The Real Reason For Nancy's Anger

[aligncare]

Come on, @Jazzhead ...that's just crazy talk.

There were no cell phones, let alone 'smart' phones....the Commodore 64 was cutting edge.

Ronald Reagan got a tongue-bath compared to Donald Trump.

And that’s not just opinion, the Media Research Center has the numbers, the data that shows off-the-charts media bias and the inordinate saturation of negative reporting compared to what Reagan faced.

I’d like to see anyone who could have possibly survived such an onslaught other than Donald Trump. We are lucky to have such a great warrior fighting for America’s future to remain and grow as a democratic republic.

[Cyber Liberty]

Reagan's negative press wasn't much different.  But his poll numbers reflected the public's respect for his policies.  But with Trump there's a disconnect.   Trump needs to grow up.  His SOTU was an excellent start,  and echoed the classic Reagan themes.   But Musiclady's right -  Reagan's voice was authentic.

You have some sort of fantasy glasses on.  Reagan had a slanted Press, yes, but it was nowhere near 90%.

Try again.

[roamer_1]

Come on, @Jazzhead ...that's just crazy talk.

There were no cell phones, let alone 'smart' phones....the Commodore 64 was cutting edge.

Ronald Reagan got a tongue-bath compared to Donald Trump.

Nonsense @DCPatriot .

The major difference between then and now, is that then there were but three media sources and everyone believed them. Dan friggin Rather, baby.

[Cyber Liberty]

Nonsense @DCPatriot .

The major difference between then and now, is that then there were but three media sources and everyone believed them. Dan friggin Rather, baby.

I don't know about the "believing them" part.  The reason Rush Limbaugh's show took off in 1988 was because there was a huge void in the market, created by a general disbelief of the press. 

[roamer_1]

I don't know about the "believing them" part.  The reason Rush Limbaugh's show took off in 1988 was because there was a huge void in the market, created by a general disbelief of the press.

Right... But before Rush there was hardly an opposition voice at all. Indoctrination was as complete as it gets

[sneakypete]

Exactly. Not sure why republican critics of Trump here at TBR fail to see that the toxic media environment today is orders of magnitude higher than that which Reagan faced and has had a markedly negative impact on Trump’s approval. And what’s puzzling is that they see no cause and effect relationship with this. They instead conclude Trump is to blame!

No, he’s not. Trump didn’t ask for this. It was thrust upon him in a coordinated, democrat operatives/media-wide conspiracy to oust the newly elected president. Trump’s fault? I think not.

@aligncare

Of COURSE it is Trump's fault! Nobody FORCED him to run,and if he hadn't ran,it would be Jebby in the WH,and the world would be safe for globalism!

[musiclady]

Right... But before Rush there was hardly an opposition voice at all. Indoctrination was as complete as it gets

Yep.

A single Conservative on a liberal panel on a liberal network was the best we had before Rush.

Now there are all kinds of media outlets for Conservatives, and the cell phone, social media, blogger world also includes conservative voices.

The idea that Reagan didn't have to deal with opposition is absurd.  And the idea that Reagan would ever behave as badly as Trump does just because there is greater opposition, or that Trump somehow has an excuse for his behavior because of it,  is even more absurd

[sneakypete]

Nonsense @DCPatriot .

The major difference between then and now, is that then there were but three media sources and everyone believed them. Dan friggin Rather, baby.

@roamer_1

Not to mention "Uncle" Walter Cronkite,the "most trusted newsman in America",who liked to go sailing with the Kennedy Klan on weekends. The very same man that single-handedly turned the massive defeat of the North Vietnames during Tet 68 into a massive victory for them,and a total defeat of US forces.

Hey! If a Dim can't defeat the NVA,there was no way in HELL Cronkite,the evil bastard,was going to allow a Republican be seen as doing so!

[Lando Lincoln]

Interesting question this, "who has/had tougher media treatment".  Reagan or Trump?  Kind of like:

Montana or Brady?

Mays or Trout?

[aligncare]

Right... But before Rush there was hardly an opposition voice at all. Indoctrination was as complete as it gets

You’re wrong. They were still committing random acts of journalism back then. Today, even the financial pages (and style sections, sports pages, classified, movie reviews and weather) are riddled with politically slanted reporting attacking Trump.

The Media Research Center has the numbers. There’s no comparison.

[musiclady]

Interesting question this, "who has/had tougher media treatment".  Reagan or Trump?  Kind of like:

Montana or Brady?

Mays or Trout?

The more important question for me is, if the Trump-has-it-worse people are right and it is worse now, is his bad behavior somehow justifiable....

And conversely, if Reagan were excoriated in a different way than he was (blamed for everything wrong in the world as he was, but in a 24/7 world, would he have been justified in behaving badly because of that?

For me, logically, there is never an excuse for bad behavior, no matter what the opposition is, so it's a moot point.

[EdinVA]

Interesting question this, "who has/had tougher media treatment".  Reagan or Trump?  Kind of like:

Montana or Brady?

Mays or Trout?

The only real reason I would say Trump is the attacks are personal.  The "attacks" on Reagan were more over policy and no one attacked Nancy or the Reagan kids.It was not 24 hours a day, no holds barred, anything goes attacks.  Then when we try to defend Trump, we are labeled a cult or worse... It is really a sick time

[roamer_1]

You’re wrong. They were still committing random acts of journalism back then. Today, even the financial pages (and style sections, sports pages, classified, movie reviews and weather) are riddled with politically slanted reporting attacking Trump.

The Media Research Center has the numbers. There’s no comparison.

Again, nonsense. the whole thing is dying on the vine.

[Cyber Liberty]

Right... But before Rush there was hardly an opposition voice at all. Indoctrination was as complete as it gets

The media landscape was different then, and the players too.  Crossfire was on CNN, and Hardball with Chris Matthews actually had conservative guests.  Pat Buchanan would never be allowed on today's CNN!  When Fox News came online, the leftist outfits like CNN and PMSNBC abandoned all pretense of "balance."  FNC became the balance. 

On radio, as Limbaugh's audience grew, Larry King's overnight show veered dramatically to the left.  Same effect.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yep.

A single Conservative on a liberal panel on a liberal network was the best we had before Rush.

Now there are all kinds of media outlets for Conservatives, and the cell phone, social media, blogger world also includes conservative voices.

The idea that Reagan didn't have to deal with opposition is absurd.  And the idea that Reagan would ever behave as badly as Trump does just because there is greater opposition, or that Trump somehow has an excuse for his behavior because of it,  is even more absurd

I would not say Reagan "had it easy," my point would be the times are not comparable.

[Right_in_Virginia]

For me, logically, there is never an excuse for bad behavior, no matter what the opposition is, so it's a moot point.

The same "principled conservatives" who insist on style over substance whine the loudest that their conservative political brand is dying on the vine.  If only connecting dots was in their wheelhouse.....     

[Cyber Liberty]

The more important question for me is, if the Trump-has-it-worse people are right and it is worse now, is his bad behavior somehow justifiable....

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

[roamer_1]

The media landscape was different then, and the players too.  Crossfire was on CNN, and Hardball with Chris Matthews actually had conservative guests. 

Right... to be jeered. 3 or 4 to 1 dog piles.   

Pat Buchanan would never be allowed on today's CNN!  When Fox News came online, the leftist outfits like CNN and PMSNBC abandoned all pretense of "balance."  FNC became the balance. 

On radio, as Limbaugh's audience grew, Larry King's overnight show veered dramatically to the left.  Same effect.

So what? All of it is dying on the vine. CNN, which is unarguably the liberal powerhouse is underwater.
Often all of liberal media combined can't touch FOX, and FOX ain't all that hot anymore either. The internet has already made liberal papers inconsequential, and liberal media ain't far behind. The battle front now is on facebook, twitter, youtube and the like, with views cratering the MSM. And facebook is already starting to crumble.

[roamer_1]

For me, logically, there is never an excuse for bad behavior, no matter what the opposition is, so it's a moot point.

That's right.

[Cyber Liberty]

Right... to be jeered. 3 or 4 to 1 dog piles.   

So what? All of it is dying on the vine. CNN, which is unarguably the liberal powerhouse is underwater.
Often all of liberal media combined can't touch FOX, and FOX ain't all that hot anymore either. The internet has already made liberal papers inconsequential, and liberal media ain't far behind. The battle front now is on facebook, twitter, youtube and the like, with views cratering the MSM. And facebook is already starting to crumble.

Crossfire was one-on-one.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that as much as the press disliked Reagan, today's press is demonstrably worse. It seems the fragmentation of the media is responsible.

[roamer_1]

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that as much as the press disliked Reagan, today's press is demonstrably worse. It seems the fragmentation of the media is responsible.

I don't think it is worse. I think it is easier to see now, and then is distant past. Remembering how it was seems hard for folks to do... Even just back to Dubya and all the flack he took, not to mention Reagan

[Lando Lincoln]

I don't think it is worse. I think it is easier to see now, and then is distant past. Remembering how it was seems hard for folks to do... Even just back to Dubya and all the flack he took, not to mention Reagan

Dubya always frustrated me because he never used the Bully Pulpit.  He never fought back in ways that were afforded him. 

[DCPatriot]

Interesting question this, "who has/had tougher media treatment".  Reagan or Trump?  Kind of like:

Montana or Brady?

Mays or Trout?

 

aluminum trash cans or electronic buzzers.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Dubya always frustrated me because he never used the Bully Pulpit.  He never fought back in ways that were afforded him.

If he had, we'd have the same detractors on the right about Bush not "acting Presidential."

[roamer_1]

Dubya always frustrated me because he never used the Bully Pulpit.  He never fought back in ways that were afforded him.

Oh I agree... But the flack was there all the same.