Got a mouse in your pocket? I have no problem understanding media stories. If you have questions about a media story, maybe you could ask an nearby adult to explain it to you.
Perfect example of media corruption - Study shows 90% of Trump coverage is negative
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
I've been saying since before the election that Donald J. Trump is the Newtonian (equal and opposite) response to the constant drive to the left since Reagan left office. It's been a pretty ****** 24 years for tea party style conservatives who want limited government and less foreign intervention.
That's not the media's job. On the environment, they should be neutral and just report the facts. They should not try and steer the public in a certain direction. That is called opinion pieces, not hard news. Trump lies. Obama lies. Obama had much bigger lies, why the negative coverage vs. generally positive coverage for Obama?
The NY Times opinion pieces are almost 100% liberal. That is ok since they are on the opinion pages and people know they are opinions. But when the NY Times publishes essentially opinion pieces on the front page, that is a very different story and is corrupt.
The main problem with reporting facts about climate change is that the facts don't support the models, and we all know the left really likes what the models say and not the facts.
As usual, this thread is like every other pissbaby thread that you put up weekly crying about how the media is so mean to Trump. Am I missing something?
I don't care if the media is mean to anyone. I just want them to report the facts. If they don't, then loosen libel and slander laws to make them pay when the outright lie with the intention of harming someone. That would get them back to the place they should be, simply reporting the facts and letting the reader decide if it is positive or negative. The media enjoys enormous privileges, but with that comes enormous responsibility.
There job is to inform. Environmental impacts from policy (even if just potential impacts) is absolutely their job.
Boom, if you are only getting one side of the story, how can you use critical thinking to decide? You don't have all the facts.
There job is to report the facts, not their opinion. Their job is to present both sides, not just one. As we have seen with the leaked East Anglia emails, the media is being used as are many publications.
You whined about how the ban got only negative coverage....not true...they do a better job than u give them credit for
I did not come up with the 90% figure, a media analytical group did. 90% is not an accident.
So you think its a reporters job to set policy? Your statement is very telling and very accurate.
And you realize this group was founded by young conservatives, funded by conservative people, and their CEO called Obama a ghetto crackhead, right? This is the organization that is exposing bias in the media??
You complain about media bias yet you go to a right wing conservative group to find an article like this and we're to trust their score keeping? smh
My son got a blue tux and went to his junior senior prom as the one on our right.
It's their job to inform on how policy can effect many different aspects of society. Environmentally focused and conservationist policies were discarded by the public and lawmakers for many years, informing the public of the potential dangers of ignoring scientific findings and measurable effects within our environment is absolutely the job of the press. When they discuss a forgiven policy action by an administration, it's their job to also inform the reader of potential repercussions of those policy initiatives, no? Journalism also has a duty to scope.....yes it's when bias is interjected into the mix, and too many take advantage of the opportunity to push their personal agenda.....but it's not corruption.
He graduates from High school next month. He's a really good kid. Probably switched at birth.[winking]
Boom, take global warming. The media almost unanimously believe that man is causing global warming. They provide almost no rebuttal from the myriad of scientists that disagree. They don't provide context of both the dangers and the benefits of a slightly warming planet. They only present one side, the disastrous side. That's not their job. They need to present both sides, they need to tell us the facts (e.g. the global warming models have all been proven wrong on the high side). Instead, they spout global warming propaganda.
I am questioning MRC's analysis. How can I trust their "score keeping"? When media reports on a negative event, a failure (ex. two failed Muslim travel bans) I have a feeling that your MRC would put those articles down in the negative reporting column when the media articles simply reported what happened. Also, their analysis doesn't have to be incorrect just biased. Do they count editorials?
They looked at hard news (no analysis). If any site disputes their analysis, I haven't seen or read about it. If you can find one that does dispute it, provide a link. There are plenty of left wing sites that would be in the business of disputing this analysis. I haven't read or seen one yet.
More importantly, there are other sites that also demonstrate the high percentage of negative coverage (it is obvious to almost every one not on the left).
This study from Harvard, for example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gative-press-coverage/?utm_term=.7feeb94da9af
It doesn't surprise me that the worst so called prez ever would get the most negative coverage, it seems pretty common sense. Being president is not for the weak or sensitive, maybe he's just not cut out for the job. He could just quit and head on back to Trump Tower and avoid all the bad press.
So, you've gone from questioning the study to another position justifying the negative coverage. The left feels Trump is terrible. But the media is not supposed to be the left, right? They are supposed to present the facts, both sides of the issue and let the readers or listeners decide.
Thanks for confirmed the study's results and thus, the media corruption.
BREAKING NEWS!
100% of Best Virginia is the Gold standard to be measured against.
I guess you missed my post where I said that I don't trust their findings but that's cool.
I read it and posted a Harvard study essentially concluding the same thing. There are other studies as well.
You then posted this:
It doesn't surprise me that the worst so called prez ever would get the most negative coverage, it seems pretty common sense. Being president is not for the weak or sensitive, maybe he's just not cut out for the job. He could just quit and head on back to Trump Tower and avoid all the bad press.
Which essentially confirms the media's corruption.
I actually agree with moe here. (surprisingly) Trump should just ignore all of this media bilge, pursue his agenda and fulfill the promises he was elected to carry out. The Media didn't vote for him, so why would they promote anything he does?
Truth be told, we don't need them "promoting" him. We will judge Trump by his results, something the Left never held Obama accountable for during their entire 8 year love fest over him.
You see how he was ultimately judged by the American people. (Hillary too since she was his appointed successor)
So my advice to Trump...ignore the Media, lead, succeed then let them (Media) figure out why you won re-election in a landslide against their 90% negative coverage.
Results are all that matter, not the irrelevant media "spin" against him.