Offline
If you are interested in fake news..........
One Thing Voters Agree On: Better Campaign Coverage Was Needed
Read the full story here:
Liz Spayd
THERE is a group of 10 friends in Charlotte, N.C., all women, all in their 50s, all white. They’re college educated with successful careers, and they have a message for The New York Times: Come visit us.They voted for Donald Trump and don’t consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim.
But now, they say, thanks to The Times and its fixation on Trump’s most extreme supporters, most people think they are. They would like a chance to show otherwise, and one of them, Cindy Capwell, wrote my office to extend the invitation.
Since the election, I have been on the phone with many Times readers around the country, including Capwell, to discuss their concerns about The Times’s coverage of the presidential election. The number of complaints coming into the public editor’s office is five times the normal level, and the pace has only just recently tapered off.My colleague Thomas Feyer, who oversees the letters to the editor, says the influx from readers is one of the largest since Sept. 11.
Many people are commenting on the election, but many are venting about The Times’s coverage. Readers are also taking to the comments section of Times articles to talk about it, says the community editor, Bassey Etim.Readers complain heatedly and repeatedly about the forecasting odometer from The Upshot that was anchored on the home page and predicted that Hillary Clinton had an 80 percent chance or better of winning. They complain that The Times’s attempt to tap the sentiments of Trump supporters was lacking. And they complain about the liberal tint The Times applies to its coverage, without awareness that it does.
Offline
Certainly most do not think all or most of Trump supporters are homophobic, racist, or anti-Muslim, BUT that said there were ample opportunities for Trump and his campaign to shuck any association with any discriminatory tone and time and time again they went limp on the issues. As a matter of fact when you now look at some of the appointments being made into the upcoming administration you see facets of all of these claims.
The current election ramped up the divisions in our Great Nation and perhaps to the point they cannot be undone. I hope that is not the case.
Offline
The thing is, it isn't fake news.
The Alt-right convention in Washington actually DID occur.
The speakers actually DID express anti-semitic and racist views.
Some in the crowd actually DID give nazi salutes.
And they are Trump supporters.
And at no point did the New York Times say that these people represented all or most Trump supporters. Their coverage was very responsible
That's what we in the fact based community call reality.
The New York Times had every right, every duty to report on it. It isn't a "fixation". It's called journalism.
And it is not the press's job to coddle Trumpers, to make them feel good, to help them ignore those racists that have slipped into their ranks.
THERE is a group of 10 friends in Charlotte, N.C., all women, all in their 50s, all white. They’re college educated with successful careers, and they have a message for The New York Times: Come visit us.They voted for Donald Trump and don’t consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim.
But now, they say, thanks to The Times and its fixation on Trump’s most extreme supporters, most people think they are. They would like a chance to show otherwise, and one of them, Cindy Capwell, wrote my office to extend the invitation.
Oh well. All I can say to them is:
Last edited by Goose (11/22/2016 7:34 am)
Offline
I would agree. We need better coverage.
The press indulged in the campaign about nothing.
They allowed it.
No issues. Just emails and access Hollywood.
Who got offended this week.
And, the crappie coverage goes on.
The Hamilton thing is getting more air than a hundred more important stories
Last edited by Goose (11/22/2016 8:20 am)
Offline
Common, I will agree with the fact the media did a crappy job of covering the campaigns and elections. They did not focus on issues and proposed solutions to problems. Instead they focused on the pissing contests, back-biting, and back-and-forth bomb throwing among the wannabes and candidates. The media made the contests about personalities instead, much like one of those "Housewives of ____________" reality shows.
But here's my beef: I started a sub-forum entitled "Issues Only" covering several topics from minimum wage to tuition-free education to climate change. There were a couple hundred responses from everyone that contributes to the forum. The conversations were good and thoughtful. But, there was one person missing from the discussion and that was you. Common, for some reason you chose to blame the media for the same thing you do .............. throw a bomb out there and sit back.
Believe it or not, all of us would like to hear your opinions about the justifications, rationale, and solutions to what you think are problems and issues that are important to you. All I'm asking is that you engage in the discussions. I, for one, would like to see you do that with informed and thoughtful ideas.
Last edited by Just Fred (11/22/2016 7:57 am)