Plays a little. I've tried to get him to play but he plays baseball and now he has started to play more.
Perfect example of media corruption - Study shows 90% of Trump coverage is negative
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
Media corruption is your conspiracy theory which I play no role in nor support. Some slight media bias is most everywhere and that's just a reality in today's world and it doesn't bother me because I understand it. Apparently you think that if you complain enough about it, that something will change. I don't think that your approach will do anything but annoy people but you're probably used to having that effect on folks.
Again Boom, you are confusing hard news with opinion journalism. Fox's hard news is very balanced. Once again, Chris Wallace is a registered Dem, Shep Smith is a liberal, and Bret Baier is very neutral. Not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp.
I don't deride the NY Times because their op ed page is all liberal, it is what I would expect. But when their front page stories become slanted/biased based on ideology, that is the problem.
They take the same slanted agenda against a lot of other issues Trump supporters voted him into office to pursue.
Tax cuts, balancing the Federal budget and downsizing Government, enforcing our immigration Laws, rebuilding the Military, and reducing or eliminating needless regulations.
Search high, search low, you won't find one positive media story extolling the support Trump has among a vast majority of the American people for ANY of that agenda.
Whenever those stories are reported in the MSM, they are almost always positioned as bad for America, and unwanted by the majority American people.
That's not reporting that's propaganda, and it isn't even arguable.
Boom, the climate models were wrong. Not even in dispute. Have you figured out hard news from commentary yet?
I agree. Now what about the positive economic impacts that come from the decision? That is usually either drastically downplayed or completely left out. Balance. Present the Pros and Cons of the decision, not just the cons.
Now THATS a good point. There is a need for more balance to be sure. But I always go to the Wall Street Journal or Forbes to get financial impact balance. I'm sure many don't seek their news in such a way though.
The media (excluding the alt right) is the sane person in the room. They are reporting facts...and how mentally deficient our current prez is. There are countless examples of the things he has said. They are videotaped or audio recorded, they aren't made up. Sorry that offends you.
Largest inauguration crowd in history
Largest electoral college win since Reagan
Intelligence agencies are like Nazis
3-5 million illegal votes
Mexico will pay for the wall
Russia isn't in the Ukraine
Did you see what happened last night in Sweden?
Bowling Green massacre
Obama tapped my wires
So called judges
Boomer Main stream news media outlets and Democrats are out running around today claiming "victory" over John Ossoff's "loss" last night in a fractured Georgia primary race to replace Congressman Tom Price in the 6th district here.
New we're all Football fans on this OT board and we know all about a good fight or tough competition, but we also can measure a scoreboard. We know how to count Ws boom!
It's folly for Democrats to think they "won" anything last night, but if you just watch the coverage that's exactly what they're reporting.
Ossoff too. Last I checked, we're heading to a runoff in this race, and then we'll have a winner despite Democrats and the Left claiming otherwise today.
In fact, that Dude couldn't even get half the vote in a race that had no fewer than 15 other candidates splitting up the rest of the vote against him!
Its a terrible showing for a guy who got more than 8 million dollars in outside backing and had virtually unlimited free media fawning coverage.
A little reality might also be smart on the part of the media, even if they're going to be slanted.
Last edited:
Boom, it is not what they report on, it is how they report it, what they put in and what they leave out. Even a former CNNer, and an avowed liberal, acknowledges their anti-Trump agenda.
https://www.onenewsnow.com/media/2017/02/08/ex-cnn-host-appalled-at-networks-anti-trump-bias
This is a perfect example of media bias boom. Had this guy been a Trump supporter and lost like he did it would be promoted as a "stinging defeat" for an unpopular incumbent President.
But this guy loses, and it's promoted as an "almost victory" or at least a strong statement against Trump's unpopularity. They don't tell you that half that district (reliably Republican) still supports Trump, still supports his agenda, and still voted against a Democrat.
Why don't you think those are also "facts" important to this story? How is this anything other than another rejection of Democrat policy?
This is close to my district. I'm telling you right now Karen Handel will bury this guy, and then the media spin will be how she failed to get more than 80% of the Republican vote in a heavily Republican district!
Last edited:
I bet he didn't get paid a dime for that interview either.
But you're right...they don't like Trump. Neither do I. When I give him credit, I still can't look past the extreme nature of his policy initiatives, or his hypocrisy, or his casual relationship with the truth, or his massive egotistical agenda.....so I'm biased as hell.
What gets me about you....you still think FOX is balanced. And your ideological bias is simply critical thought and proper solutions, but anyone's else's is corrupt and unAmerican.
They said in the article that Handel will probably win handily (my own play on words there). They also said it was a missed opportunity for the Dems to flip a DEEP RED district DUE to the fragmented race. They are seeing it as a play on Trumps lack of popularity that the Dems even had a legitimate shot at the flip. How do you not see that in the article????
And did you not read the former CNN analyst discussing CNN's anti-Trump agenda? He would know.
For the last time Boom (really worried about your reading comprehension), not the hard news at Fox. The analysts, most certainly.
Boom as I said, this district is next to mine (I used to live over there) it's a very cosmopolitan district, mixed race, diverse culture. It's the EXACT type of constituency Democrats usually thrive in.
He (Ossoff) couldn't pull it off even with a fragmented Republican base. Now that there will be only one Republican running against him, he won't get 48% of the vote in that district.
It's not a heavily Conservative district either, Trump barely won it. To me that says a lot more about how little appeal Democrats have in a fairly non ideological district than any opposition to Trump.
Until two or three weeks ago, this guy was running on essentially a Conservative reform agenda promising to cut spending and taxes for the middle class. He didn't even say he was a Democrat. I don't think many people knew he was actually, until about two weeks ago.
Why would he do that if he's devoted to the Democrat Leadership's tax and spend agenda?
Boom, you either can't read, can't comprehend or simply stick you head in the sand when someone posts something you don't like. I said Fox's hard news is unbiased and provided evidence (one a registered Dem, two a very liberal guy and the third anchor is straight down the middle). I have provided a liberal insiders view that CNN was and is anti-Trump.
I agree that Fox's analysts are right of center, but they are analysts, not reporters or hard news anchors. Big difference.
I challenge you to name one hard news anchor at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or MSNBC that is conservative or leans right? Just one. BTW, Mary Ann Marsh, a Democrat operative, was asked this question on O'Reilly and she could not name one either. You should have seen the look on her face. It was priceless.
OMG. Cooper is right of center? I think Cooper is the best at CNN and tries to be impartial but he is slightly left of center. He is a NYC guy from a very wealthy family and reportedly gay. Very few Republicans in Manhattan and even fewer gay, Manhattan Republicans.
He stopped donating to the Republican Party prior to landing his deal with CNN because he wanted to be non partisan .... I've heard
He's made one political contribution in his life and that was to a friend for $250. And yes, the friend was a Republican. As I said, I believe he is the most fair anchor at CNN but still leans left. Moreover, even the Democrat operatives that I mentioned, Mary Ann Marsh,did not believe any of the anchors at CNN were right of center.