100
1 vote
Jan 30

It depends, is the reporter acting as a cheering section for said politician or not. Is the reporter trying to get to the bottom is an issue to bring out what the politician is really doing, or are they making nice. We saw a lot of make nice in the last election with Hillary, and hit Trump hard. The press was far from neutral, most of the press wanted Hillary to win and instead of being neutral they gave Hillary a pass on many things, while bring up anything and everything they could find against Trump. Had the press been fair, Hillary would have never been nominated, and we might not have Trump in the WH.

I prefer when the press goes after everybody equally, but that will never happen, no matter what side is in charge.

edit

neutral they have Hillary

to

neutral they gave Hillary

Reply to this opinion
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Jan 30

As an audience member though, I always feel a bit uneasy when I get to be the witness of some on-camera badgering while the politician in question tries to make his way through anyone licenced to hold a microphone, demanding answers to their questions (even when it's obvious they won't be getting any). Afterwards, a cut-scene follows to their political opposition, which gives their view entirely from their own perspective. In that way, I find nowadays media presentations relatively opinion-making.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Jan 31

We stopped getting news a long time ago, basically everything is an opinion, no who, what, when, where, sad but true

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Jan 31

Mostly impressions and "feelings"/sentiments. If I must be stern I can vaguely recall the early 90's (NL) newsreporting as being pretty serious. On the other hand though, nowadays fewer things stay hidden (I think?).

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Feb 1

Any and all news is basically opinion based, even if they report who, what, etc. the news organization chooses what stories to carry, and how they are presented, when Obama had a six month ban on refugees it barely made the press and no wide spread coverage, then compare that to Trumps ban on travel from certain countries. While there are some differences, the press is currently making a big deal over the face that refugees can't come into the country right now, but no big headlines when Obama did it.

So any news is filtered, and it only because those in the press can't control social media that some stories are getting out, and only when the press can't ignore the story, due to wide spread social media, that they pay any attention to it.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Feb 1

"the press is currently making a big deal over the fact that refugees can't come into the country right now"

Refugees *and* green card holders/people with a double passport. People who've been living for a decade in the US and can't get back home after visiting their family abroad; subtle difference.

I do agree that compared to his predecessor, Trump's dealings (so far) are held under a magnifying glass. One reason for this is that the majority of the world population feels concerned about his presidency, almost mirroring/answering to his own politics of fear.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Feb 1

Ah, Department of Homeland Security said it would no longer bar green-card holders from entering the United States. Those with dual passport, which I can't see how you have two passports from two different countries, (that alone would cause me to bar you) if you mean dual citizenship, then they have to make a stop in their other non-banned country then continue on to the US. A pain in the butt, sure. Given that many other countries are wanting to stop refugees from coming over, are they more scared of Trump, or that his idea may spread?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Feb 1

Yes, I think I meant dual citizenship. On the radio they've spoke of double passports, but I suppose this was meant metaphorically. And although Homeland Security reversed a part of the new policy, it doesn't change the intention/vision of the original idea (on the topic of what the press is focusing on nowadays).

A few politicians in European countries (the "far-right coalition") are enthusiastic about Trump's policies, but these are decades-long established anti-immigration/anti-EU "propagists". So the idea was already here. The fact that Trump has been elected does steel their resolve, because apparently (and in my opinion rather ironically than scary) it is possible to be against a United Europe but for a United America, while being as foreign to it as much as the (potential) immigrants they are united against.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Feb 1

The EU was and probably is a good idea gone wrong, the way I remember it in order to join the EU you had to have an economy that was very similar to that of the other members, that is about the same wages and benefits, etc. But the EU let in countries that had far lower wages, and far lower social benefits, which in turn caused a lot of migration.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Feb 1

I'm not so against low economy immigration within the EU if only they (the host country) would follow-through on bridging the cultural differences between countries. I think for economic migrants, they arrive in a cold bath of ideological neglect, making people feel unwelcome whilst keeping the divide intact (the counterargument being: "what are you complaining about when you're making the money you came for") and I think that's hypocritical and inconsistent with the whole idea, which wasn't succesfully distributed/put in practice through the layers of society.

That Trump's action was legal (and in light of past events understandable) doesn't make it more effective and less outdated. I think it is naive to state that potential terrorists must be disguised as refugees, or originate from Iran but not Saudi-Arabia or Egypt (or the US). I wish he would be more specific about the true motives of terrorists (money/revenge/solidarity rather than religion) instead of keeping it so vague (contrary to his inauguration speech and not contrary to the official press statement regarding the recent Quebec shooting - which was a textbook situation of "the other way around"). Also, it's not like terrorists would need to import weapons as if they are unattainable in the States, so there is room for some serious prioritizing.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Feb 2

We're getting a little off track from the question. Had the EU followed though with their original intent, again as I remember it and I could be wrong, lowering of trade barriers, standardized system of laws that apply in all member states and that it would only allow countries with similar economies. Had they kept to that many of the problems could have been avoided (IMO), although Greece did basically lie to get into the EU and I feel it may be the next to leave and dump it debt on the other members.

But to get back on subject, did the press give some politicians a easy ride, while going after others they (the press) disagreed with when it come to the EU problems?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Feb 2

I think these debts aren't the biggest problem, when there is so much intolerance and uncooperativeness in the EU/Europe. That may sound sappy, but with such a sponsored and intense interaction within and between countries on a day-to-day basis, a lack of understanding and follow-through does a lot of harm in the long run (as you can see with the refugee crisis in Europe; under this pressure underlying problems and clashes between governments did arise <- not Greece so much as Poland or Hungary).

"But to get back on subject, did the press give some politicians a easy ride, while going after others they (the press) disagreed with when it come to the EU problems?"

I actually am unaware what the press/newsroom specifically wants or who it disagrees with. It generally comes across as sensationalistic to me. It doesn't matter whom; whenever someone screws up, or even worse, is in an ambiguous position, I hardly hear about anything else. Not from their political counterparts (I can look that up on Twitter), or people I might know: just the news. It often seems to me that if it's dramatic, it is newsworthy.

A recent complaint against the nation's biggest news organisation though is their choice of words for groups who can be defined as terrorists, but in their broadcasts are called rebels or freedom warriors. This indicates a certain stance within a complex matter, and according to some a loss of integrity/credibility.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Feb 4

It is sometimes hard to see what or who the press is going after or rooting for, for example gun control in the US, for years the press had been telling us they don't have an agenda, yet when someone checked them out they found far more anti-gun stories, gun control stories, than pro-gun stories. That not counting stories about shooting, it became clear what most of the press wanted, more gun control. Now take immigration, we no longer have illegal aliens, but undocumented immigrant. They then can say, well, they are good people who just didn't fill out the paper work, while ignoring all the problems. Illegal alien is the proper term yet to push their agenda, they won't use the porper term and use a nicer one, so no who what when where, just opinion.

subscribe
load further replies (2)
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: