Trump acts like a child while everyone else stands for the anthem

[colfax_m]

This media bias rating was determined using the following levels of bias verification:

• Editorial Review
• Community Feedback: 4,256 ratings
• Blind Survey
• Third-Party Analysis
• Independent Research
• Confidence Level:
  Low or Initial Rating

Leans Left and Low Confidence Level - Your source is biased and untrustworthy. Sorry.

Harvard Study: CNN, NBC Trump Coverage 93% Negative | RealClearPolitics

Obviously YOUR source is BIASED since the report actually said 80% and not 93%
From your own link;
The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump's initial time in office. They found, to no one's surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative — 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.

So if the coverage was actually 80% negative you wouldn't have exaggerated it to 93%.

Say you're right. It is 80%, that means 8 out of every 10 stories is negative. Pretty biased.

Here is where the 93% comes from.

Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93% negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

Except not even the Right believe the 80%, hence their exaggerating it to 93%. If they truly believed the 80% was real they would have stuck with that number!
And if you are so STUPID that you think the FOX Gossip Channel is 52% negative towards Tramp, then you are too STUPID for words! That alone completely discredits the FAKE study!

What they didn’t tell you is that they only analyzed one hour of TV per day.

It is still a statistically significant sample. Using the naked eye test it is tough to disagree with the study.

How did you determine its statistically significant?

 

[Dr Grump]

He wasn't at the superbowl.

you didn't click on the link did you....

 

[colfax_m]

I don’t think he was wrong. I think he was lying. I don’t know how he could claim to know who was and wasn’t a white supremacist just by looking at them.

exactly, and the rally was advertised as a white supremacist rally, so those who were there were NOT duped by Nazis!

Other ads were far less obvious.


Do you consider lying to be something nazis would not do?


Can you give another example in the last 50 years, where nazis got hundreds of people to show up at a rally?

What other ads?

Who said they were all Nazis? A lot were run of the mill white supremacists. These guys were driving in from all over the country. It wouldn't be very hard to assemble a few hundred white supremacists.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Here are some more links for you. Since you're still not convinced.

Anti-Trump Media? 92% Of Coverage Of His Presidency Is Negative: Study | Investor's Business Daily
A broadcast tradition: 90% of Trump coverage remains negative, study finds
Here's Undeniable Proof That the Media Despises Trump
Study: News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ent-network-trump-coverage-has-been-negative/
Broadcast news slams Trump with 96 percent negative coverage since impeachment inquiry began, study says
Who's to blame for negative Trump coverage?
Study Finds TV Networks Fixated on Negative Impeachment Coverage of Trump

Okay I need some clarification on this. In your opinion, how much of the negative coverage is Trump’s own fault?

Tough to state as he is very polarizing but anything over 60% is extreme in my opinion.

like Tramp only says something negative only 60% of the time! Why should the media report Tramp's negatives as positive?????

The media should report facts and let the reader form their own opinion. Editorials are fine if they are defined as such. I think Fox and CNN should present both sides at all times and not be so partisan.

Yeah man, I wish it were that easy. You see, just reporting the facts sounds like a convenient little slogan but scratch the surface it gets a lot more complicated. If a person only reports some cherry picked facts, they can paint a very different picture than if someone reports all relevant facts. It can be very purposefully misleading, but still factual. However, no one could possibly report every fact there is, so no matter what you do, a reporter is going to have to chose some facts to leave out. It is a subjective call to determine what's important and what isn't, so no matter what you do, there's going to wind up being some people who determine your reporting is biased because you reported some fact they didn't like or left out some fact they found to be more relevant than you. That doesn't even get into determining what is and isn't a fact, which these days it seems like no one can decide on.

Then report both sides. Have one make an argument for the Left and another for the Right. It should not be overly difficult.

 

[Dr Grump]

When the press is 93% negative against you.

I wonder what that percentage would be if he stopped lying. Most of the time...

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Obviously YOUR source is BIASED since the report actually said 80% and not 93%
From your own link;
The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump's initial time in office. They found, to no one's surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative — 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.

So if the coverage was actually 80% negative you wouldn't have exaggerated it to 93%.

Say you're right. It is 80%, that means 8 out of every 10 stories is negative. Pretty biased.

Here is where the 93% comes from.

Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93% negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

Except not even the Right believe the 80%, hence their exaggerating it to 93%. If they truly believed the 80% was real they would have stuck with that number!
And if you are so STUPID that you think the FOX Gossip Channel is 52% negative towards Tramp, then you are too STUPID for words! That alone completely discredits the FAKE study!

What they didn’t tell you is that they only analyzed one hour of TV per day.

It is still a statistically significant sample. Using the naked eye test it is tough to disagree with the study.

How did you determine its statistically significant?

By using statistical math? 1 hour per day on all those channels will be representative of a strong sample size. If I watch Fox or CNN for an hour I can pretty much gauge how they lean.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

When the press is 93% negative against you.

I wonder what that percentage would be if he stopped lying. Most of the time...

Hyperbolic is who he is. People on the Left lie. Does Liz Warren get 93% negative coverage?

 

[edthecynic]

He did a shit job. Did he mention the study excludes neutral stories?

Here are some more links for you. Since you're still not convinced.

Anti-Trump Media? 92% Of Coverage Of His Presidency Is Negative: Study | Investor's Business Daily
A broadcast tradition: 90% of Trump coverage remains negative, study finds
Here's Undeniable Proof That the Media Despises Trump
Study: News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ent-network-trump-coverage-has-been-negative/
Broadcast news slams Trump with 96 percent negative coverage since impeachment inquiry began, study says
Who's to blame for negative Trump coverage?
Study Finds TV Networks Fixated on Negative Impeachment Coverage of Trump

Nearly all those links are extreme Right-wing sources with no credibility.
But assuming it was true, when Tramp lies should the news report that as a positive?????

That is absolutely not true. Washington Post is one of them. Pretty sure it’s not a right leaning source.

No, the Post was citing the BULLSHIT from MRC a extremist Right-wing lie factory, headed by pathological liar Brent Bozo, that constantly whines about how unfairly the media treats CON$ervoNazis by reporting exactly what they say!

Your rhetoric is not only divisive it is incoherent. When you grow up, feel free to ping me.

When you can't argue the facts, insult the person with the facts, just like Tramp, your Party leader!

 

[Lewdog]

If Trump is going to call out the NFL players who took a knee during the anthem, and even went as far as to call them son of bitches that should be fired, then why is it NOT a big deal when he doesn't act respectful during the national anthem himself?

Oh I'll tell you why... because his sycophants on this forum don't hold Trump to the same standard they do everyone else.

He wasn’t acting disrespectful. He certainly wasn’t sitting or kneeling. He pointed at someone for one second and at another point waved his hands for a few seconds as if conducting the music because he was so into it. Video is edited to make it look like that is all he did the entire song. He was NOT at the game, this was on a TV. Get a life.

He was dancing around acting like a child. What is the proper way to stand during the anthem? Look at Melania in the video, that's your answer. A woman from Slovenia is more respectful during the anthem than the President. Sad. Bigly sad.

 

[colfax_m]

Okay I need some clarification on this. In your opinion, how much of the negative coverage is Trump’s own fault?

Tough to state as he is very polarizing but anything over 60% is extreme in my opinion.

like Tramp only says something negative only 60% of the time! Why should the media report Tramp's negatives as positive?????

The media should report facts and let the reader form their own opinion. Editorials are fine if they are defined as such. I think Fox and CNN should present both sides at all times and not be so partisan.

Yeah man, I wish it were that easy. You see, just reporting the facts sounds like a convenient little slogan but scratch the surface it gets a lot more complicated. If a person only reports some cherry picked facts, they can paint a very different picture than if someone reports all relevant facts. It can be very purposefully misleading, but still factual. However, no one could possibly report every fact there is, so no matter what you do, a reporter is going to have to chose some facts to leave out. It is a subjective call to determine what's important and what isn't, so no matter what you do, there's going to wind up being some people who determine your reporting is biased because you reported some fact they didn't like or left out some fact they found to be more relevant than you. That doesn't even get into determining what is and isn't a fact, which these days it seems like no one can decide on.

Then report both sides. Have one make an argument for the Left and another for the Right. It should not be overly difficult.

It's endlessly difficult. If all you're doing is letting people make two different arguments, then you're no longer reporting facts but propagating political positions. I'm not saying that's not useful in itself, but it's also not exactly the same thing as journalism. Hearing a skewed argument from the left and a skewed argument from the right doesn't actually do much in my opinion. You don't magically land in an unbiased position after that. What that really does it just facilitate the identity politics. People will pick the person that they identify with (i.e. someone on the left) and ignore what the other person has to say. It facilitates individual bias more than anything. I mean, think about the current economy. The right will tell you it's booming. The left will tell you it's a disaster. The answer is in the middle, somethings are doing great, some aren't, but you don't come to that conclusion by listening to these two opposites describe the same thing.

Journalism is about figuring out what is true, reporting what happened, understanding the world. You don't get that by listening to two opposite but skewed viewpoints.

 

[edthecynic]

He made a mistake. Shit happens. Why do you harp on things like an old lady?

Did you have that same attitude when Obama left out the "and territories" when he said he visited 57 states?

 

[Dr Grump]

Hyperbolic is who he is. People on the Left lie. Does Liz Warren get 93% negative coverage?

No president in my lifetime has told more lies. No politician. And not even the nuanced lies I'm talking about, which is the stock and trade of all politicians - like Warren - where they'll screw facts to suit their agenda.

These are out and out, easily provable lies. For example, the numbers at his inauguration. He is so ensconced in his little bubble he thinks people will believe him. Why? Because he has been surrounded by 'yes' people his whole adult life. He thinks that because his people brown nose him 24/7 that us normal people think like them. We don't. So when he says something like the above about his crowd, he knows it isn't true and is incensed when called out because he has an expectation that we are all either dumb or arse lickers. We're not.

 

[edthecynic]

Does Liz Warren get 93% negative coverage?

Does Warren lie 99% of the time like Tramp?????

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Here are some more links for you. Since you're still not convinced.

Anti-Trump Media? 92% Of Coverage Of His Presidency Is Negative: Study | Investor's Business Daily
A broadcast tradition: 90% of Trump coverage remains negative, study finds
Here's Undeniable Proof That the Media Despises Trump
Study: News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ent-network-trump-coverage-has-been-negative/
Broadcast news slams Trump with 96 percent negative coverage since impeachment inquiry began, study says
Who's to blame for negative Trump coverage?
Study Finds TV Networks Fixated on Negative Impeachment Coverage of Trump

Nearly all those links are extreme Right-wing sources with no credibility.
But assuming it was true, when Tramp lies should the news report that as a positive?????

That is absolutely not true. Washington Post is one of them. Pretty sure it’s not a right leaning source.

No, the Post was citing the BULLSHIT from MRC a extremist Right-wing lie factory, headed by pathological liar Brent Bozo, that constantly whines about how unfairly the media treats CON$ervoNazis by reporting exactly what they say!

Your rhetoric is not only divisive it is incoherent. When you grow up, feel free to ping me.

When you can't argue the facts, insult the person with the facts, just like Tramp, your Party leader!

When you start calling people "Tramp" you act like a child. Facts do not matter to you.

 

[Dr Grump]

Here are some more links for you. Since you're still not convinced.

Anti-Trump Media? 92% Of Coverage Of His Presidency Is Negative: Study | Investor's Business Daily
A broadcast tradition: 90% of Trump coverage remains negative, study finds
Here's Undeniable Proof That the Media Despises Trump
Study: News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ent-network-trump-coverage-has-been-negative/
Broadcast news slams Trump with 96 percent negative coverage since impeachment inquiry began, study says
Who's to blame for negative Trump coverage?
Study Finds TV Networks Fixated on Negative Impeachment Coverage of Trump

Nearly all those links are extreme Right-wing sources with no credibility.
But assuming it was true, when Tramp lies should the news report that as a positive?????

That is absolutely not true. Washington Post is one of them. Pretty sure it’s not a right leaning source.

No, the Post was citing the BULLSHIT from MRC a extremist Right-wing lie factory, headed by pathological liar Brent Bozo, that constantly whines about how unfairly the media treats CON$ervoNazis by reporting exactly what they say!

Your rhetoric is not only divisive it is incoherent. When you grow up, feel free to ping me.

When you can't argue the facts, insult the person with the facts, just like Tramp, your Party leader!

I find Azog apolitical when it comes to the two parties.

 

[Pogo]

Nearly all those links are extreme Right-wing sources with no credibility.
But assuming it was true, when Tramp lies should the news report that as a positive?????

That is absolutely not true. Washington Post is one of them. Pretty sure it’s not a right leaning source.

No, the Post was citing the BULLSHIT from MRC a extremist Right-wing lie factory, headed by pathological liar Brent Bozo, that constantly whines about how unfairly the media treats CON$ervoNazis by reporting exactly what they say!

Your rhetoric is not only divisive it is incoherent. When you grow up, feel free to ping me.

When you can't argue the facts, insult the person with the facts, just like Tramp, your Party leader!

When you start calling people "Tramp" you act like a child. Facts do not matter to you.

Yyyyeaahh ummmm.... read your own user name.

 

[colfax_m]

Say you're right. It is 80%, that means 8 out of every 10 stories is negative. Pretty biased.

Here is where the 93% comes from.

Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93% negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

Except not even the Right believe the 80%, hence their exaggerating it to 93%. If they truly believed the 80% was real they would have stuck with that number!
And if you are so STUPID that you think the FOX Gossip Channel is 52% negative towards Tramp, then you are too STUPID for words! That alone completely discredits the FAKE study!

What they didn’t tell you is that they only analyzed one hour of TV per day.

It is still a statistically significant sample. Using the naked eye test it is tough to disagree with the study.

How did you determine its statistically significant?

By using statistical math? 1 hour per day on all those channels will be representative of a strong sample size. If I watch Fox or CNN for an hour I can pretty much gauge how they lean.

Did you actually do the "statistical math"?

It's hard to claim it's a strong sample size when it's the same show every single day for 100 days. That certainly smacks of selection bias to me.

This still dodges the issue about what exactly it "should" be. There is no statistical way to determine that. It's solely opinion.

 

[colfax_m]

Nearly all those links are extreme Right-wing sources with no credibility.
But assuming it was true, when Tramp lies should the news report that as a positive?????

That is absolutely not true. Washington Post is one of them. Pretty sure it’s not a right leaning source.

No, the Post was citing the BULLSHIT from MRC a extremist Right-wing lie factory, headed by pathological liar Brent Bozo, that constantly whines about how unfairly the media treats CON$ervoNazis by reporting exactly what they say!

Your rhetoric is not only divisive it is incoherent. When you grow up, feel free to ping me.

When you can't argue the facts, insult the person with the facts, just like Tramp, your Party leader!

I find Azog apolitical....

I find that Azog has a very strong bias against the Democratic party.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Tough to state as he is very polarizing but anything over 60% is extreme in my opinion.

like Tramp only says something negative only 60% of the time! Why should the media report Tramp's negatives as positive?????

The media should report facts and let the reader form their own opinion. Editorials are fine if they are defined as such. I think Fox and CNN should present both sides at all times and not be so partisan.

Yeah man, I wish it were that easy. You see, just reporting the facts sounds like a convenient little slogan but scratch the surface it gets a lot more complicated. If a person only reports some cherry picked facts, they can paint a very different picture than if someone reports all relevant facts. It can be very purposefully misleading, but still factual. However, no one could possibly report every fact there is, so no matter what you do, a reporter is going to have to chose some facts to leave out. It is a subjective call to determine what's important and what isn't, so no matter what you do, there's going to wind up being some people who determine your reporting is biased because you reported some fact they didn't like or left out some fact they found to be more relevant than you. That doesn't even get into determining what is and isn't a fact, which these days it seems like no one can decide on.

Then report both sides. Have one make an argument for the Left and another for the Right. It should not be overly difficult.

It's endlessly difficult. If all you're doing is letting people make two different arguments, then you're no longer reporting facts but propagating political positions. I'm not saying that's not useful in itself, but it's also not exactly the same thing as journalism. Hearing a skewed argument from the left and a skewed argument from the right doesn't actually do much in my opinion. You don't magically land in an unbiased position after that. What that really does it just facilitate the identity politics. People will pick the person that they identify with (i.e. someone on the left) and ignore what the other person has to say. It facilitates individual bias more than anything. I mean, think about the current economy. The right will tell you it's booming. The left will tell you it's a disaster. The answer is in the middle, somethings are doing great, some aren't, but you don't come to that conclusion by listening to these two opposites describe the same thing.

Journalism is about figuring out what is true, reporting what happened, understanding the world. You don't get that by listening to two opposite but skewed viewpoints.

Take politics out and discuss sports. Should NE bring back Tom Brady. One side argues "yes" and another argues "no". The right answer is somewhere there and we will really know after he ends his career. But if one news source just bashes him and only shows his bad games and stats of QBs in their mid 40s and the other only shows his great plays, you don't get the full picture but together you form a better one than if you only see one side. When I watch Celtics games, I try to watch the National announcers if I can as they provide a more even keel broadcast. That is how political news should be too. IMO.

 

[colfax_m]

When the press is 93% negative against you.

I wonder what that percentage would be if he stopped lying. Most of the time...

Hyperbolic is who he is. People on the Left lie. Does Liz Warren get 93% negative coverage?

Liz Warren hardly gets any coverage. Hyperbolic is a fun euphamism for lying. So if the media (god forbid) publishes a story about Trump lying, that's counted as negative coverage. If he stopped lying, his coverage would improve substantially.