"The Media" goes out of its way to do whatever gets page views and ad buys during primetime. Anything else is purely incidental.

That statement is not true. Fox News Channel actively promoted Donald Trump's candidacy and once the general campaign started, the other cable news channels lined up behind Hillary Clinton's campaign and in some well documented instances, consulted with her campaign about what kind of questions they wanted asked of Trump. Media coverage of presidential elections is driven by political bias, with ratings taking backseat to that bias.

 

The critical coverage of Trump's primary campaign was very much muted on all cable news channels because FNC was in his corner and he was the Democrats' dream Republican opponent. Had the media done its job and actually chased ratings, we might have been spared a contest between the two worst candidates in modern U.S. history.

That statement is not true. Fox News Channel actively promoted Donald Trump's candidacy and once the general campaign started, the other cable news channels lined up behind Hillary Clinton's campaign and in some well documented instances, consulted with her campaign about what kind of questions they wanted asked of Trump. Media coverage of presidential elections is driven by political bias, with ratings taking backseat to that bias.

 

The critical coverage of Trump's primary campaign was very much muted on all cable news channels because FNC was in his corner and he was the Democrats' dream Republican opponent. Had the media done its job and actually chased ratings, we might have been spared a contest between the two worst candidates in modern U.S. history.

 

Did we watch the same election? CNN and MSNBC LOVED Trump. They put him on TV constantly. They may have then done a segment in which they all berated him for saying something they thought was horrible, but like I said, that's incidental. They gave Trump so much free media during that primary that he didn't have to spend a dime.

Did we watch the same election? CNN and MSNBC LOVED Trump. They put him on TV constantly. They may have then done a segment in which they all berated him for saying something they thought was horrible, but like I said, that's incidental. They gave Trump so much free media during that primary that he didn't have to spend a dime.

Covering a candidate for the sake of ridiculing him is not a sign of love. CNN and MSNBC provided mostly neutral coverage of Trump until he won the nomination. After that, the coverage of Trump was mostly negative and the coverage of Hillary Clinton was mostly positive. The exact opposite was true on Fox, which gave Trump overwhelmingly positive coverage after it became obvious that the GOP's first two choices, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, had no chance to win the nomination.

 

In contrast, the coverage of Ted Cruz on all the cable news channels was light and mostly negative.

 

It is hard to understand why liberals still believe that CNN and MSNBC provided unbiased election coverage, given the email messages published by Wikileaks and Donna Brazille's leak of debate questions to Hillary Clinton's campaign. FNC was equally biased in its coverage of Trump, but most Republicans will concede that fact.

I appreciate the women on this board who responded to my post. I had no intention on running your vote for Trump down. My post just expounded on the idea that women seemed to be more forgiving of Donald than of Hillary which seems odd when Donald said and has done so many things our mothers and teachers advise us against doing as we grow up.

 

Again side note... I love how offended the anti PC crowd is.

 

It's only Politically Correct when you're not offended people.

Covering a candidate for the sake of ridiculing him is not a sign of love. CNN and MSNBC provided mostly neutral coverage of Trump until he won the nomination. After that, the coverage of Trump was mostly negative and the coverage of Hillary Clinton was mostly positive. The exact opposite was true on Fox, which gave Trump overwhelmingly positive coverage after it became obvious that the GOP's first two choices, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, had no chance to win the nomination.

 

In contrast, the coverage of Ted Cruz on all the cable news channels was light and mostly negative.

 

It is hard to understand why liberals still believe that CNN and MSNBC provided unbiased election coverage, given the email messages published by Wikileaks and Donna Brazille's leak of debate questions to Hillary Clinton's campaign. FNC was equally biased in its coverage of Trump, but most Republicans will concede that fact.

 

I don't disagree with any of that, but playing to your base is one of those things that generates eyeballs and clicks. By playing things up to a chosen audience, they're trying to be those people's primary source of news, thus earning them better ad buys. It's why they play up controversy and stoke fires. It generates interest.

I don't disagree with any of that, but playing to your base is one of those things that generates eyeballs and clicks. By playing things up to a chosen audience, they're trying to be those people's primary source of news, thus earning them better ad buys. It's why they play up controversy and stoke fires. It generates interest.

And I don't disagree with any of that. However, had CNN and MSNBC delved deeper into Trump's past during the primary season and had they covered Hillary's scandals in a more objective way, they could have boosted their ratings and improved their journalistic reputations.

 

Those channels missed an excellent opportunity to siphon off part of FNC's audience who were sickened by the nonstop Trump cheer leading by Eric Boling, Jeanine Piro, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Greta Van Sustern, and others. All they needed to do was their jobs as journalists and the ratings would have followed.

I disagree, but I would have accepted her as my President and hoped for the best if she were elected.

 

That's the right attitude to have, though I'm sure many wouldn't have been so accepting.

Explain educated to me.

 

120,000 liberal arts degree to start at 30,000 in the work place and pound your chest about how smart you are...

120,000 liberal arts degree to start at 30,000 in the work place and pound your chest about how smart you are...

 

That's not even close to all liberals, and it's certainly not limited to liberals. Just as folks don't like to be insulted for having not having a college education, there's no need to insult those who do have a college education.

That's not even close to all liberals, and it's certainly not limited to liberals. Just as folks don't like to be insulted for having not having a college education, there's no need to insult those who do have a college education.

 

Really, he asked what is educated, not liberal....who said anything about liberals. This is a discussion about educated vs uneducated, or the so called uneducated. My kids are going to college but I am also demanding they learn some type of trade. I was simply pointing out how spending 120,000 to make 30,000, is sarcastically called being smart. News flash it isn't. I've seen some real dumb uneducated college kids lately.

Really, he asked what is educated, not liberal....who said anything about liberals. This is a discussion about educated vs uneducated, or the so called uneducated. My kids are going to college but I am also demanding they learn some type of trade. I was simply pointing out how spending 120,000 to make 30,000, is sarcastically called being smart. News flash it isn't. I've seen some real dumb uneducated college kids lately.

 

Maybe it isn't smart...but everybody says follow your dreams, and let's face it, how much you make isn't necessarily the key to being happy, nor is it any indicator of what type of person you are. I've got two Bachelor's Degree's (I double majored in marketing&management) and consider myself intelligent (although others would probably disagree). But if you asked me to fix a car, or install some plumbing you'd think I was the dumbest guy in the world. So the word "dumb" is relative to your experiences and situation.

 

And another newsflash....there were more than a few uneducated college kids 25 years ago when I was in college. That hasn't changed much and isn't any worse today than it was then.

About two thirds of the white voters are non-college educated.

 

The non-college educated white make up almost half of the total electorate.

 

Non-college educated white is a group twice as large as the minority vote.

 

Non-college educated white is just slightly less than the minority vote plus the college educated white.

 

Maybe it's my dumb hick voting precinct, but both my wife and I have degrees, voted for Trump, and neither of us had a question on our voting that asked us if we had college degrees. Where are you getting these numbers?

Maybe it isn't smart...but everybody says follow your dreams, and let's face it, how much you make isn't necessarily the key to being happy, nor is it any indicator of what type of person you are. I've got two Bachelor's Degree's (I double majored in marketing&management) and consider myself intelligent (although others would probably disagree). But if you asked me to fix a car, or install some plumbing you'd think I was the dumbest guy in the world. So the word "dumb" is relative to your experiences and situation.

 

And another newsflash....there were more than a few uneducated college kids 25 years ago when I was in college. That hasn't changed much and isn't any worse today than it was then.

 

The only problem I get out of that is that the educated ( college ) look down upon the uneducated. I had to drop out for family reasons, had a full ride for football carried 32 credit hours a year with a 3.79 gpa while participating on a full time athletic team. Did I mention I didn't even buy the text books for my classes. I didn't get my degree. That in no way means that piece of paper makes someone smarter or better or more intelligent than someone who doesn't. We all have our own stories and journeys. To demean one over the other is just the sort of racism that divides this nation. Never judge a book by its cover...

Maybe it's my dumb hick voting precinct, but both my wife and I have degrees, voted for Trump, and neither of us had a question on our voting that asked us if we had college degrees. Where are you getting these numbers?

 

The same pollsters that had Hillary winning in a landslide.

The only problem I get out of that is that the educated ( college ) look down upon the uneducated. I had to drop out for family reasons, had a full ride for football carried 32 credit hours a year with a 3.79 gpa while participating on a full time athletic team. Did I mention I didn't even buy the text books for my classes. I didn't get my degree. That in no way means that piece of paper makes someone smarter or better or more intelligent than someone who doesn't. We all have our own stories and journeys. To demean one over the other is just the sort of racism that divides this nation. Never judge a book by its cover...

 

Careful with that broad brush again. I'm not in a position to look down on anyone, and certainly haven't demeaned anyone in any of these posts. My dad was way smarter and more well rounded than me and he never graduated from high school.