Hacker News Reader

Comment by dandersh | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately your explanation is not correct. For example, it does not explain the extensive coverage of Donald Trump that was used to get clicks and sell copy, despite his violation of everything liberals hold dear...

Early in the campaign, Trump acknowledged his media advantage. “I’ve gotten so much free advertising, it’s like nothing I’d have expected,” he told the New York Times in September. “When you look at cable television, a lot of the programs are 100% Trump, so why would you need more Trump during the commercial breaks?”[1]

[1]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-has-gotten-nearly-3-b...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/les-moonves-t...

View on HN

The coverage of Trump was entirely negative, though. It makes perfect sense that one could sell a magazine to liberals by attacking the main competitor to liberals in the Presidential race.

And the coverage of Hillary wasn't?

Trying not to venture too far into a political discussion, I think the majority of the coverage of both was negative. Towards the last couple weeks, the quantity of coverage was very disproportionate depending on the source of the news [0]. People of the same political affiliation tend to gravitate towards the same news sources, and those sources appeared to be appealing to the affiliation of their viewers with the selection of information given.

The particular example I have provided is from Fox News because it was quick to search for, but I suspect you could find similar elsewhere about other news organizations.

[0]: https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/787078152895901696/photo/...

The coverage of Hillary tended to criticize her actions (e.g. regarding emails). The coverage of Trump tended to criticize his character. Objectively speaking, one was more of an ad hominem attack, which reflects poorly on the media.

Ad hominem is a fallacy when evaluating an argument. When you're evaluating a person (as a candidate), arguments are necessarily ad hominem, whether they're about temperament or conduct.

As someone who thinks elections should be decoded by positions on policy not moral character or temperment, I disagree.

You may disagree with the metric, but that doesn't make it a fallacy, just a difference of opinion.

I didn't use the word fallacy. You did.

It certainly was, but there was less of it.

Much less so than Trump. HRC also had much less coverage overall than Trump.

there is no such thing as bad publicity. at least early in the race, the battle is not against other candidates, but against going unnoticed.

Wasn't it done on purpose to push 'pied piper candidates', so dems can have a slam dunk. Trump was identified as one of the 'pied piper candidates' in podesta emails. Even pravda ran story on it [1]. Those 'and tell the press' emails would make even Stalin blush.

1. http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com