Harvard Study Reveals HUGE Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Was not an attack just pointing out who what you are saying is the complete opposite of how you have reacted when the shoe is on the other foot. Pointing out how your opinion isn't really worth listening to here because of the hypocrisy it drips with. Which does have to do with the topic.

DP

a reply to: theantediluvian

Drudge, yep that's a major news outlet alright. Just like Limbaugh, Breitbart, Alex Jones - right wing sensationalism peddlers for a relatively small number of people. Where do the liberals have to go to get their hyperbolic, crazy conspiracy fueled stories? They just have to turn on the TV.

""Can liberals see nothing good in Trumps actions?""


Does anyone else cringe every time people jump straight to the throats of the big bad boogie men known as LIBERALS!!! RAWR!

Maybe, just maybe, Trump has negative reports and media because he's not a very popular man in today's world, and his policies are more damaging and quick band-aid solutions.
If this was 1950 America I'm sure he would have done just fine. But guess what, times change and the people who seem to get labeled as liberals, not sure who they encompass, but it seems like EVERYONE BUT Trump supporters are liberals and are wrong, because they said so.

Here's a report from me, a man who lives in Southern Ontario, a trades person and meets a lot of people, I haven't met ONE person who likes Trump, or supports him. Sure some say things like "He's a smart man...but", B-but, what? And then the flood gates open.
It's an isolated report, but it's just my personal experience.

a reply to: Christosterone

A train wreck is a train wreck and just because one points to it and calls it a train wreck does not mean there is an agenda to turn it into a train wreck because it already is. A total and unapologetic ''train wreck''.

a reply to: underwerks

Are you really trying to be this ignorant on purpose? Am I over estimating you??

So you think being scrutinized 100% of the time is being held accountable and not one bit bias?

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Christosterone

What exactly is there to say positively about Donald Trump that would swing these numbers the other way in the first place?

How about this? - he isn't Hillary.
The scumbag Leftist MSM wanted their scumbag Queen to have her coronation, they basically banked their reputations on her winning and now they are the laughing stock of biased reporting.
Half of them were reporting 2 days before the election that Hillary had a 70% or better chance of winning
They will try to do everything they can to try to swing the minds of the people against him, no matter what he does that is good.
Hell...if Trump cured cancer, these slobs would still bitch about him.

Not-Hillary.
Trumps legacy. You guys must be so proud.

Yep...you bet your ass we are.
That was my goal, keeping that corrupt bitch out of the WH. Anybody would have been better than her and I mean ANYBODY. If you ran against Hillary, I would have voted for you.
So if we gotta deal with 1/1000th of that type of corruption with Trump....we win.
Is Trump the greatest?...fu*k no but he won, so deal with it.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Christosterone

I was just thinking, at what time does the bias become so one sided partisan before it crosses the line into political advertising? Maybe the FEC should look into this?

or even worse, what if it influences the results of an election?

apparently the liberals really get their panties in a twist if someone tries to influence an election.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And making excuses for CNN calling it a slow news day isn't being disingenuous?

Get real.

My main point is the news is without a doubt biased towards Trump. This is an undeniable fact and anyone deflecting this needs to reflect in front of a mirror.

LOL. You just refuse to admit that Trump's media problems are of his own making. The above is just another example of it. You use a stupid ice cream story from one news source as "proof" that all of media is out to get Trump. You ignore the fact that Trump has made an enemy of the media since day 1 of his candidacy, constantly ridiculing and demeaning it. And you ignore that much of the negative press against Trump is just repeating Trump's words. Heck, I even brought up in the thread that recently news stations are having trouble getting Republican congressmen to come on their stations and defend Trump, crickets from you on that.

Why do you not answer the question as to what the media SHOULD be reporting on Trump? What is an example of a positive story that the media should right now be talking about in regards to Trump but isn't?

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Was not an attack just pointing out who what you are saying is the complete opposite of how you have reacted when the shoe is on the other foot. Pointing out how your opinion isn't really worth listening to here because of the hypocrisy it drips with. Which does have to do with the topic.

Ditto....

The obama hate ran deep...and all without him being a bumbling bafoon...

With trump it's MAINLY been because of his own actions, where with Obama they had to go all Muslim Plante antichrist purposefully trying to destroy America...



This study isn't accounting for constant lies and uncohesive messages..

Someone in trumps camp will tell the talking heads their talking points, then trump comes out two days later and says the opposite..

a reply to: RickyD

Are we going to talk about the topic, or do you have a man crush on me or something? What positive news stories about Trump should the media be talking about that they are ignoring?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't know, how about reporting how there has been a surge in immigrant arrest? 

Or even how illegal immigrants crossing the border have dropped even without the wall? 

I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve the scrutiny. In fact, I expect it and encourage it as long as it's done with honesty and integrity. What don't you understand? The bias is absolutely real and I this is my main point. The 2 scoops itself doesn't mean jack, but the fact that they would even talk about tells me all I need to know, and it should tell you the same but for some reason it doesn't.

It took a Harvard study to see this? Wow, I think people are blind, how can so many people not see what is happening. I did deeper, I try to figure out why. I guess the media got pissed at Trump for calling their news fake, so they are proving him right.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


Mainly of his own making.. like 75%+, I'll give them 25% from the pile on effect.. but not from a vast conspiracy where everyone knows trump is right, but the conspiracy that it is because they are being paid/threatened to attack him.. rather than it being because as individuals they all think he is a bafoon..


That is the real lie in all of this..that is the real propaganda..


The cult of trump can do the mental gymnastics to believe in vast illuminati type conspiracies..but that the majority of the county just flat out disagrees seems inconceivable..

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

Except this isn't a conspiracy and is real wether you want to believe in it or not.

Really? Got any proof? Transcripts of heads of news organizations talking conspiracy? Anything substantive outside of coincidences and biases to prove it true?

The above is the exact opposite of how you treat any topic that aligns with your views regardless of evidence which in many if not most cases there is none. Here is a study done by Harvard that shows some pretty good factual information about the medias coverage of trump compared to many other presidents...Yet you try to act like this is not good evidence...Which for you is pretty hypocritical. Care to point out how this is less factual and is less evidence than the anonymous source stories you seem to get behind as if there is any evidence there?


Is that on topic enough for you buddy...

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

Are you really trying to be this ignorant on purpose? Am I over estimating you??

So you think being scrutinized 100% of the time is being held accountable and not one bit bias?

Yes. Being scrutinized is how you hold someone accountable, in anything. Let me know if I'm losing you here.

There is a bias. Reality is inherently biased against someone who lies about it and twists it for their own purpose. Such as Trump.

It's not everyone else, it's Trump. Its funny the republican party claims to be the party of personal responsibility, except when it comes to Trump.

Hmmmmm...

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't know, how about reporting how there has been a surge in immigrant arrest? 

Done.
Papers, please Soaring ICE arrests under Trump are only the beginning

US immigration arrests surge 40% under Donald Trump

ICE arrests of undocumented immigrants with no criminal record surge 156 percent

Immigration arrests surge 40% under Trump

Or even how illegal immigrants crossing the border have dropped even without the wall? 

Also done.
Illegal border crossings continue to drop, even as Trump ramps up anti-immigration enforcement

US-Mexico border apprehensions hit 17-year lows

Illegal Immigration Decreases Significantly Along Southern Border

Hell I even wrote a thread on it (2 years ago):
Immigration Reverse! More Mexicans Are Leaving U.S. Than Coming In

I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve the scrutiny. In fact, I expect it and encourage it as long as it's done with honesty and integrity. What don't you understand? The bias is absolutely real and I this is my main point. The 2 scoops itself doesn't mean jack, but the fact that they would even talk about tells me all I need to know, and it should tell you the same but for some reason it doesn't.

The bias may be real, but its all Trump's fault it exists in the first place. You can't sit there and insult the media day in and day out and expect them not to react to it.

a reply to: rickymouse

It takes a Harvard study because so many have these blinders that won't let them see the truth when it's staring them in the face...It seems as if anything that goes against their personal feelings has to basically be an admission by those responsible for them to believe...As we see here even with the study they still play mental gymnastics/double standards with the topic.