A look at certain press practices in Obama vs. Trump presidencies

2001400ex said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

2001400ex said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

2001400ex said:

So then I have a few questions.

1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?

Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm

The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.

Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.

I didn't say they were liberal, you did.

2001400ex said:

2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?

Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.

2001400ex said:

I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?

Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.

2001400ex said:

3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?

My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.

2001400ex said:

4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?

Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.

Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.

I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.

If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.

You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.

I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.

Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.

Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.

2001400ex said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

2001400ex said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

2001400ex said:

So then I have a few questions.

1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?

Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm

The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.

Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.

I didn't say they were liberal, you did.

2001400ex said:

2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?

Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.

2001400ex said:

I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?

Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.

2001400ex said:

3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?

My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.

2001400ex said:

4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?

Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.

Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.

I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.

If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.

You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.

I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.

Here is a good read. Not sure who the media is but they discuss number of requests for last 4 years of Bush versus first four years of Obama. Although that isn't the best either for the same reason, I suspect the number of requests was greater during Bush's first four years.