Harvard Study Reveals HUGE Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

a reply to: RickyD

Still talking about me and not the topic at hand... I think we are going to have to stop talking to each other. Your crush on me is getting in the way of the thread topic.

PS: I never disputed the study.

a reply to: underwerks

I wouldn't know because I'm a liberal.

But just listen to yourself for one second and reflect on this. You are saying that being under scrutiny 100% of the time because of your past (not to mention before he was ever a politician) is justifiable. The fact that you are holding his past against him is already considered bias, now throw on top of that a magnifying glass of scrutiny. You see the problem yet?

a reply to: Christosterone

Well ..

Gotta give it up for Fox..

Being 50/50

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

I wouldn't know because I'm a liberal.

But just listen to yourself for one second and reflect on this. You are saying that being under scrutiny 100% of the time because of your past (not to mention before he was ever a politician) is justifiable. The fact that you are holding his past against him is already considered bias, now throw on top of that a magnifying glass of scrutiny. You see the problem yet?

You mean like harping on the President's birth certificate for 8 years straight, even after he produces said certificate despite no obligation to do so?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

Replying to the bolded text.

As professional journalists, I would most definitely expect them not to react to it. The same way I expect professional athletes not to beat the crap out of fans when they get taunted. The same way I expect a police officer not to use excessive force because a criminal called him a pig. Sure these things happen but usually when it does those actions are condemned not enabled and applauded.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

This is where we'll just have to agree to disagree because sure he deserves some, if not most of it, but it is absolutely NOT all his fault like some of you would like to believe.

He attacks the media not because the media attacks him? But vice versa? If I recall the media has been demonizing Trump even before his inception.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was nowhere near the birth certificate so that doesn't apply to me. Plus I liked Obama.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

I wouldn't know because I'm a liberal.

But just listen to yourself for one second and reflect on this. You are saying that being under scrutiny 100% of the time because of your past (not to mention before he was ever a politician) is justifiable. The fact that you are holding his past against him is already considered bias, now throw on top of that a magnifying glass of scrutiny. You see the problem yet?

You mean like harping on the President's birth certificate for 8 years straight, even after he produces said certificate despite no obligation to do so?

I don't recall the main stream media constantly going on about the Birth certificate thing. I recall individuals who questioned it not being convinced with the photoshopped version of the birth certificate going on about it but I'm pretty sure CNN, ABC, NBC etc.. didn't have constant negative coverage of it.

a reply to: Christosterone

What do you expect? Do you want them to lie and pretend like everything is alright? It's not, in case you haven't noticed.
We have a completely self-centered, insecure, immature, emotionally damaged man in the WH. His own need for praise and love keeps him from thinking beyond that. It's sad, actually.

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

I wouldn't know because I'm a liberal.

But just listen to yourself for one second and reflect on this. You are saying that being under scrutiny 100% of the time because of your past (not to mention before he was ever a politician) is justifiable. The fact that you are holding his past against him is already considered bias, now throw on top of that a magnifying glass of scrutiny. You see the problem yet?

You mean like harping on the President's birth certificate for 8 years straight, even after he produces said certificate despite no obligation to do so?

I don't recall the main stream media constantly going on about the Birth certificate thing. I recall individuals who questioned it not being convinced with the photoshopped version of the birth certificate going on about it but I'm pretty sure CNN, ABC, NBC etc.. didn't have constant negative coverage of it.

Probably the realized early-on it was BS, so they didn't give it the attention, some nuts would have liked. Like Pizza-gate. They didn't cover it because it was such BS. Fodder for Alex Jones and his ilk.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

I wouldn't know because I'm a liberal.

But just listen to yourself for one second and reflect on this. You are saying that being under scrutiny 100% of the time because of your past (not to mention before he was ever a politician) is justifiable. The fact that you are holding his past against him is already considered bias, now throw on top of that a magnifying glass of scrutiny. You see the problem yet?

Nope, I don't see a problem. I'm not one of these suckers that believe Trump magically changed the moment he was sworn in to office. A turd on the floor of the oval office is still a turd.

As is becoming apparent to everyone, his own party included.

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.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations

Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility.

This study suggests that, at least when it comes to recent history, he’s right.

Harvard Study Reveals HUGE Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

This just in: water is wet, the sky is blue, and the media is anti-trump.

I gotta admit even I was a little surprised at these numbers....wow

Look at them on these graphs...the second relates to coverages of the first 100 days so includes the inauguration and lead up before trump turned into the medias creation of evil incarnate.

These numbers mirror darkly the statistics of Mao, Stalin, Pot, Castro, Chavez or any of the great despots....
Meaning 93% positive coverage for the aforementioned dictators is every bit as disconcerting as 93% negative.

Can liberals see nothing good in Trumps actions?
Well, imguess they can see for a couple of seconds ever minute he is not evil....but 93% of the time he is doing bad things..

Keep it up media...your march into obsolescence is stunning and hilarious.

-Chris

So the professor studied what is obvious to anyone who is paying attention... I guess it helps that the study came from Harvard so maybe it will give it some credibility to the blind libs...

originally posted by: RickyD
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.

It is strange because Democrats said Trump voters were less educated. Yet these highly liberal people are not showing wisdom much in their actions. Maybe college is taking away their ability to comprehend things. It is well known that the more you memorize, the less you are able to adapt that knowledge to other things. IQ and Knowledge are at opposite ends of the spectrum sometimes. High IQ people with knowledge structure the memories differently, it has much more flexability. It is how the information flows through the brain that is important and how it interacts with other memories to compare the information. This takes more time, so people with IQs that are high sometimes do not do so good at timed tests, they cannot easily parrot what they have been conditioned to believe is real. They compare information to varify if things are real or pertinent.

Ok, so the people who voted for Clinton are brainwashed, they cannot reason as well but can memorize the information they are conditioned to believe is real and will not question it. Parrots of the highest degree. Does that make any sense?

originally posted by: Gargamel
Replying to the bolded text.

As professional journalists, I would most definitely expect them not to react to it. The same way I expect professional athletes not to beat the crap out of fans when they get taunted. The same way I expect a police officer not to use excessive force because a criminal called him a pig. Sure these things happen but usually when it does those actions are condemned not enabled and applauded.

There is the ideal and then there is the reality. Humans strive for the ideal, but we are flawed creatures. I am just stating how reality works.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

This is where we'll just have to agree to disagree because sure he deserves some, if not most of it, but it is absolutely NOT all his fault like some of you would like to believe.

He attacks the media not because the media attacks him? But vice versa? If I recall the media has been demonizing Trump even before his inception.

Well Trump has had a life time of goofy behavior that warrants that type of coverage. I will tell you this, I miss those days because then I could just ignore Trump's buffoonery. Even if it was in the news. "oh Trump is up to something stupid again? Ok. So what else is going on?" NOW I have to follow it because he is the President and is making choices that could effect me personally. I have to pay attention.

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

I wouldn't know because I'm a liberal.

But just listen to yourself for one second and reflect on this. You are saying that being under scrutiny 100% of the time because of your past (not to mention before he was ever a politician) is justifiable. The fact that you are holding his past against him is already considered bias, now throw on top of that a magnifying glass of scrutiny. You see the problem yet?

You mean like harping on the President's birth certificate for 8 years straight, even after he produces said certificate despite no obligation to do so?

I don't recall the main stream media constantly going on about the Birth certificate thing. I recall individuals who questioned it not being convinced with the photoshopped version of the birth certificate going on about it but I'm pretty sure CNN, ABC, NBC etc.. didn't have constant negative coverage of it.

Stop pretending like Fox isn't mainstream.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: RickyD
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.

It is strange because Democrats said Trump voters were less educated. Yet these highly liberal people are not showing wisdom much in their actions. Maybe college is taking away their ability to comprehend things. It is well known that the more you memorize, the less you are able to adapt that knowledge to other things. IQ and Knowledge are at opposite ends of the spectrum sometimes. High IQ people with knowledge structure the memories differently, it has much more flexability. It is how the information flows through the brain that is important and how it interacts with other memories to compare the information. This takes more time, so people with IQs that are high sometimes do not do so good at timed tests, they cannot easily parrot what they have been conditioned to believe is real. They compare information to varify if things are real or pertinent.

Ok, so the people who voted for Clinton are brainwashed, they cannot reason as well but can memorize the information they are conditioned to believe is real and will not question it. Parrots of the highest degree. Does that make any sense?

Makes sense to me. I've often wondered how so many "educated" people can be so blind to what is staring them in the face OR how they simply refuse to apply any common sense to a particularly issue. I mean you know they are smart but it is almost like they completely shut down to avoid coming to grips with acknowledging they are wrong on an issue.

Part of the problem is that I think too man of us are in an eco chamber. We don't go outside of our own comfort zone when getting information. I subscribe to both NYT and WSJ as well read both Brietbart and HuffPo. I try to get all sides on an issue. I find many people simply don't get "facts" from multiple sources and they also take anything they are told at face value instead of trying to use that information to form their own opinions.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

I wouldn't know because I'm a liberal.

But just listen to yourself for one second and reflect on this. You are saying that being under scrutiny 100% of the time because of your past (not to mention before he was ever a politician) is justifiable. The fact that you are holding his past against him is already considered bias, now throw on top of that a magnifying glass of scrutiny. You see the problem yet?

You mean like harping on the President's birth certificate for 8 years straight, even after he produces said certificate despite no obligation to do so?

I don't recall the main stream media constantly going on about the Birth certificate thing. I recall individuals who questioned it not being convinced with the photoshopped version of the birth certificate going on about it but I'm pretty sure CNN, ABC, NBC etc.. didn't have constant negative coverage of it.

Stop pretending like Fox isn't mainstream.

Fox's viewership numbers are no where near the Big3+1 Broadcast networks.

READ

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

I wouldn't know because I'm a liberal.

But just listen to yourself for one second and reflect on this. You are saying that being under scrutiny 100% of the time because of your past (not to mention before he was ever a politician) is justifiable. The fact that you are holding his past against him is already considered bias, now throw on top of that a magnifying glass of scrutiny. You see the problem yet?

You mean like harping on the President's birth certificate for 8 years straight, even after he produces said certificate despite no obligation to do so?

I don't recall the main stream media constantly going on about the Birth certificate thing. I recall individuals who questioned it not being convinced with the photoshopped version of the birth certificate going on about it but I'm pretty sure CNN, ABC, NBC etc.. didn't have constant negative coverage of it.

Stop pretending like Fox isn't mainstream.

Fox's viewership numbers are no where near the Big3+1 Broadcast networks.

READ

So? They are still mainstream. Furthermore, doesn't Fox constantly go on about being the number 1 rated news station? Are you saying they are lying?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure seemed like it from the quote I posted...But yes I will just ignore you cause I don't have the necessary degree to treat a delusional person.