Harvard Study Reveals HUGE Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: windword

The reason the media reports are negative is because almost everything Trump actually "does" is contrary, controversial, dangerous, objectionable and morally questionable.

The purpose of the "press" isn't to be cheerleaders for Trump.

The narratives make every move of his that way... As example with the firing of Comely, would you like me to show you the endless videos of the left screaming for his head on a platter? Now that he actually fires him it is contrary, controversial, dangerous, objectionable and morally questionable... pick anyone...lol

This man knows things!

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Christosterone

Correlation does not prove causation. Your study doesn't take into account buffoonery. Trump's level of buffoonery is causing increased levels of coverage. Everyday I wake up thinking how many times with he jam his foot into his mouth. Just the way he described his conversations with Comey really makes you think he's guilty of obstruction. It's not solely the media's fault!

Its not mutually exclusive. Trump is buffoonish often enough. But thats not really what the media insanity is about. We are headed for some dark times and its mostly not about Trump, though those appointments are god awful. Yes hes a buffoon. Crunchy peanut butter is smoother.

Harvard Study Reveals HUGE Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

People have no clue how offended the main stream news media was by his live 'you're fake news' comment. They are seemingly multi headed but still a hydra, they been orchestrating against him ever since.

They are so easily triggered and do not forget. Everyone knows the news is full of lies and fabrication, but to air it live at a press conference.... (sizzling).

How dare trump tarnish their image.

In my own opinion, people fear Trump because they're so used to what they've been drugged with, aka media bias and other crap, that they're afraid to step out of the darkness and into the light.

originally posted by: windword
Americans had a choice between a "douche bag" and a "turd sandwich". They elected the "turd sandwich". Now people are upset when the media reports that the "turd sandwich" is doing "#ty things"!

What exactly has Trump done that in your words was/is $H!tty? Could you give a few examples?

originally posted by: Christosterone

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

...

Harvard Study Reveals HUGE Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

Look, I find it obvious that there is a bias against Trump. but no, that is not what this report finds.


They find that coverage is mostly negative in tone but they explicitly do NOT find a bias against Trump. I disagree with them on this, but that is what the report says.

The anti-Trump bias is a spin your source, heatst.com, add.


For some reason - I guess bias - your source equates negative coverage with bias, and that is of course a flawed thinking. Yes, obviously a bias against Trump leads to negative coverage, but negative coverage of a subject is not in and of itself a bias against the subject.

The label 'negative bias' only apply when neutral things are represented negatively (or positive things less positive and so on) either absolutely or relative to coverage of other subjects. I believe this very much to be the case on the coverage of Trump and in particular on the coverage of Trump relative to Hillary.

The Harvard report, however, just cites a 2000 study and notes that journalists are biased towards the negative on the whole. In doing so the report absolves the media from any anti-Trump bias - it is just 'regular bias' it says.


I know, I know, it is tempting to just use the findings as evidence for anti-Trump bias like your source does, but if we do that we miss the larger issue: That Harvard, even when faced when the overwhelming evidence for negative reporting does not even consider an anti-Trump bias to exist.

..and how biased is that?

You are pretty niave or ignorant if you want to say the media isnt against trump. Its as obvious as the sun is bright

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Christosterone

Can liberals see nothing good in Trumps actions?

For example?

The reason the media reports are negative is because almost everything Trump actually "does" is contrary, controversial, dangerous, objectionable and morally questionable.

The purpose of the "press" isn't to be cheerleaders for Trump.

So he has done nothing at all good? Nothing? That's crazy talk.

Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president.

The purpose of the press is to be the Democrats' cheerleaders apparently. Oh and incite hatred and division to get ratings.

Harvard concluded the ONLY fair and balanced news outlet was ... wait for it ... FOX.

Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic.

a reply to: DupontDeux

The only way you can get to 93% negative coverage is if you are biased. It's not that hard to understand. Where do you think Fox gets their 48% positive coverage from? There have been good things happening, some stations just don't report them. That's bias. How do you not understand that? Is your bias keeping you from thinking straight?

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: DupontDeux

The only way you can get to 93% negative coverage is if you are biased. It's not that hard to understand. Where do you think Fox gets their 48% positive coverage from? There have been good things happening, some stations just don't report them. That's bias. How do you not understand that? Is your bias keeping you from thinking straight?

..and in fact it is worse. The 93% does not even play to the fact that negative stories about the DNC are being suppressed. The DNC are currently trying to argue for a class action law suit claiming fraud and election rigging to not go to trial. Their defence is that they are allowed to rig their elections. They are effectively admitting they rigged the Primaries.

Even the lawyers are amazed this is not being covered in the news.

a reply to: face23785

How can you not understand that Fox News has been a supporter of Trump? Their 52% negative coverage doesn't tell you something?
SMH

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: face23785

How can you not understand that Fox News has been a supporter of Trump? Their 52% negative coverage doesn't tell you something?
SMH

Some on Fox have been supportive (very supportive), others not so much. Shepard Smith is about as anti-Trump as you can get. Krauthammer was very much against Trump during the election. I think the study actually supports Fox's self praise.

a reply to: UKTruth

So you see that Fox News are *more* biased towards Trump and even that doesn't help. Thanks for confirming my point.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: UKTruth

So you see that Fox News are *more* biased towards Trump and even that doesn't help. Thanks for confirming my point.

see there is a disconnect in your logic u dont see. with that logic the same case can be made in the other direction but the argument has much more to stand on going off these numbers.

im curious just what legislation has u so riled up? dont name off the things from his campaigning that he somehow hasent accomplished in just over 100 days. it takes far longer to get things done in washington and u cant really give that a fair shake till atleast the first year and if 25% of them ar accomplished by the time his 4 years is up that would be pretty impressive. most presidents dont ever accomplish that amount in 4 years. just not liking the man for his words isnt a good excuse either, hell ive never liked trump, that doesnt mean u cant be a good leader and get things accomplished that help the people. plenty of cases going back through history of hated leaders that were considered to be great for their country, business, etc.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

If they were supporting Trump how do you explain the fact half their coverage is negative? This is what's known as balance. Fox is indeed a conservative outlet, but this shows they at least make an honest effort to present both sides. I pity those of you so blind you can't see 93% negative coverage is an overwhelming amount of bias. That is some thorough brainwashing, not just the run-of-the-mill #.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Deaf Alien

If they were supporting Trump how do you explain the fact half their coverage is negative? This is what's known as balance. Fox is indeed a conservative outlet, but this shows they at least make an honest effort to present both sides. I pity those of you so blind you can't see 93% negative coverage is an overwhelming amount of bias. That is some thorough brainwashing, not just the run-of-the-mill #.

THAT'S THE POINT! *Facepalm*
Fox News is biased to the right and more supportive of Trump. Even that didn't help. Understand? It tells you there's not much good to report on Trump. "Fair and balance"? HA! I've been a long time reader of Fox News. Apparently you aren't.

a reply to: TheScale

Look at it this way... if CNN reported negatively about Obama (more than 50%) what does that tell you?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Deaf Alien

If they were supporting Trump how do you explain the fact half their coverage is negative? This is what's known as balance. Fox is indeed a conservative outlet, but this shows they at least make an honest effort to present both sides. I pity those of you so blind you can't see 93% negative coverage is an overwhelming amount of bias. That is some thorough brainwashing, not just the run-of-the-mill #.

THAT'S THE POINT! *Facepalm*
Fox News is biased to the right and more supportive of Trump. Even that didn't help. Understand? It tells you there's not much good to report on Trump. "Fair and balance"? HA! I've been a long time reader of Fox News. Apparently you aren't.

You should keep your uninformed assumptions to yourself, that way you're not embarrassed when you're wrong. 48/52 is about as balanced as you're gonna find. The fact their coverage is split down the middle is a plus not a negative to anyone looking for fair coverage instead of the tabloid nonsense CNN and their ilk have become.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Deaf Alien

If they were supporting Trump how do you explain the fact half their coverage is negative? This is what's known as balance. Fox is indeed a conservative outlet, but this shows they at least make an honest effort to present both sides. I pity those of you so blind you can't see 93% negative coverage is an overwhelming amount of bias. That is some thorough brainwashing, not just the run-of-the-mill #.

THAT'S THE POINT! *Facepalm*
Fox News is biased to the right and more supportive of Trump. Even that didn't help. Understand? It tells you there's not much good to report on Trump. "Fair and balance"? HA! I've been a long time reader of Fox News. Apparently you aren't.

If you can show me FOX having a 93% negative tone towards Obama then you have a point. If you can't, then it seems that at least compared to CNN and the other outlets, FOX is more 'fair and balanced' than they are.

a reply to: face23785

You are embarrassing yourself. Like I said think of it this way: if CNN was 48/52 with Obama, what would that tell you?