|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 29 2016 08:54 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2016 08:42 kwizach wrote:On August 29 2016 07:13 xDaunt wrote:On August 29 2016 06:37 biology]major wrote:On August 29 2016 06:25 Dan HH wrote:Election Update: It’s Too Soon For Clinton To Run Out The Clock
Last week, Politico reported that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was set to employ a “run out the clock” strategy, declining to respond to recurring controversies even at the risk of seeming nonresponsive. In the abstract, such a strategy could make sense. Clinton has a fairly clear lead in the polls. There are only 10 weeks to go until the Nov. 8 election — and less than that until early voting, which begins in late September in some states.
But Clinton shouldn’t get too complacent. After mixed evidence before, it’s become clearer, at least according to our forecast models, that Donald Trump has regained some ground on her. Clinton’s national lead in our polls-only forecast has gone from a peak of about 8.5 percentage points two weeks ago to 6.5 percentage points as of Sunday evening — that is, a 2-point gain for Trump over two weeks. Correspondingly, Trump’s chances of winning the election have improved from a low of 11 percent to 19 percent.
Trump’s gains have been more modest in our polls-plus forecast, which discounted Clinton’s early August polls because of a potential convention bounce and which anticipated that the race would tighten. In polls-plus, which forecasts that Clinton’s margin over Trump will narrow to roughly 4 percentage points by Election Day, the clock is more of an ally to Clinton and an enemy to Trump. Still, Trump is keeping slightly ahead of the pace of improvement that polls-plus expected of him. His chances of winning are 27 percent according to polls-plus, up slightly from 25 percent a week ago and from a low of 21 percent earlier this month.
[...[
Toward the end of the 2012 campaign, we frequently emphasized the distinction between closeness and uncertainty. President Obama led Mitt Romney by just 1 or 2 percentage points nationally, according to our models, throughout much of the stretch run of that campaign — a close race. But between Obama’s consistently strong numbers in the swing states, the low number of undecided voters, and a strong alignment between polls and economic “fundamentals,” there was a narrow range of plausible outcomes for that election, with most of them resulting in a second Obama term.
This election, at least for the time being, presents something of the opposite case. It isn’t all that close — Clinton is up by around 6 percentage points as best as we can figure, a larger lead than Obama had at almost any point in 2012 or until the very end of the 2008 campaign. But it’s August, and the number of undecided voters is high, and so the outcome remains fairly uncertain. Furthermore, while the state polls are fairly good for Clinton right now, we don’t know how they’ll react if the race tightens further. We’re going on three weeks without a live-caller poll in Pennsylvania, for example.
Coincidentally or not, the Clinton campaign was more proactive last week. It pushed back quite aggressively at an Associated Press story about donations to the Clinton Foundation. And it instigated a fight with Trump over his connections with what Clinton called “the emerging racist ideology known as the alt-right.” Clinton remains in a strong overall position, but she shouldn’t be playing prevent defense yet; we’re still in the equivalent of the third quarter. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-its-too-soon-for-clinton-to-run-out-the-clock/ she is doing the right thing, she can't respond to her controversies because her responses will only make her seem even more robotic and insincere. She has the media on her side and there is no need for her to enter headlines right now, other than by calling trump names. Her latest press appearances have been phoned in where she is literally reading off a script, that's how safe she is playing it. In her mind she has already won. And I agree with you: she doesn't need to do anything when the sycophantic press is ready to "go over the top" for her cause. It's interesting to read such a claim at a time when both Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon are advising Trump (not to mention others in the conservative media, such as Hannity). In any case, the three studies that I'm aware of about the coverage received so far by the presidential candidates before and during their respective primaries show that Trump received on average a more positive coverage than Clinton. If your statement is based on any actual study rather than your gut feeling, I'd be interested in reading it. Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage
The biggest news outlets published more negative stories about Hillary Clinton than any other presidential candidate — including Donald Trump — from January 2015 to April 2016, according to an analysis of hundreds of thousands of online stories.
Clinton has not only been hammered by the most negative coverage but the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her, reports Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company based out of Boston. SourcePre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of the 2016 presidential candidates in the year leading up to the primaries. This crucial period, labeled “the invisible primary” by political scientists, is when candidates try to lay the groundwork for a winning campaign—with media exposure often playing a make or break role.
The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.
The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015. SourceNews Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences
The news media’s fascination with Donald Trump’s candidacy, which began in 2015, carried into the primary election phase. Week after week, Trump got the most press attention (see Figure 1). [...]
Our earlier study found that, in 2015, Sanders received the most positive coverage of any of the presidential contenders. That pattern carried into the primaries. During the period from January 1 to June 7, positive news statements about Sanders outpaced negative ones by 54 percent to 46 percent (see Figure 2). In fact, Sanders was the only candidate during the primary period to receive a positive balance of coverage. The other candidates’ coverage tilted negative, though in varying degrees. Clinton’s coverage was 53 percent negative to 47 percent positive, which, though unfavorable on balance, was markedly better than her 2015 coverage when she received by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. During that year-long period, two-thirds (69 percent to 31 percent) of what was reported about Clinton was negative in tone.
Trump’s coverage during the primary period was almost evenly balanced, with positive statements about his candidacy (49 percent) nearly equal to negative ones (51 percent). However, the tone of his coverage varied markedly over the course of the primary season. During the period when the Republican nomination was still being contested, Trump’s coverage was positive on balance. News statements about Trump during this period were 53 percent positive to 47 percent negative—nearly as positive as Sanders’. But after Cruz and Kasich dropped from the race in early May, Trump’s coverage nosedived. Over the final five weeks of the primary season, 61 percent of news statements about Trump were negative and only 39 percent were positive—a level of negativity exceeded only by Clinton’s coverage during 2015. SourceAlthough one has to be mindful of the methodology used, I still think those results are interesting and largely in line with what my general impression has been. Trump's tanking coverage in recent weeks is, to me, largely due to his missteps (understatement of the year) since the end of the Republican primary and his trailing of Clinton in the polls. If anything, a fear of appearing as partisan has in my opinion often paralyzed some in the media into often making false equivalencies between the opposing sides to avoid accusations of not being balanced (for example between Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, while all major party presidential candidates have done so since Nixon, and Clinton's refusal to release her speech transcripts, something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate... ever?). This is not new or specific to this particular race, however. We are talking general election coverage, all the media outlets wanted trump to win in the primaries so they can get massive ratings. Now their ratings are guaranteed and can pick a side comfortably. The statistic I would like to see is the amount of time trump gets covered vs clinton. Both candidates pretty much only get negative coverage, but I wouldn't be surprised if trump got upwards of 90% of the negative spotlight.
Ofcourse Trump gets the vast majority of negative coverage. The guy makes a gaff every 48 hours or less. When you constantly do something news worthy you are constantly in the news.
Is that the fault of the news for reporting it, or Trumps fault for fucking up, yet again?
As you yourself say, both candidates mostly get negative coverage. So the smart thing to do is to not do news worthy things so you don't get more negative coverage.
|
http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165
When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.
On Friday Americans for Limited Government received a response to its Freedom of Information Act request for “all records relating to legal and policy analysis . . . concerning antitrust issues for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers” if the U.S. gives up oversight. The administration replied it had “conducted a thorough search for responsive records within its possession and control and found no records responsive to your request.”
It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.
Antitrust rules don’t apply to governments or organizations operating under government control. In a 1999 case, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the monopoly on internet domains because the Commerce Department had set “explicit terms” of the contract relating to the “government’s policies regarding the proper administration” of the domain system.
Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”
Worrying times.Potentially Icann could be overseen by the U.N., an organisation which currently has Saudi Arabia as head of it's human rights committee.One of the worst things Obama ever did was give up US control of Icann.
|
Norway28788 Posts
I'm inclined to agree with introvert/danglars that Trump is covered more negatively in the media than Clinton and that this is a subject where I think it's hard to create a reliable study. Separating media content into 'positive' or 'negative' or 'somewhat negative' doesn't really distinguish between 'Hillary mishandled her emails' (negative) and 'Trump is completely unhinged and electing him as president might lead to nuclear war' (negative), but one of those is significantly more negative than the other. If it was like a sliding scale of 1-10 negativity points, that'd end up being highly subjective, and we'd still potentially struggle with omitted material.
I also think it is more Trump's fault than the fault of the media- I don't necessarily think the coverage is really unfair - but from what I am seeing, way more media outlets are positive towards Clinton than towards Trump. And the ones that aren't are more fringe media outlets that delve into conspiracies. There's also the whole, 'report what Trump is saying, don't actually utter any opinion regarding what he's saying, but snicker and laugh in a clearly condescending manner because you find it hard to believe these are the words from a presidential candidate' - dunno whether that gets flagged as negative or not? I also assume that if you polled journalists across america, a vast-ish majority of them would support Clinton..
|
On August 29 2016 18:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165Show nested quote +When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.
On Friday Americans for Limited Government received a response to its Freedom of Information Act request for “all records relating to legal and policy analysis . . . concerning antitrust issues for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers” if the U.S. gives up oversight. The administration replied it had “conducted a thorough search for responsive records within its possession and control and found no records responsive to your request.”
It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.
Antitrust rules don’t apply to governments or organizations operating under government control. In a 1999 case, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the monopoly on internet domains because the Commerce Department had set “explicit terms” of the contract relating to the “government’s policies regarding the proper administration” of the domain system.
Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.” Worrying times.Potentially Icann could be overseen by the U.N., an organisation which currently has Saudi Arabia as head of it's human rights committee.One of the worst things Obama ever did was give up US control of Icann.
I don't agree it was a bad to move to give up US control of Icann. They should have obviously had some sort of plan to follow it up, but you can't leave a matter of international concern like that up to a single country to oversee. We were already seeing the internet being "split up" more and more (Russia, Iran, there's probably more examples where individual countries wanted more control over "their" part of the internet). Besides, do you really want to leave it in the hands of the country that ran the NSA program in the way they did?
|
On the one hand, I have definitely seen what I could call favoritism towards Democratic candidates in general in the media, and especially towards Hillary Clinton. Sometimes "fact checkers" are the worst, when they are able to spin half truths any which way they want to decide if a statement is right or wrong, and they clearly play favorites. On the other hand, one party has a much more tenuous relationship with the truth that the other, and Trump has taken that to an extreme, and I don't fault anyone for calling BS.
|
On August 29 2016 18:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165Show nested quote +When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.
On Friday Americans for Limited Government received a response to its Freedom of Information Act request for “all records relating to legal and policy analysis . . . concerning antitrust issues for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers” if the U.S. gives up oversight. The administration replied it had “conducted a thorough search for responsive records within its possession and control and found no records responsive to your request.”
It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.
Antitrust rules don’t apply to governments or organizations operating under government control. In a 1999 case, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the monopoly on internet domains because the Commerce Department had set “explicit terms” of the contract relating to the “government’s policies regarding the proper administration” of the domain system.
Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.” Worrying times.Potentially Icann could be overseen by the U.N., an organisation which currently has Saudi Arabia as head of it's human rights committee.One of the worst things Obama ever did was give up US control of Icann.
Saudi Arabia does not head the UN's Human Rights Committee -- it's not even one of its members. You're thinking of the UN's Human Rights Council, but even there Saudi Arabia's representative does not preside the body (and never has), which is currently headed by Choi Kyonglim from South Korea.
A representative of Saudi Arabia (Faisal Bin Hassan Trad) did get to chair the UNHRC' Consultative Group in 2015 (it is one of the bodies within the UNHRC), which is probably what you're referring to, but the country has no representative in the Consultative Group this year.
|
On August 29 2016 21:19 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2016 18:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.
On Friday Americans for Limited Government received a response to its Freedom of Information Act request for “all records relating to legal and policy analysis . . . concerning antitrust issues for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers” if the U.S. gives up oversight. The administration replied it had “conducted a thorough search for responsive records within its possession and control and found no records responsive to your request.”
It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.
Antitrust rules don’t apply to governments or organizations operating under government control. In a 1999 case, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the monopoly on internet domains because the Commerce Department had set “explicit terms” of the contract relating to the “government’s policies regarding the proper administration” of the domain system.
Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.” Worrying times.Potentially Icann could be overseen by the U.N., an organisation which currently has Saudi Arabia as head of it's human rights committee.One of the worst things Obama ever did was give up US control of Icann. Saudi Arabia does not head the UN's Human Rights Committee -- it's not even one of its members. You're thinking of the UN's Human Rights Council, but even there Saudi Arabia's representative does not preside the body (and never has), which is currently headed by Choi Kyonglim from South Korea. A representative of Saudi Arabia (Faisal Bin Hassan Trad) did get to chair the UNHRC' Consultative Group in 2015 (it is one of the bodies within the UNHRC), which is probably what you're referring to, but the country has no representative in the Consultative Group this year.
can you even provide a real source for that, like breitbart?
|
Hillary Clinton on Monday released a sweeping agenda to deal with the mental health problem in the United States, including a call to convene a White House conference on the issue during her first year in office.
"Recognizing that nearly a fifth of all adults in the United States — more than 40 million people — are coping with a mental health problem, Hillary’s plan will integrate our mental and physical health care systems," the Democratic nominee's campaign said in a statement. "Her goal is that within her time in office, Americans will no longer separate mental health from physical health when it comes to access to care or quality of treatment. Hillary has been talking about mental health policy throughout her campaign, since hearing directly from American parents, students, veterans, nurses, and police officers about how these challenges keep them up at night."
Clinton's plan encompasses the integration of mental and physical health care systems, including an expansion of reimbursement structures in Medicare and Medicaid, tasking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to create and implement the new payment models. Suicide prevention is also a major focus of the plan, with Clinton's campaign saying she would assign all relevant federal agencies to create a cross-government initiative overseen by the surgeon general. Clinton previously announced her plan to increase funding for community health centers last month, an idea favored by primary rival Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The former New York senator's campaign said she would ensure enforcement of mental health parity, noting her sponsorship of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 and subsequent Affordable Care Act.
"As part of her commitment to fully enforcing the mental health parity law, Hillary will launch randomized audits to detect parity violations, and increase federal enforcement," the campaign said. "She will also enforce disclosure requirements so that insurers cannot conceal their practices for denying mental health care and strengthen federal monitoring of health insurer compliance with network adequacy requirements."
The proposal would also seek to provide training to law enforcement officers on how to deal with people with mental health issues, as well as launching a joint initiative between the departments of Housing and Urban Development and Health and Human Services to increase community-based housing.
Clinton would also "significantly increase" brain and behavioral science research as president, including new funding for the National Institutes of Health and integrate ongoing cross-agency research portfolios on issues like PTSD between departments.
Source
|
I am the biased media, literally just repeating what Donald Trump says
|
Washington state is moving ahead with its plans to allow scientific research of marijuana, sidestepping federal rules that critics say have hampered study of the drug for decades.
The state has a new marijuana research license that will allow laboratories to grow marijuana for scientific study. State officials expect to start accepting applications for the new license by January.
Supporters hope the state licensing helps provide new evidence of marijuana’s effectiveness as a medical treatment, potentially paving the way for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to ease restrictions on the drug’s possession and use.
“The importance of it really hit home when the DEA decided not to reschedule medical marijuana (last week) because, they said, ‘we just don’t have enough research,’ ” said state Sen. Ann Rivers, R-La Center, who sponsored a bill this year to move Washington’s marijuana research license system forward.
“We need some research institutions to come up with great information that we as legislators can use as we create policy.”
Last week, the DEA cited the lack of evidence of a medical use for marijuana as a reason to keep it classified as a Schedule 1 drug, the most highly regulated category, which includes LSD and heroin.
But it’s precisely that classification of marijuana that makes researching the drug so difficult, said Sam Méndez, executive director of the Cannabis Law & Policy Project at the University of Washington School of Law.
“It’s been sort of a chicken-and-egg story, where the DEA and the federal government say marijuana is a Schedule 1 narcotic because there is not sufficient evidence to suggest there is a medical use for it,” Méndez said.
At the same time, “It is very difficult for people to produce research on it, which leads to there not being as much research out there as there should be,” he said.
In the past, researchers have been able to access research-grade marijuana from only a single source: The University of Mississippi.
While the DEA announced last week it will allow more U.S. facilities to apply to grow marijuana for research, Méndez said researchers will still face many barriers getting the federal permits to work with the federally sanctioned product, making a state research license as necessary as ever.
Source
|
The history surrounding global warming "we need more research" has shown me that that line can very easily be used to drag your feet for years and avoid making any real decision.
|
On August 29 2016 18:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2016 08:54 biology]major wrote:On August 29 2016 08:42 kwizach wrote:On August 29 2016 07:13 xDaunt wrote:On August 29 2016 06:37 biology]major wrote:On August 29 2016 06:25 Dan HH wrote:Election Update: It’s Too Soon For Clinton To Run Out The Clock
Last week, Politico reported that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was set to employ a “run out the clock” strategy, declining to respond to recurring controversies even at the risk of seeming nonresponsive. In the abstract, such a strategy could make sense. Clinton has a fairly clear lead in the polls. There are only 10 weeks to go until the Nov. 8 election — and less than that until early voting, which begins in late September in some states.
But Clinton shouldn’t get too complacent. After mixed evidence before, it’s become clearer, at least according to our forecast models, that Donald Trump has regained some ground on her. Clinton’s national lead in our polls-only forecast has gone from a peak of about 8.5 percentage points two weeks ago to 6.5 percentage points as of Sunday evening — that is, a 2-point gain for Trump over two weeks. Correspondingly, Trump’s chances of winning the election have improved from a low of 11 percent to 19 percent.
Trump’s gains have been more modest in our polls-plus forecast, which discounted Clinton’s early August polls because of a potential convention bounce and which anticipated that the race would tighten. In polls-plus, which forecasts that Clinton’s margin over Trump will narrow to roughly 4 percentage points by Election Day, the clock is more of an ally to Clinton and an enemy to Trump. Still, Trump is keeping slightly ahead of the pace of improvement that polls-plus expected of him. His chances of winning are 27 percent according to polls-plus, up slightly from 25 percent a week ago and from a low of 21 percent earlier this month.
[...[
Toward the end of the 2012 campaign, we frequently emphasized the distinction between closeness and uncertainty. President Obama led Mitt Romney by just 1 or 2 percentage points nationally, according to our models, throughout much of the stretch run of that campaign — a close race. But between Obama’s consistently strong numbers in the swing states, the low number of undecided voters, and a strong alignment between polls and economic “fundamentals,” there was a narrow range of plausible outcomes for that election, with most of them resulting in a second Obama term.
This election, at least for the time being, presents something of the opposite case. It isn’t all that close — Clinton is up by around 6 percentage points as best as we can figure, a larger lead than Obama had at almost any point in 2012 or until the very end of the 2008 campaign. But it’s August, and the number of undecided voters is high, and so the outcome remains fairly uncertain. Furthermore, while the state polls are fairly good for Clinton right now, we don’t know how they’ll react if the race tightens further. We’re going on three weeks without a live-caller poll in Pennsylvania, for example.
Coincidentally or not, the Clinton campaign was more proactive last week. It pushed back quite aggressively at an Associated Press story about donations to the Clinton Foundation. And it instigated a fight with Trump over his connections with what Clinton called “the emerging racist ideology known as the alt-right.” Clinton remains in a strong overall position, but she shouldn’t be playing prevent defense yet; we’re still in the equivalent of the third quarter. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-its-too-soon-for-clinton-to-run-out-the-clock/ she is doing the right thing, she can't respond to her controversies because her responses will only make her seem even more robotic and insincere. She has the media on her side and there is no need for her to enter headlines right now, other than by calling trump names. Her latest press appearances have been phoned in where she is literally reading off a script, that's how safe she is playing it. In her mind she has already won. And I agree with you: she doesn't need to do anything when the sycophantic press is ready to "go over the top" for her cause. It's interesting to read such a claim at a time when both Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon are advising Trump (not to mention others in the conservative media, such as Hannity). In any case, the three studies that I'm aware of about the coverage received so far by the presidential candidates before and during their respective primaries show that Trump received on average a more positive coverage than Clinton. If your statement is based on any actual study rather than your gut feeling, I'd be interested in reading it. Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage
The biggest news outlets published more negative stories about Hillary Clinton than any other presidential candidate — including Donald Trump — from January 2015 to April 2016, according to an analysis of hundreds of thousands of online stories.
Clinton has not only been hammered by the most negative coverage but the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her, reports Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company based out of Boston. SourcePre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of the 2016 presidential candidates in the year leading up to the primaries. This crucial period, labeled “the invisible primary” by political scientists, is when candidates try to lay the groundwork for a winning campaign—with media exposure often playing a make or break role.
The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.
The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015. SourceNews Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences
The news media’s fascination with Donald Trump’s candidacy, which began in 2015, carried into the primary election phase. Week after week, Trump got the most press attention (see Figure 1). [...]
Our earlier study found that, in 2015, Sanders received the most positive coverage of any of the presidential contenders. That pattern carried into the primaries. During the period from January 1 to June 7, positive news statements about Sanders outpaced negative ones by 54 percent to 46 percent (see Figure 2). In fact, Sanders was the only candidate during the primary period to receive a positive balance of coverage. The other candidates’ coverage tilted negative, though in varying degrees. Clinton’s coverage was 53 percent negative to 47 percent positive, which, though unfavorable on balance, was markedly better than her 2015 coverage when she received by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. During that year-long period, two-thirds (69 percent to 31 percent) of what was reported about Clinton was negative in tone.
Trump’s coverage during the primary period was almost evenly balanced, with positive statements about his candidacy (49 percent) nearly equal to negative ones (51 percent). However, the tone of his coverage varied markedly over the course of the primary season. During the period when the Republican nomination was still being contested, Trump’s coverage was positive on balance. News statements about Trump during this period were 53 percent positive to 47 percent negative—nearly as positive as Sanders’. But after Cruz and Kasich dropped from the race in early May, Trump’s coverage nosedived. Over the final five weeks of the primary season, 61 percent of news statements about Trump were negative and only 39 percent were positive—a level of negativity exceeded only by Clinton’s coverage during 2015. SourceAlthough one has to be mindful of the methodology used, I still think those results are interesting and largely in line with what my general impression has been. Trump's tanking coverage in recent weeks is, to me, largely due to his missteps (understatement of the year) since the end of the Republican primary and his trailing of Clinton in the polls. If anything, a fear of appearing as partisan has in my opinion often paralyzed some in the media into often making false equivalencies between the opposing sides to avoid accusations of not being balanced (for example between Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, while all major party presidential candidates have done so since Nixon, and Clinton's refusal to release her speech transcripts, something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate... ever?). This is not new or specific to this particular race, however. We are talking general election coverage, all the media outlets wanted trump to win in the primaries so they can get massive ratings. Now their ratings are guaranteed and can pick a side comfortably. The statistic I would like to see is the amount of time trump gets covered vs clinton. Both candidates pretty much only get negative coverage, but I wouldn't be surprised if trump got upwards of 90% of the negative spotlight. Ofcourse Trump gets the vast majority of negative coverage. The guy makes a gaff every 48 hours or less. When you constantly do something news worthy you are constantly in the news. Is that the fault of the news for reporting it, or Trumps fault for fucking up, yet again? As you yourself say, both candidates mostly get negative coverage. So the smart thing to do is to not do news worthy things so you don't get more negative coverage.
I have no problems with the media harping on trump for everything he says, it is his fault for not being restrained in his speech. It's the lack of HRC coverage that bothers me, just in terms of time covered. Just imagine for a second if Trump dodged press conferences, the media would be all over that. So not only does HRC not get actual coverage in the news besides honorary mentions, she does phone interviews reading scripts once a month.
|
What news are you referring to exactly, and on what basis are you able to describe it so broadly? There are plenty of news sources, neutral ones even, that are and have been highly critical of Hillary.
|
After postponing an immigration speech he was going to make last week, Donald Trump tweeted he will instead make a speech on the subject this Wednesday in Arizona.
The GOP nominee was scheduled to make a speech dealing with immigration on Aug. 25 in Colorado, but delayed the speech after remarks by Trump suggested he was softening his position on deporting the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.
Trump implied last week that immigrants could eventually be allowed to return to the country, saying, “When they come back in, if they come back in, then they can start paying taxes, but there is no path to legalization unless they leave the country and come back.” The Sunday morning talk shows were heavy on discussion of Trump's immigration policies, with vice presidential nominee Mike Pence and others promising on Trump's behalf that would soon make this policies crystal clear.
Since announcing his campaign, Trump has made immigration a central aspect of it — going as far as to say he was the reason the issue became relevant in this campaign season. The Manhattan business mogul has said in the past that he will build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and have Mexico pay for it.
Source
|
On August 29 2016 22:41 farvacola wrote:
What news are you referring to exactly, and on what basis are you able to describe it so broadly? There are plenty of news sources, neutral ones even, that are and have been highly critical of Hillary.
There was even that almost straight-up lie tweet and story by AP about Clinton Foundation donors.
On August 29 2016 22:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Washington state is moving ahead with its plans to allow scientific research of marijuana, sidestepping federal rules that critics say have hampered study of the drug for decades.
The state has a new marijuana research license that will allow laboratories to grow marijuana for scientific study. State officials expect to start accepting applications for the new license by January.
Supporters hope the state licensing helps provide new evidence of marijuana’s effectiveness as a medical treatment, potentially paving the way for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to ease restrictions on the drug’s possession and use.
“The importance of it really hit home when the DEA decided not to reschedule medical marijuana (last week) because, they said, ‘we just don’t have enough research,’ ” said state Sen. Ann Rivers, R-La Center, who sponsored a bill this year to move Washington’s marijuana research license system forward.
“We need some research institutions to come up with great information that we as legislators can use as we create policy.”
Last week, the DEA cited the lack of evidence of a medical use for marijuana as a reason to keep it classified as a Schedule 1 drug, the most highly regulated category, which includes LSD and heroin.
But it’s precisely that classification of marijuana that makes researching the drug so difficult, said Sam Méndez, executive director of the Cannabis Law & Policy Project at the University of Washington School of Law.
“It’s been sort of a chicken-and-egg story, where the DEA and the federal government say marijuana is a Schedule 1 narcotic because there is not sufficient evidence to suggest there is a medical use for it,” Méndez said.
At the same time, “It is very difficult for people to produce research on it, which leads to there not being as much research out there as there should be,” he said.
In the past, researchers have been able to access research-grade marijuana from only a single source: The University of Mississippi.
While the DEA announced last week it will allow more U.S. facilities to apply to grow marijuana for research, Méndez said researchers will still face many barriers getting the federal permits to work with the federally sanctioned product, making a state research license as necessary as ever. Source"“It’s been sort of a chicken-and-egg story, where the DEA and the federal government say marijuana is a Schedule 1 narcotic because there is not sufficient evidence to suggest there is a medical use for it,” Méndez said."
I hope when he says "federal government" he means "Congress" because they (them?) and DEA are the only people holding back marijuana, nobody else is doing so (DEA has almost total power over this issue).
|
The other reason the media reports on Hillary less is that hillary is boring, and trump is exciting. News that sells, more people watch trump stories than clinton stories; and news follows the ratings.
|
|
|
Trump's entire campaign is run on the belief that there's no such thing as bad publicity. It's reality TV politics.
All this talk about media bias is moot when one candidate is intentionally saying whatever he can to get headlines.
|
Yeah Trump can't complain about media coverage when it is by design the lifeblood of his campaign.
Everything Trump's getting was foreseeable by someone with political leadership competence.
|
Also in the news, in an effort to remove human bias from their news feed, Facebook put software in charge. Within a day or so, completely fake story was given the endorsement of Facebook’s trending topics.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/08/29/a-fake-headline-about-megyn-kelly-was-trending-on-facebook/
I love watching the tech industry squirm under the weight their front in center role in news media. People who believed they were above bias and let “the information speak for itself”. Now they have to face the harsh truth that they might be presenting stories that would have been relegated to that weird dude holding a sign in the subway telling you the lizard people are taking over.
In other news: a study showed a directly correlation between broadband penetration and political polarization.
https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2016/lelkes-ajps-hostile-audience.pdf
As a talking point, I think the internet might be making the US less informed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
