 20, 2017

    Pretty sure analysis of the NZ papers would show similar bias results:
    https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/

    • Gezza

       /  May 20, 2017

      Yes. 1Ewes has a definite anti-Trump bias, & Al Jazeera’s is noticeable too. I watched Trump’s entire address to the US coastguard cadet class. It was a fairly typical Trump off-the-cuff, unscripted, folksy kind of speech where among other things he ackowleged the proud history of the coast guard & their interdiction & rescue roles, congratulated them for choosing a job of service where, joked with the senior cadet who traditonally has a policing role & issues punishements such as parking fines etc, which traditionally the President forgives at their graduation, thanked their parents, & towards the end chucked in his piece about sometimes they might be treated unfairly like he is being but that they should never give up & should fight for what they believe in. None of the rest of the speech has been shown. Just the segment that makes him look like a whiner.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  May 20, 2017

        Given that press coverage has been 90+% negative it is extraordinary that his support remains around 40%.

        • Gezza

           /  May 20, 2017

          Not necessarily Alan. Most of those who voted for him probably detest the Democrats & the whole political system. And some of them are just probably poor dumb fkrs who liked The Apprentice & still think America is just the greatest country in the world that has never done anything wrong. With as yet no evidence to prove he has done anything illegal, and no chance to evaluate his policies, why should their opinions change?

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  May 20, 2017

            Is there a precedent?

            • Gezza

               /  May 20, 2017

              Yes, those who voted for the very dodgy Hilary Clinton in spite of all the dirt dug up & published on her.

            • Gezza

               /  May 20, 2017

              Oh, if you mean other US Presidents, I don’t know. They sure haven’t had anyone quite like Trump before. He’ll probably set some kind of benchmark for any other rank outsiders with a 12 second attention span who follow him.

    • PDB

       /  May 20, 2017

      “On the broadcast side of the media spectrum, Fox News provided the most even-handed coverage, with 52 percent anti-Trump coverage”

      So much for the Fox news bashing then……..

    • But the study doesn’t show media bias against Trump. All it shows is a lot of negative media coverage.

      The Harvard study states:

      “The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising.

      The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever.”

      I’ve posted on this: https://yournz.org/2017/05/20/negative-us-media-coverage/

      • PDB

         /  May 20, 2017

        That comment you have taken out of context as to the rest of the study’s findings that I’ve clearly posted below.

  2. Pickled Possum

     /  May 20, 2017

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11858208

    Lizzie Marvelly was judged best general opinion writer at the Canon Media Awards last night.

    • PDB

       /  May 20, 2017

      ‘General opinion’? Her opinion is to the far-left of Martyn Bradbury………

      She’s in good company though – I’m sure Marvelly & Cameron Slater will display their Canon Media awards with pride.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  May 20, 2017

      She’s never written anything I thought was worth reading. A privileged woman with a chip on her shoulder, narrow views and limited understanding as far as I can tell.

      • MaureenW

         /  May 20, 2017

        Slater or Marvelly?

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  May 20, 2017

          “woman” should give you a clue.

          • PDB

             /  May 20, 2017

            Well Alan, that could have been the ‘bombshell”’ that caused the Slater-Craig court case to finish early yesterday.

  3. PDB

     /  May 20, 2017

    To continue from Alan’s post above:

    https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=ab6d830a9d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085

    Now Harvard is liberal so them summing up as follows is a big thing;

    “Nevertheless, the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump’s contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his presidency.”

    “The press should also start doing what it hasn’t done well for a long time—focus on policy effects. Journalists’ focus on the Washington power game—who’s up and who’s down, who’s getting the better of whom—can be a fascinating story but at the end of the day, it’s food for political junkies. It’s remote enough from the lives of most Americans to convince them that the political system doesn’t speak for them, or to them.

    A broadening of the scope of political coverage would require journalists to spend less time peering at the White House. Our analysis of news coverage of Trump’s first 100 days found that, except for his court-challenged immigration orders, the press paid only minimal attention to Trump’s executive orders. He issued a large number of them, covering everything from financial regulation to climate change. Collectively, these orders, immigration aside, accounted for less than 1 percent of Trump’s coverage, and rarely did a news report track an executive order into the agencies to see how it was being handled.

    Journalists would also do well to spend less time in Washington and more time in places where policy intersects with people’s lives. If they had done so during the presidential campaign, they would not have missed the story that keyed Trump’s victory—the fading of the American Dream for millions of ordinary people. Nor do all such narratives have to be a tale of woe. America at the moment is a divided society in some respects, but it’s not a broken society and the divisions in Washington are deeper than those beyond the Beltway.”

    • Repeating from above:

      The study doesn’t show media bias against Trump. All it shows is a lot of negative media coverage. The Harvard study states:

      “The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising.

      The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever.”

      I’ve posted on this: https://yournz.org/2017/05/20/negative-us-media-coverage/

      • High Flying Duck

         /  May 20, 2017

        And yet the actual summary payed by PDB shows the bias…

        • I don’t see that, can you point to specifics?

          See my quote from the study – a poor effort is going to get negative coverage.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  May 20, 2017

            The summary pretty clearly says the media are reporting on irrelevancies rather than policy – of which there has been plenty – and that the irrelevancies are reported very negatively.

            The problem we have is that you have painted your colours very clearly as being anti-Trump but seem to think you are being down the middle in your posts.

            This is exactly what the media are also doing. so you see them as also being even handed.

            If we were seeing reportage on the actual governance of the nation I could see your point. But we aren’t.

            When the media pick up on beltway issues, magnify them and create a self generating negative loop of unnamed unverified sources saying things maybe happened, that is an agenda.

            As I previously posted, buried in pretty much all the media reports on the Trump campaign is the comment that no evidence of wrongdoing has been found.

            There are numerous investigations ongoing but this doesn’t seem to have any affect on speculation.

            There may be wrongdoing. Trump may be a Russian plant in the WH. We will find this out when the numerous investigations are completed.

            Until then is it too much to ask that the media concentrate on actual events rather than supposition?

            • “The problem we have is that you have painted your colours very clearly as being anti-Trump”

              That’s not true. I’m certainly critical of quite a bit of what he has done and how he has done it. But I’ve also said he could give Washington a well needed shake-up – the problem is so far Washington seems to have done more shaking up of him, and he has allowed himself to get drawn into that, and has also allowed himself to get into feuding with the media when he should be focussing on getting positive things done.

              If he continues as he has done he will keep losing Republican support and that will become his biggest problem.

              “seem to think you are being down the middle in your posts”

              I have never claimed to be “down the middle”, that’s not achievable and a pointless aim. I just a) call things as I see them and/or b) put up posts that encourage discussion.

              If both Trump and Clinton were presidents then I would be somewhere in the middle, I suspect critical of both as I was during the campaign.

              But Trump is there on hos own so obviously gets most of the attention. That a lot of that is negative is not all because of the messengers.

              A good president would deal with the media more effectively (and less) and concentrate on doing his job. Trump doesn’t seem to have mastered that yet, hence a lot of media attention.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 20, 2017

              Well you completely ignored the substantive part of what I posted.

              The thing is, Trump IS getting things done. Whether they are good or bad is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, but the campaign platforms are in full swing.

              You just wouldn’t know it by reading the media.

              The Harvard study noted there has been a great deal of policy enacted into law already, and yet less than 1% of the reporting on Trump is policy related.

              This leaves everyone worse off.

              Trump is arrogant, pig headed and thin skinned, but he is also a hard worker.

              Either the media is being played into falling down rabbit holes while policy that deserves public scrutiny slips on to the statute books unheralded, or they are being completely negligent.

              Either way, it is the media that is letting the people down, while Trump sails on implementing his policies mostly unchecked

            • A lot of uncontroversial policy enactment never gets reported, or if it does most people never notice it, especially from this distance.

              A lot of things happen here in parliament that most people never hear about. Should watching parliamentary news be compulsory? It’s hard enough getting most people to take notice of post politics most of the time without making it compulsory to have everything reported..

      • PDB

         /  May 20, 2017

        You’ve picked a comment that is out of context to the findings of the study which criticized the MSM for not giving equal coverage to things like executive orders, and being out of touch with things going on in the country outside Washington.

        • But it didn’t say that the level of negativity was out of proportion to the negative nature of Trump’s first hundred days in office.

          Perhaps coverage of executive orders would have been just as negative.

          • PDB

             /  May 20, 2017

            By criticizing the MSM for not going outside the ‘Washington bubble’ to see what people are saying in the real world I’d suggest they do see the negative messaging to be excessive and out of step with everyday Americans.

            • You’re guessing. That’s not what the survey finds.

              Of course the media could do a much better job and should get out and about more, but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily biased against Trump – they may be (some will be some of the time), but overall they may or may not be.

            • PDB

               /  May 20, 2017

              PG: You’re guessing.

              “Journalists would also do well to spend less time in Washington and more time in places where policy intersects with people’s lives. If they had done so during the presidential campaign, they would not have missed the story that keyed Trump’s victory—the fading of the American Dream for millions of ordinary people. Nor do all such narratives have to be a tale of woe. America at the moment is a divided society in some respects, but it’s not a broken society and the divisions in Washington are deeper than those beyond the Beltway.”

            • If the media had spread out more and reported more about regions and in particular the rust belt, and given Trump far less attention he craved and manipulated, and alerted Clinton to the feelings in key states, do you think that could have changed the outcome of the election?

              If so would that have been better than what happened?