New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Huh.. Trump has actually been the subject of much more

connieb

Senator
negative coverage... per Harvard study.. not only that.. but the study authors warn that continuing to be so obviously biased, is not going to go well for journalists. Fox.. has actually been.. imagine this.. the most fair and balanced with ta 52/48 negative spin. Meanwhile CNN and NBC have been 93/7. The study also notes that despite all this whining from major media outlets no one has actually changed their minds.... lol. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/19/study-trump-press-coverage-new-standard-negativity/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=pushnotify&utm_medium=push
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
negative coverage... per Harvard study.. not only that.. but the study authors warn that continuing to be so obviously biased, is not going to go well for journalists. Fox.. has actually been.. imagine this.. the most fair and balanced with ta 52/48 negative spin. Meanwhile CNN and NBC have been 93/7. The study also notes that despite all this whining from major media outlets no one has actually changed their minds.... lol. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/19/study-trump-press-coverage-new-standard-negativity/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=pushnotify&utm_medium=push
Not surprising the MSM is out to hang him.

Of course at the same time he often has made it easy for them
 
negative coverage... per Harvard study.. not only that.. but the study authors warn that continuing to be so obviously biased, is not going to go well for journalists. Fox.. has actually been.. imagine this.. the most fair and balanced with ta 52/48 negative spin. Meanwhile CNN and NBC have been 93/7. The study also notes that despite all this whining from major media outlets no one has actually changed their minds.... lol. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/19/study-trump-press-coverage-new-standard-negativity/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=pushnotify&utm_medium=push
What's surprising to me is that even the Fox coversge is 52% negative verses 48% positive.

I would never have figured Fox would have actually done more negative reporting than postive. If you were to believe the snowflakes Fox is supposed to be totally in the tank for Trump......guess not
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
negative coverage... per Harvard study.. not only that.. but the study authors warn that continuing to be so obviously biased, is not going to go well for journalists. Fox.. has actually been.. imagine this.. the most fair and balanced with ta 52/48 negative spin. Meanwhile CNN and NBC have been 93/7. The study also notes that despite all this whining from major media outlets no one has actually changed their minds.... lol. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/19/study-trump-press-coverage-new-standard-negativity/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=pushnotify&utm_medium=push
How about that? People who do negative things get negative coverage.

Who wudda thunk it?

;-)
 

Jen

Senator
negative coverage... per Harvard study.. not only that.. but the study authors warn that continuing to be so obviously biased, is not going to go well for journalists. Fox.. has actually been.. imagine this.. the most fair and balanced with ta 52/48 negative spin. Meanwhile CNN and NBC have been 93/7. The study also notes that despite all this whining from major media outlets no one has actually changed their minds.... lol. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/19/study-trump-press-coverage-new-standard-negativity/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=pushnotify&utm_medium=push
Although I am pretty peeved at Fox right now........... that biased reporting is why I will not watch those other networks. CNN, etc = FAKE NEWS all the time. I don't need it.
 

NinaS

Senator
Supporting Member
negative coverage... per Harvard study.. not only that.. but the study authors warn that continuing to be so obviously biased, is not going to go well for journalists. Fox.. has actually been.. imagine this.. the most fair and balanced with ta 52/48 negative spin. Meanwhile CNN and NBC have been 93/7. The study also notes that despite all this whining from major media outlets no one has actually changed their minds.... lol. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/19/study-trump-press-coverage-new-standard-negativity/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=pushnotify&utm_medium=push
If so, it makes sense. Who has been more negative than Trump himself...during the campaigns and even after he was 'elected'?? Did any of the other Candidates use Twitter to malign the other candidates? Did any of the others have pet names for the others? Trump has caused his own problems. Feel sorry for him if you want. He gets what he asks for. Look at how he talked about the most all of the news sources other than Fox News. He can relate to Fox News because they are a bunch of sexist pervs.
 

NinaS

Senator
Supporting Member
Although I am pretty peeved at Fox right now........... that biased reporting is why I will not watch those other networks. CNN, etc = FAKE NEWS all the time. I don't need it.
And they don't need you. You hate to hear the truth. So I'd encourage you to keep watching Hannity.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
negative coverage... per Harvard study.. not only that.. but the study authors warn that continuing to be so obviously biased, is not going to go well for journalists. Fox.. has actually been.. imagine this.. the most fair and balanced with ta 52/48 negative spin. Meanwhile CNN and NBC have been 93/7. The study also notes that despite all this whining from major media outlets no one has actually changed their minds.... lol. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/19/study-trump-press-coverage-new-standard-negativity/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=pushnotify&utm_medium=push
I think this is a clear indication that the MSM has lost credibility. They well on their way to having their propaganda turn people in the other direction.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
Although I am pretty peeved at Fox right now........... that biased reporting is why I will not watch those other networks. CNN, etc = FAKE NEWS all the time. I don't need it.
Agreed. We have plenty of leftist liars right here on PJ. Why watch people who actually profit off their dishonesty?
 

connieb

Senator
What's surprising to me is that even the Fox coversge is 52% negative verses 48% positive.

I would never have figured Fox would have actually done more negative reporting than postive. If you were to believe the snowflakes Fox is supposed to be totally in the tank for Trump......guess not
I honestly think that the concept of negative vs positive is so subjective that a difference like that has. Got to ge in the margin of error.
 

connieb

Senator
Hello? The facts themselves - what Trump says and does - are negative.
Nonsense. Facts are neutral. How one judges the facts may be negative but that does not equate to the need to apply that negative spin when reporting. One can say, Trump fired coney, without opining as to the reasons or results.
 

EatTheRich

President
Nonsense. Facts are neutral. How one judges the facts may be negative but that does not equate to the need to apply that negative spin when reporting. One can say, Trump fired coney, without opining as to the reasons or results.
And, one can say the Trump administration repeatedly contradicted itself about the reason for Comey's firing, and that would both be factual and reflect negatively on Trump.
 
Top