The survey comes within a month of the “partnership” between Trump and Fox News, of the type one sees between Modi and Republic TV in India, falling apart, with TV channel anchor Neil Cavuto declaring: “First of all, Mr President, we don’t work for you. I don’t work for you. My job is to cover you, not fawn over you or rip you. Just report on you – call balls and strikes on you.”

Cavuto’s response was to Trump, who had tweeted: “Just watched Fox News heavily promoting the Democrats… The New Fox News is letting millions of GREAT people down! We have to start looking for a new News Outlet. Fox isn’t working for us anymore!”

Reporting on the survey, which took place on September 17-19, and released just ahead of the Modi event, a Fox News report said, “Many voters are frustrated with how the federal government is working and a growing number are nervous about the economy”. It added, “While 37 percent feel confident about the economy, 48 percent feel nervous. That’s up from a low of 43 percent nervous in March 2019.”

“The poll also finds the president’s economic policies receive mixed reviews: 43 percent think Trump’s policies are hurting the economy, while 39 percent say helping”, the report says, adding, “Views are more negative on tariffs, as voters think they hurt rather than help the economy by a 45-31 percent margin.”

The report continues, “Despite those concerns, the economy barely makes the top five when voters are asked, without prompting from a list, the most important issue facing the country. Immigration is the most frequently mentioned at 13 percent. No other issue hits double-digits. Next is gun violence (9 percent), health care (8 percent), opposing Trump (8 percent), and the economy (7 percent).”

According to the report, Trump’s “job ratings on every other issue tested are underwater: national security (45 approve-48 disapprove), immigration (42-54), international trade (38-53), foreign policy (36-54), guns (35-56), health care (34-56), and Afghanistan (31-49).”
 

 

The post Howdy Modi event organized amidst top survey suggesting Trump ‘losing’ popularity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Newspapers across U.S. rebuke Trump for attacks on press appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Photograph: Markus Schreiber/AP

More than 100 newspapers across the US will publish coordinated editorial responses to president Donald Trump’s repeated attacks on the media on Thursday.

The campaign has been organised by the Boston Globe, whose editorial staff approached news outlets across the country asking them to write an editorial denouncing the president’s hostility to the media.

“This dirty war on the free press must end,” said the appeal.

“Publications, whatever their politics, could make a powerful statement by standing together in the common defence of their profession and the vital role it plays in government for and by the people.”

As of Saturday, more than 100 publications had signed up to the campaign, Marjorie Pritchard, the Globe’s deputy editorial page editor, told CNN.

Read the full story here: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/13/more-than-100-us-newspapers-plan-editorials-decrying-trump-media-attacks?CMP=share_btn_link
 

The post More than 100 US newspapers plan editorials decrying Trump media attacks: Guardian appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Attorney Gloria Allred, surrounded by Cosby accusers and their supporters after the guilty verdict. EPA-EFE/Tracie Van Auken

So much has happened it is easy to forget the video that circulated on social media of comedian Hannibal Buress calling out Bill Cosby in his stand-up routine: “Yeah, but you rape women, Bill Cosby, so turn the crazy down a couple notches …” he said in October 2014. Over the years, Buress has criticised Cosby, but it wasn’t until the video of him went viral that things began to change.

Buress importantly brought attention to Cosby – but he is not the reason for the changing media coverage and ultimately Cosby’s conviction. It’s actually all the brave women who have come forward that have forced the news and entertainment industries to pay attention.

Shortly after the Buress video went viral, actress Barbara Bowman frustratedly asked in The Washington Post: “Why did it take 30 years for people to believe my story?”, pointing to the double standards of taking men seriously but not women. Even so, it is what the 60-plus women who have come forward against Cosby have faced that has finally forced the public and media outlets to care about the systemic sexual violence perpetrated by some powerful men like him.

Remember when CNN host Don Lemon asked one Cosby accuser Joan Tarshis why she didn’t just bite Cosby’s penis? Well he doesn’t ask questions like that anymore. Or when Canadian basketball star Andrea Constand originally took Cosby to court in 2005 and no one paid attention? Well the jury certainly paid attention to Costand this time around. Or when supermodel Janice Dickinson went on The Howard Stern Show in 2006 and only hinted about Cosby’s behaviour because she was too afraid of being sued to say more? She has now spoken publicly to many news outlets and even testified in this last fateful trial.
Cosby leaving court after the guilty verdict. EPA-EFE/Tracie Van Auken

But even with the improvements, news media still need to do better when it comes to interviewing and profiling women who come forward. Rape culture that is so common in societies, still plays out in news coverage. Specifically, women who come forward are doubted and disparaged. And powerful people who question, insult, and dismiss accusers coming forward are given ample attention in the coverage.

When the Access Hollywood tape was released, featuring Donald Trump‘s unsavoury comments about grabbing women by the pussy, Trump was given carte blanche to call the women coming forward to accuse him of harassment liars and ugly and threaten to sue them. The women who accused Trump on the other hand, have always been given minimal exposure. Actor Daman Wayans famously stated that some of the women accusing Cosby were “un-rape-able”. Trump, of course, subsequently won the 2016 presidential election.

Meanwhile Fox presenter Bill O’Reilly, sacked from Fox News amid allegations of sexual harassment – said for years that he was merely a target for opportunistic women, with little push back. The examples go on.
Proving credible

Consequently, when interviewed, accusers/survivors are often forced to “prove” themselves rather than just tell their story. Or worse, are asked – Like Lemon did to Tarshis – why didn’t they just prevent this from happening? They have to justify their previous actions and even their character traits, which research shows does not determine whether or not a woman is assaulted.

When the Cosby story broke three and a half years ago, former co-star Phylicia Rashad notably said “… this was not about the women. This is about something else. This is about the obliteration of legacy”. Jerry Seinfeld said something similar about the value of Cosby’s body of work – although to be fair he later went back on those comments.

But in the end, the women in this case finally (and rightfully) made it about them. News coverage reflected this – even if they were 30 years late. Moving forward the biggest challenge will be making this the norm and not just the exception.

Read more: It takes guts and hard work to expose a scandal like that of Harvey Weinstein – but it’s just the start

News coverage of the #MeToo movement that began in the wake of Harvey Weinstein’s demise, has often played devil’s advocate, asking (and sometimes emphatically stating) it has gone too far. This is without considering the international systemic problem of physical and sexual violence against women. Or the relatively short time the movement has existed as opposed to centuries of gender inequality. More context is needed when we read the news.

Also, more attention must be paid to surviving sexual abuse and misconduct, rather than the triumphant comeback stories that are now in the works for accused harassers, such as the disgraced CBS anchor Charlie Rose and former Today host Matt Lauer.

While recent news coverage has finally embraced reporting on sexual abuse allegations, there is still far to go before the issue itself and the problematic way we discuss all forms of violence against women is eradicated. Luckily, this didn’t deter the brave women who helped bring Cosby to justice.

Lindsey Blumell, Lecturer in Journalism, City, University of London

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Bill Cosby exposed by the media – but it was women who brought him down appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Politico reports that the Trump International Hotel in Washington has banned the press for inauguration week. (Photo: mr_t_77/flickr/cc)
 

The post ‘Ominous’: Trump Hotel in DC Bans Journalists During Inauguration Week appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shredded papers' via www.shutterstock.com

As a political scientist focused on game theory, I approach the media from the perspective of strategic choice. Media outlets make decisions about how to position themselves within a market and how to signal to news consumers what kinds outlets they are in ideological terms. But they also interact strategically with politicians, who use journalists’ ideological leanings and accusations of leanings to undermine the credibility of even the most valid criticisms.

While Republican politicians have decried liberal media bias for decades, none has done so as vehemently as Trump, who polarizes the media in a way that may not leave an escape.
 

The development of a nonpartisan press

In the 20th and 21st centuries, news outlets have made their money through subscriptions, sales and advertisements. However, before these economic models developed, newspapers had a tough time turning a profit.

In the 19th century, many newspapers were produced and distributed by institutions that weren’t in it for the money. Political parties, therefore, were a primary source of news. Horace Greeley’s Jeffersonian – an outlet for the Whig Party – had a decidedly partisan point of view. Others, like The Bay State Democrat, had names that told you exactly what they were doing. When Henry Raymond founded The New York Times in 1851 as a somewhat more independent outlet despite his Whig and Republican affiliations, it was an anomaly. Nonetheless, partisan newspapers, for economic and political reasons, were common throughout the 19th century, particularly during the early 19th century.

The information in partisan newspapers was hardly unbiased. But nobody expected anything else because the concept of a neutral press didn’t really exist. The development of a neutral press on a large scale required both a different economic production and distribution model and the recognition that there was a market for it.

The muckraking era that began in the early 20th century brought such journalism into the forefront. Muckraking, the forebear of investigative journalism, traces back to Upton Sinclair and fellow writers who uncovered corruption and scandal. Its success demonstrated demand for papers that weren’t partisan, and production and distribution models developed that allowed more nonpartisan papers to turn a profit by filling a gap within the market.

The economic principles at work are always the same. There is a balancing act between the costs of entry and the size of the audience that can be reached which determines when new media outlets can form, just as in any other market. The trick is that costs and benefits change over time.
 

Neutrality norms in a complex media environment

Just as market incentives supported the development of a neutral press, market incentives, combined with technology, have allowed institutions like Fox News and MSNBC to provide news coverage from decidedly conservative and liberal perspectives, with internet sources further fragmenting the media environment into narrow ideological niches.

These media outlets, though, muddy the signals: A nonpartisan journalist strives to levy valid criticism, but a partisan journalist will always criticize the opposing party. Thus a weakly informed voter will have a difficult time distinguishing between, say, a valid accusation from a nonpartisan journalist that a Republican is lying and partisan bias from a left-wing journalist who fails to acknowledge that bias.

The current media landscape is a hybrid, combining opinion-based outlets that resemble the party-affiliated newspapers of the 19th century and journalistic outlets that attempt to follow the muckraking model that developed in the 20th century. The way the latter attempt to distinguish themselves from the former is by following norms of neutrality and asserting that both parties are equally guilty of all political sins. This model breaks down when the parties are no longer equally guilty.

Consider the first presidential debate of 2016. Hillary Clinton mentioned Trump’s 2012 claim that global warming was a Chinese hoax. Trump interrupted to deny having made the claim. Not only had Trump engaged in an outlandish conspiracy theory, but he also lied during a debate about having done so.

“Both sides do it” is not a valid response to this level of dishonesty because both sides do not always engage in this level of dishonesty. Yet it was relatively normal behavior for Trump, who rose to the top of the Republican Party by gradually taking leadership of the “birther” movement and eventually even tried to switch the blame for that to Clinton.

The strategic problem in this type of situation is more complex than it appears, and it is what I call “the journalist’s dilemma.” The nonpartisan press can let the lie go unremarked. But to do so is to enable Trump’s lies. On the other hand, if they point out how much he lies, Trump can respond with accusations of liberal media bias. Trump, in fact, goes further than past Republicans, even directing crowd hostility toward specific journalists at rallies.

The media landscape, though, is populated by outlets with liberal leanings, like MSNBC, so uninformed news consumers who lack the time to do thorough investigations of every Trump and Clinton claim must decide: If a media outlet says that Trump lies more than Clinton, does that mean he is more dishonest or that the media outlet is a liberal one? The rational inference, given the media landscape, is actually the latter, making it self-defeating for the nonpartisan press to attempt to call out Trump’s lies. This might explain why a plurality of voters thought that Trump was more honest than Clinton, despite a record of more dishonesty from Trump at fact-checking sites like PolitiFact.
 

Nonpartisan journalism in a Trump presidency?

Is there a way for the neutral press to point out when Trump lies and not have that information get discounted as partisan bias?

The basic problem is that the norms that have guided the nonpartisan press are built around the assumption that the parties are mirror images of each other. They may disagree on policy, but they abide by the same rules. The nonpartisan press as we know it, then, cannot function when one party systematically stops abiding those norms.

The 2016 campaign was an example of what happens when the parties are out of balance. Trump simply lied far more than Clinton, but the nonpartisan press was unable to convey that information to the public because even trying to point that out violates the “both sides do it” journalistic norm, thereby signaling bias to a weakly informed but rational audience, which invalidates the criticism.

Unfortunately, then, the nonpartisan press is essentially stuck, at least until Donald Trump is out of office. While there is no longer a “he said, she said” campaign, the fact that Trump is not only the president but the head of the Republican Party makes his statements informal positions of the Republican Party. For the press to attack those statements as lies is to place themselves in opposition to the Republican Party, making them de facto Democratic partisans.

Because Trump is an entertainer rather than a policymaker, it is difficult for the press to even interview him as a normal political figure since he does not respond to facts in conventional ways. Each time he lies, any media outlet that aspires to objectivity must decide whether to point it out – which would make it indistinguishable from the Democratic-aligned press – or to allow the lie to go unremarked, thereby remaining complicit in the lie, tacitly aiding the Republican Party. Neither is likely to inform anyone in any meaningful way, which renders the model of the neutral press nearly inoperable.

Author is Associate Professor of Political Science, Case Western Reserve University

Courtesy: The Conversation
 

The post Does nonpartisan journalism have a future? appeared first on SabrangIndia.