Connect with us


Why mainstream media shifted their business model around President Trump



The President of the United States has always been a primary topic for the media. Mainstream media has had healthy coverage of every American President since John F. Kennedy, and rightly so. But coverage of our current President has eclipsed the notion of “healthy coverage.” They’ve become absolutely obsessed by him, and it’s not because they like him. Believe it or not, it’s not only because they hate him, either. Their bottom line is THE bottom line.

I’ll paraphrase Gordon Gekko in Wall Street. “The point is, ladies and gentleman, that Trump, for lack of a better word, sells.”

It doesn’t matter how many stories they post about him. It doesn’t matter whether they’re fair or not. It doesn’t matter whether they’re lucid or unhinged. All that matters is that every story on any topic that might have a remote tangential connection to the President MUST be told from that perspective.

They know that stories about Trump will be wildly shared. They also know that the stories that get the most attention are the ones that either prove the President is absolutely wrong or incredibly right. CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, MSNBC – if they have a story where they debunk the most insignificant part of a meaningless Tweet by the President, it will get a massive amount of pageviews and social media shares. Conversely, Fox News, The Blaze, and DailyWire understand that any time the President is vindicated, such as when the migrant caravans turned violent at Mexico’s southern border, they’ve struck viral gold.

Some will argue that the Weekly Standard, which recently announced its shuttering, died because it had the wrong message for its audience. They’ll say their criticism of the President was contrary to the right-leaning audience they enjoyed as a news outlet. There may be some truth to this, though we’ll likely never know since all we know about are the circumstances on the surface. They may have gone under because they invested their funds into Bitcoin a year ago. Who knows?

Nevertheless, news outlets that are consistently anti-Trump even when he does something positive are doing well with the left while news outlets that cover for the President when he makes mistakes are doing well with the right. The business model has changed. But did it change with Trump?


The real change happened with the previous Presidency. Barack Obama was such an icon to the left that the extreme polarization of the news was very much like it is today, except opposite. One would be hard pressed to find a popular article on the Washington Post that was truly critical of President Obama, just as you wouldn’t find anyone at Fox News singing his praises. The polarization of the media isn’t new. It’s simply amplified greatly by the extreme sentiments of love and hate that surround President Trump.

Do we blame the media for doing what works? Their bias may be geared towards aiding or antagonizing the President, depending on their political leanings, but aren’t they simply catering to their target audiences? If CNN viewers were tired of hearing everything negative about the President, they’d turn it off. If Fox News viewers were tired of hearing how President Trump is making America great again, wouldn’t they turn it off as well?

It’s easy to say the media is biased. We point it out all the time. However, is it really fair to blame them for following the eyeballs and viewership numbers? Perhaps we need to ask if their bias is simply a reflection of the polarization that has overtaken us, the people who provide them with the eyeballs in the first place.

I’m Tammy Rucker. Thank you for listening.


Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


PolitiFact demonstrates pure partisanship declaring Trump’s physical barrier claims as “Mostly False”



PolitiFact demonstrates pure partisanship declaring Trumps physical barrier claims Mostly False

Pulitzer Prize winning fact checking agency PolitiFact has been accused of leaning dozens if not hundreds of their fact checks to favor the Democratic perspective on most issues. In one of the most egregious examples of partisan hacking, they declared a statement made by President Trump during his televised address to the nation as “Mostly False.”

Here’s the statement: Senator Charles Schumer “repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected president.”

This is undeniably 100% true. It’s demonstrable that Schumer and many Democrats have supported physical barriers along the border in the recent past. Their support for changed sharply once then-candidate Trump started talking about needing a border wall, so technically speaking that portion of President Trump’s statement wasn’t entirely true. He said their support changed after he was elected, but it started changing a few months after he first entered the race.

Here’s a graph from Cato Institute that shows support from Democrats at over 40% in October, 2015, when it still seemed far fetched that he would win the nomination, let alone the general election. From that point, it took a nose dive.

Democratic Support for Border Wall

The portion of the PolitiFact article in which the author tries to justify the “Mostly False” rating attempts to distinguish between the differences in security barriers proposed by the President and accepted by Democrats in the past.

Did Democrats reverse border wall position after Donald Trump was elected?, along with tens of other Democrats including former President Barack Obama, voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized building a fence along about 700 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico. That’s the majority of the barrier in place today along the southern border.

However, the fence was mocked as a “nothing wall” by Trump in the past and was far less ambitious, both politically and physically, than the wall Trump wants to build now.

This logical gymnastics is farcical when we read the statement that is allegedly “Mostly False.” The President did not suggest nor has he ever believed the Democrats supported the type of wall he’s requesting. That’s why he was very specific in stating Schumer and the Democrats “repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past” instead of saying they supported his wall. This is important because for a fact-checker, the details are important.

They have repeatedly judged against conservatives for the tiniest nuance in their statements to attack. But when the statement is properly worded, as the President’s was, this fact checker decided to dig into intent rather than fact checking the statement itself. He penalized the statement as being false because he reconstructed what the President said as meaning something different. This is convenient selective inference on their part. But they’re completely unbiased. Just ask them.

When even the “trusted” fact checkers are willing to abandon ethics and call an obviously true statement false for the sake of political expediency, it’s no wonder so many Americans are frustrated with the entire mainstream media mechanism.

This is why we humbly request you support us with a donation so we can try to counterbalance the horrid leftism present in mainstream media.

Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading


Mueller’s office debunks Buzzfeed’s report



Muellers office debunks Buzzfeeds report

That didn’t take long.

After a flurry of reports surrounding a Buzzfeed article that claimed then-candidate Trump ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, a statement from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office has debunked it.

Spokesman Peter Carr says, “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.”

As we noted yesterday, Buzzfeed is not credible. Now, any remnant of credibility they had left is evaporating away. This is not a serious news outlet. They’re just a click-bait farm.

NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading


Is Buzzfeed a credible news source?



Is Buzzfeed a credible news source

Update: Debunked.

Original Story:

Is Buzzfeed credible? The short answer is, “not usually.” They have a penchant for silly articles like 13 Potatoes That Look Like Channing Tatum and Which Ousted Arab Spring Ruler Are You? But they have been getting serious about real journalism, and more importantly, they’ve been spending serious cash to establish themselves as a major news outlet.

Their latest bombshell is almost certainly their biggest to date if it’s true.

Donald Trump Told Michael Cohen To Lie To Congress About Moscow Tower Project Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. “Make it happen,” the sources said Trump told Cohen.

For nearly three years, since just after candidate Trump was locked in as the GOP nominee in July, 2016, mainstream media has been screaming about the end for Trump. Every news cycle featured a bombshell, tipping point, or the beginning of the end for Trump, as was hilariously mashed up last year in a video.

But this time, we may have finally seen the actual beginning of the end. If the Buzzfeed story is accurate and if Robert Mueller’s report substantiates these accusations, there’s almost no way around it. President Trump will face impeachment, indictment after his term, or both. Of course, that’s a really big “if.”

Buzzfeed claims their two sources have more that just Michael Cohen’s testimony to back up the charges. They have “internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents.” If this is true and links the President directly, it’s pretty much game over.

There are three reasons I’m personally skeptical.

  1. Mueller’s strategy. There is no question Robert Mueller is a calculating investigator. He doesn’t do anything without a purpose, and there doesn’t appear to be any purpose for such a stinging leak that is unlikely to yield better fruit than what they already allegedly have on the President. Moreover, Mueller is a spotlight guy. He’d prefer the grand reveal when his report comes out to a Buzzfeed scoop in the middle of January. And if the two members of his team that leaked the information did so independently, then it calls into question the motivations of his team. Either way, this doesn’t fit.
  2. Steele Dossier. Buzzfeed is the organization that received wide rebukes from journalists on both the right and left when they released the unredacted Steele Dossier. It is uncorroborated to this day and offered nothing but tabloid substance to the conversation. Their justification for releasing it was since it was being circulated among those in the highest levels of government, the people had the right to know about it. But when even the NY Times and Washington Post condemn the action, you know they went too far with their brand of journalism.
  3. Nobody else has it. Exclusives are hard to come by for top notch news outlets, especially of this magnitude. For Buzzfeed to be the recipient of such riches while nobody else has it is far-fetched. If the members of the Mueller team who leaked the information wanted to go for maximum effect, they would have gone elsewhere. If they were getting paid, then they’re in big trouble. Again, this is very fishy.

Of course, there’s this…

…and this:

If this is real, the President is in trouble. That’s a huge “if” when we consider the source. But if Buzzfeed is the publication that brings down the President, it may be a sign of the times. I have serious doubts, but we’ll find out soon enough.

Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading




Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report