Why do so many Americans distrust the mainstream media? By John Engelman

[JohnEngelman]

According to a Gallup survey released October 7, 2021. only 36% of Americans have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the mainstream media.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/355526/americans-trust-media-dips-second-lowest-record.aspx

Years ago I read an article in The New York Times that said that most liberals do not want to be told anything bad about blacks or homosexuals. It can be said that most liberal journalists do not want to report anything bad about them either.

We saw this during the George Floyd riots when the mainstream media told us about “mainly peaceful protests against racial injustice.” We were rarely told that the riots cost at least two billion dollars in damage,

https://fee.org/articles/george-floyd-riots-caused-record-setting-2-billio n-in-damage-new-report-says-here-s-why-the-true-cost-is-even-higher

that George Floyd had been convicted of nine crimes, six of which were felonies, and that he had five illegitimate children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd

The official story was that George Floyd had been a saintly victim all his life of irrational color prejudice.

This is typical of the mainstream media. It is not typical of the image most whites have of blacks who have seen blacks up close on terms of approximate equality in environments where blacks are in the majority.

Whites who have learned to distrust what the mainstream media tells them about blacks are prone to distrust what it tells them about COVID-19 and global warming.

 

[lovecraft68]

Just watch a few minutes of any MSM station and the answer is there.
They don't even try, everything is a one sided barrage that blames one political party and straight white men, Christians, and anyone not licking dem boots for every issue in the country over and over again. After awhile even the lemmings start to wake up as seen in CNN's horrible ratings and MSNBC's declining ratings, especially Joy Reid who's entire show is calling the US racist.

Its almost as if when you abuse someone enough, they don't want to listen to or trust you anymore.
Imagine that.

 

[KeithD]

The mainstream media gets distrusted because sick puppies have been Swiftboating good people they feel threatened by in their meaningless little disappointed lives since John Kerry's wartime heroism was successfully attacked by the "good old boys." The kicker is that those sick little puppy people are in the minority. Most of the rest of us have our heads on straight and we know how to evaluate all of the media we are exposed to, mainstream or distracting/deflecting/flaming.

 

[Veroe]

The problem with the MSM is that they confuse neutrality with objectivity. I don't want a he said she said. Tell me which one is lying and why without worrying over getting your access cut off.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It’s not a new phenomenon. Recognition of liberal bias in the media goes back to the days of 3 national networks and a handful of major newspapers. Us Boomers grew up with it. The more accurate term in the digital age is corporate media, encompassing legacy dinosaurs and some newcomers. Rush Limbaugh was the first to strike fear in them. Today there are many voices and many channels competing in the marketplace of news and ideas.

 

[Rightguide]

Most Americans now see the Democrat bias of the MSM, how it avoids the truth on the basis of political partisanship. Any story that is harmful to the cause is either not reported, outright lied about to protect that cause, or to protect their own integrity resulting from a public discovery of their incorrect reporting in the past.

 

[phrodeau]

The official story was that George Floyd had been a saintly victim all his life of irrational color prejudice.

Where?

 

[JohnEngelman]

Where?

The Washington Post
George Floyd's America: Examining systemic racism and racial injustice in post civil rights America
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/12/george-floyd-america/

According to this series of articles, George Floyd was not responsible for his crimes, and the illegitimate children he fathered and did not support. Somehow, white people forced him to behave that way. This is an insult to the black men who were born poor, obeyed the law, and got married before having children.

 

[phrodeau]

The Washington Post
George Floyd's America: Examining systemic racism and racial injustice in post civil rights America
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/12/george-floyd-america/

According to this series of articles, George Floyd was not responsible for his crimes, and the illegitimate children he fathered and did not support. Somehow, white people forced him to behave that way. This is an insult to the black men who were born poor, obeyed the law, and got married before having children.

Sorry, I don’t pay for racist stories. Maybe you can c&p the part where “saintly” appears.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Sorry, I don’t pay for racist stories. Maybe you can c&p the part where “saintly” appear

What did I say that is not true? Calling me a racist is not a rebuttal to my discussion of black social pathology. It is an effort to end the discussion.

 

[phrodeau]

What did I say that is not true? Calling me a racist is not a rebuttal to my discussion of black social pathology. It is an effort to end the discussion.

Either you trust the Washington Post, or you don’t. You say that the official story is that George Floyd was a saintly victim, and you cite the Post. So which is it?

 

[ll74]

Don't trust media. Corroborate your news with multiple sources. The media isn't the problem, you are.

Problem solved.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Either you trust the Washington Post, or you don’t. You say that the official story is that George Floyd was a saintly victim, and you cite the Post. So which is it?

I trust The Washington Post not to lie. The lies of Rush Limbaugh were reported on as early as 1994. I do not trust The Washington Post to tell the whole truth about black social pathology. For example, I did not learn about the cost of the George Floyd riots from The Washington Post. I did not learn about Floyd's six felony convictions and five illegitimate children from The Washington Post.

 

[phrodeau]

I trust The Washington Post not to lie. The lies of Rush Limbaugh were reported on as early as 1994. I do not trust The Washington Post to tell the whole truth about black social pathology. For example, I did not learn about the cost of the George Floyd riots from The Washington Post. I did not learn about Floyd's six felony convictions and five illegitimate children from The Washington Post.

So nobody ever called George Floyd a saintly victim, and you’re a liar.

 

[YDB95]

Years ago I read an article in The New York Times that said that most liberals do not want to be told anything bad about blacks or homosexuals.

No you didn't. Whatever you read in the NYT, your interpretation here is simply how you chose to construe it.

 

[JohnEngelman]

So nobody ever called George Floyd a saintly victim, and you’re a liar.

No I am not. They did not use the word "saint." But they treated him like one.

 

[JohnEngelman]

No you didn't. Whatever you read in the NYT, your interpretation here is simply how you chose to construe it.

I did read it in The New York Times. It is obviously true. It is true right here on the Politics Board.

 

[phrodeau]

No I am not. They did not use the word "saint." But they treated him like one.

View attachment 2163381View attachment 2163378View attachment 2163379View attachment 2163380

Street art isn’t mainstream media, and there’s a lot more hagiography for Ronald Reagan.

 

[YDB95]

I did read it in The New York Times. It is obviously true. It is true right here on the Politics Board.

I have no doubt you interpreted something you read in the Times as meaning what you say here. But I don't buy for a second that the article really did say that. You have a talent for reading justifications for racism into just about everything.

Sort of like how you can't publish anything good about all-white communities such as no crime, inspite of poverty etc. You can only publish articles about the racism and white supremacy of orania.

It's not that you "can't publish anything good" about places like that, as you can't ignore the role racism plays in the reason why they're all-white. Besides, no community is completely free of crime.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

According to a Gallup survey released October 7, 2021. only 36% of Americans have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the mainstream media.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/355526/americans-trust-media-dips-second-lowest-record.aspx

Years ago I read an article in The New York Times that said that most liberals do not want to be told anything bad about blacks or homosexuals. It can be said that most liberal journalists do not want to report anything bad about them either.

We saw this during the George Floyd riots when the mainstream media told us about “mainly peaceful protests against racial injustice.” We were rarely told that the riots cost at least two billion dollars in damage,

https://fee.org/articles/george-floyd-riots-caused-record-setting-2-billio n-in-damage-new-report-says-here-s-why-the-true-cost-is-even-higher

that George Floyd had been convicted of nine crimes, six of which were felonies, and that he had five illegitimate children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd

The official story was that George Floyd had been a saintly victim all his life of irrational color prejudice.

This is typical of the mainstream media. It is not typical of the image most whites have of blacks who have seen blacks up close on terms of approximate equality in environments where blacks are in the majority.

Whites who have learned to distrust what the mainstream media tells them about blacks are prone to distrust what it tells them about COVID-19 and global warming.


View attachment 2163311

Do you understand threat the riots and protests that happened after George Floyd's death that only a small percentage of the blacks faces you saw on television were rioters who burned and looted but the vast amount of those black faces was involved in an emotional but polite lawful protest? Do you agree?

 

[Btq97]

In the uk we have bbc news and whilst it is far from perfect it is not beholden to shareholders or advertising sales. The have your say shoes that the left think it is too right wing and the right think it is too left wing. So it is doing something right. I have watched the news shows grill politician's of all colours and they all get treated from my point of view the same. Comercial tv news suffers from being on a channel reliant on advertising.
Thst being said thwe was a poll in the uk and young people now get their news from Tiktok etc rather than print media.
In do worry about the death of print journalism.

 

[YDB95]

Do you understand threat the riots and protests that happened after George Floyd's death that only a small percentage of the blacks faces you saw on television were rioters who burned and looted but the vast amount of those black faces was involved in an emotional but polite lawful protest? Do you agree?

You've been here long enough to know he doesn't.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I have no doubt you interpreted something you read in the Times as meaning what you say here. But I don't buy for a second that the article really did say that. You have a talent for reading justifications for racism into just about everything.

My racism consists of my willingness to point out that by every objective, measurable criteria, blacks tend to be significantly less intelligent than whites, that they have a murder rate that is nearly eight times the white rate, and an illegitimacy rate that is two and a half the white rate. Orientals tend to be more intelligent than whites, and to be more obedient to the law and monogamous.

Those who call me a racist know that this is true, but they do not like being told. That is just what The New York Times article I read claimed.

 

[ll74]

 

[Stephen_Coyle]

et us take a few minutes to discuss Fox news Channel and examine some of the reasons why the American People might not trust them.

There are many different approaches we could take to examine their untrustworthiness, but for this particular discussion we will examine their coverage of the infamous Osama bin Laden.

Back in the 1990’s President Bill Clinton was trying to sound the alarm about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, but all Fox news Channel could focus on was Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton’s penis. They even asserted that the August 1998 missile strikes he ordered against al Qaeda training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan were an effort to distract media attention away from Bill Clinton’s penis.

Sean Hannity criticized Clinton in 1998 for launching missile strikes against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, which only narrowly missed killing Bin Laden. Hannity suggested that the timing of the strikes was due to "political motivation" and meant to be a distraction from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Hannity insisted that Osama bin Laden wasn’t really a threat and that missile strikes against Osama bin Laden were just “wagging the dog.”

Republican Congressman Bob Barr went onto Fox “news” Channel and claimed that the 1998 missile strikes against al Qaeda were “an effort to divert some attention.”

That; of course; was BEFORE the September 11th terrorist attacks, AFTER the September 11th terrorist attacks, the talking heads at Fox news Channel were all accusing Bill Clinton of IGNORING al Qaeda!

Apparently thousands of dead Americans in a major American city, made it hard for Sean Hannity and other paid propagandists at Fox to continue claiming that Bill Clinton’s attempts to kill Osama bin Laden and roll back al Qaeda training camps was “wagging the dog”, so they attempted to rewrite history and claim that Bill Clinton NEVER tried to kill Osama bin Laden and that he NEVER did anything about al Qaeda training camps!

Sean Hannity (who had attacked Bill Clinton for launching missile strikes against al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan back in the 1990’s) tried to blame the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks on Bill Clinton, rather than George W. Bush, making it sound like Bill Clinton had somehow been ignoring Osama bin Laden during his eight years in office.

You see, the truth doesn’t matter to men like Sean Hannity. Sean Hannity is not a journalist. Sean Hannity is a trained attack dog that engages in dishonest assaults against Democrats as standard operating procedure. His job isn’t to report the news. His job is to spread rumor, innuendo and right-wing talking points, in an attempt to delegitimize Democratic leaders.

Hannity and his accomplices even dreamed up a story where the nation of Sudan offered up Osama bin Laden “on a silver platter” if America would simply remove economic sanctions against Sudan.

There has never been any evidence that the nation of Sudan ever made such an offer, and the story has been debunked many times, however Hannity continues to repeat this childish story.

When George W. Bush was in the White House, the stories Fox news told was just as revealing as the stories that they covered up.

An investigative journalist by the name of Greg Palast published an FBI memo that confirmed that the FBI was given orders to lay off the bin Laden family and other Saudi terror suspects during the early months of George W. Bush's rule.

Without these orders to halt investigations, the 9/11 terrorist attacks might have been averted.

Palast published this memo back in 2001, but Fox “news” Channel refused to report on this in any of their “news” broadcasts.

If Fox “news” had reported on this, it would have hurt the reputation of a Republican president, and Fox never does anything that would harm a Republican president. They only do things that will harm Democrats.

When Bush refused to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission, refused to testify in public and refused to testify without Dick Cheney being there to help him, Fox “news” refused to point out the fact that they were obstructing the commission’s ability to get at the truth.

The executive director of the 9/11 Commission (Philip Zelikow), had conflicts of interest and as such should never have been in charge of the investigation. Zelikow had close ties with the White House and that he tried to influence the final report in ways that the staff often perceived as limiting the Bush administration’s responsibility and furthering its anti-Iraq agenda. This was very relevant news that the American public should have known about, but Fox “news” covered it up.

Zelikow also stopped the Commission staff from submitting a report depicting Rice's and Bush's performance as "amounting to incompetence or something not far from it", but you would never learn about that if you got all of your news from Fox.

The Bush White House attempted to stonewall the creation of the commission and to hamstring its work from the outset. When Bush terrorism "czar" Richard Clarke could no longer be prevented from testifying about his urgent warnings over the summer of 2001 to Rice about the imminent threat of terrorist attack on US soil, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and his aides feverishly drafted tough questions and phoned them into Republican commissioners to undermine Clarke's credibility."

Initially Bush refused to establish a 9/11 Commission at all. When the pressure and the demands became too great, he eventually authorized the creation of one, however, he imposed a very short deadline on them, and he made certain that they had insufficient funds (3 million dollars).

Fox “news” never called Bush out for the way that he hamstrung the 9/11 Commission and they tried to make the case that the Republicans were the only political party that could keep America safe.

In 2002, George W. Bush dismissed Osama bin Laden as unimportant, saying that he “didn’t know” where Osama bin Laden was and that he was “truly am not that concerned about him”.

George W. Bush never brought Osama bin Laden to justice and in 2006, Bush shut down the intelligence unit that had been tasked with hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants since 1996.

The unit, known as Alec Station, had been formed back in 1996, before Osama bin Laden became a household name, back when Bill Clinton was president, and the threats posed by Osama bin Laden were taken seriously.

This should have been HUGE news, but the talking heads at Fox didn’t think that this story was important enough to pay attention to. Bush basically abandoned the hunt for Osama bin Laden, and the paid propagandists at Fox acted as if this wasn’t newsworthy.

However, the story doesn’t end there.

Barack Obama didn’t follow Bush’s example of abandoning the hunt for Osama bin Laden. President Obama authorized America’s intelligence agencies to track down Osama bin Laden’s location and eventually they were able to locate him in a compound in Pakistan.

President Obama chaired a number of National Security Council meetings to discuss an operation to raid bin Laden's compound in an effort to either kill or capture bin Laden. And in 2011, President Obama greenlit the raid that hit Osama bin Laden’s compound and killed Osama bin Laden without the loss of a single American life.

This was HUGE news, and all over the world news outlets celebrated President Obama’s success, however Fox “news” was reluctant to give President Obama credit.

Sean Hannity declared that there was “no way this would have happened, but for the policies of George W. Bush”.

Eric Bolling declared that we should "Thank GWB For This Not BHO!"

Karl Rove declared that “"Important Policy Decisions Made Under Bush" Made Bin Laden's Death Possible.”

Hannity, Bolling and Rove were all paid propagandists for Fox “news”. They ignored Bush’s negligence and incompetence and declared that somehow Bush was a great leader who made great strides in getting Osama bin Laden, when in point of fact, Bush abandoned the hunt for bin Laden years before Barack Obama had even been sworn into office.

Over and over again, we see Fox news covering up for the incompetence, negligence and ineffectiveness of Republicans, while making up stories to defame, demonize and delegitimize Democrats.

These people engage in fiction, rumormongering, propaganda and deliberately leading millions of Americans to erroneous conclusions. Why are they allowed to continue calling themselves a NEWS channel?