Talk:Mainstream media and Donald Trump

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

If we added every example of media bias against Trump, this would be one of the longest CP articles. The media thought for sure Trump would lose the election, and it clearly disliked Trump even in its "objective" and "factual" reporting. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2017 (EST)

Snarky MSM headlines

Here is an interesting Washington Examiner article: [1] It describes how the MSM has used snarky news headlines to effectively criticize Trump. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2017 (EDT)is not

Scope

This article was not started by 1990sguy, and he not the arbiter of what can or cannot be included. I have changed the first sentence to make clear what the scope of the article is in fact. Please remember Conservapedia Commandment #5. JDano (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

I strongly disagree with your edits. As I explained in my edit summaries, your edits are ridiculous, citing MSM sources (The Guardian, NYT, BBC) and avoiding the conservative media. They buy into the MSM narratives and misconceptions -- everybody knows that Twitter statements are not official policy and that it was only an announcement, but the MSM made it seem like Trump was making an executive order on Twitter and found another way to criticize him. As for the Charlottesville info, Trump's response was clear -- of course, the MSM is apparently incapable of realizing that. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2017 (EDT
The fact that you "strongly disagree" is probably a good reason to avoid editing this article. This is not a list of Donald Trump achievements, this is an objective encyclopedia article, where we avoid inserting individual opinions. What we think about Donald Trump's approach to the media or the media's approach to Donald Trump should be left out of the article. Just state the facts. If you have a Donald Trump source, it can be added. If we are talking about the mainstream media, we should add footnotes to that as well.
Regarding the tweet, President Trump phrased his tweet as a policy announcement. Any person regardless of their views of the issue would want to know if it was an official decision, so I do not blame reporters for asking for clarification of it. I sleep better at night knowing that the Pentagon will not follow orders delivered by Twitter. Twitter can be hacked, and in a matter of life and death, I don't want America to run the risk of a faked Presidentail tweet. Thanks, JDano (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
If I strongly agree with an edit, I am not going to just sit back while you ruin the article with your edits. What political issue do you feel strongly about? Russia? Something else? Are you going to just sit back as the other side makes gains? Your reasoning is as ridiculous as your edits.
As you said, the tweet was a policy announcement. We have seen it before: the MSM frequently distorts Trump's words. If we should add this, the main point should be how the MSM treated Trump's announcement as some executive order -- it is another example of MSM bias and bad reporting. I don't think anyone seriously believes that the military is going to follow Trump's twitter statements -- like they always have, the military is going to follow official orders. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
Yes, by all means go ahead and add sentences that are supported by sources making your point about how the mainstream media was biased in their coverage of the tweets. JDano (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
Done. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

On Aug 26 1990sguy took out the Donald Trump rally itme where he left off "many sides, many sides" from his prior Charolettsville quote. I am trying to put it back in, but he says it is already in. I don't see that in the article now. Could you please point out where it is? Many thanks, JDano (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

Yeah, you want to add a gigantic paragraph about the conference, highlighting this minor fact, in addition to adding two other pieces of information that have nothing to do with the article and that also give the article a liberal POV. Polling numbers and a Time Magazine cover have nothing to do with this article, and we don't need this large paragraph that talks about how he left out a statement when his goal was to show that he spoke out against hate and bigotry. You also exclusively cited MSM sources.
Look at the "Charlottesville" section where it talks briefly about the Pheonix rally. You only need to add a half-sentence about that he did not mention that phrase. It's really not that important. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
So instead of replying to my comment, you just re-added everything again, and not just that, but you did a lot more -- the same edits that caused your first block.[2] These edits are very problematic -- they are either unnecessary, have left-wing bias, have nothng to do with the article. You have no support for your edits, so at least just keep it as the talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2017 (EDT)