'You're JUST like CNN' Trump LASHES OUT at BBC reporter in fiery 'fake news' clash

[SYTFE]

CNN and their fucking NON-STOP 24/7 coverage of the orange shitlord helped him win. Not sure why he bashes them, they gave him billions worth of free advertising and publicity.

I have heard others on this forum say the same thing but it is simply not true. All the coverage of Trump by CNN and other members of the MSM was negative and that certainly did not help him. Trump did not win because of CNN; rather he won in spite of CNN. The MSM went so extreme in their criticism that the forgotten hard-working men and women in the country (especially those who lived in the flyover states) weren't buying it. Real Americans realized that the MSM were united in an effort to elect Clinton. America's best and most informed citizens treated them like the biased, hypocritical, agenda-driven Clinton butt-kisser they were.

Every politicians knows that negative ads against the other guy hurts him. That is why negative campaigning is so popular. Apparently you believe that the constant (and unproven) accusations of being a “pussy groper” and unsupported charges of being a Russian collaborator gained Trump votes and helped him win the election. I believe the accusations cost him votes. I'll let others decide which one if us is right. I do have two questions for you. They are just rhetorical and therefore I do not expect an answer.

First, what, if anything, did CNN say about Trump that you consider to be complimentary?

Second, what negative coverage do you think caused people to vote for Trump rather than against him?

As I said, I don't expect an answer.

Conclusion: Unrelenting personal attacks against a candidate do not help his campaign. They are designed to hurt him and they do. Fortunately for Trump, the hard working men and women in this country did not trust the MSM and didn't believe the gossip they were trying to spread. Further, they knew the awful truth about Clinton even though the MSM tried their best to defend her. Perhaps you are confusing politics with Hollywood. Back in the day it was not uncommon for movie producers to invent “scandal” involving the leading men and women to lure people into the movie houses. Sandal on the part of politicians has never been a career enhancer and you should know that. You apparently think the amount of coverage and not the type of coverage is the most important thing and you should know better. Most of us know better. Trump won in spite of CNN not because of CNN and nothing could be more obvious than that.

Nonsense. CNN had multiple guests -- and still do -- who are very supportive and complimentary towards Trump. CNN really does take a fairly centrist position towards politics no matter what conservatives say. Throughout the election I watched a lot of CNN, and I mean a LOT, and the coverage ranged from positive to negative to neutral, just like on any network. But one thing was constant -- you could turn on CNN at any given time and you would be sure that they'd be talking about Trump, unless Anthony Bourdain's show was on.

It was truly sickening. They helped hand the presidency to Trump. I have to give Trump credit for one thing, he understands how media works, and he understands how people get their information. He knows that there are only a handful of corporations who control the media in our country, and he knows how they generate their revenue. He knew that if he could be outrageous and compelling, he would gain coverage with ease because he knows the media weakness -- a news outlet can NOT lose eyeballs to a competitor. If one outlet doesn't cover him, the other one will.

The only thing he had to maintain was endurance throughout the campaign to be as engaging and controversial as possible, and he wouldn't have to fork out tons of cash for advertising because the news outlets would give him PLENTY of free airtime. It was an absolutely brilliant strategy. Even his bashing of the media is a strategic tool for him, he really doesn't "hate" the media -- he's doing that for a reason.

 

[BluesLegend]

The media lies, tells half truths, spins, distorts, selectively omits and edits to smear President Trump and according to you libs Trump is supposed to just stand there and take the hits? Screw that, I'm glad Trump is swinging back its about time you fuckers got yours.

 

[leftwinger]

constant (and unproven) accusations of being a “pussy groper”

other than his own words on tape.........just kidding! just kidding! I know I know. The MSM saved that tape to release exactly when? 48hrs? before a 1:1 debate vs. that Beast.

They held it for how many years? Did the use the "daily conference call with DNC/beast" to decide when to let it out? Did the RNC/Trump get daily conference calls? I didn't think so.

The MSM covered for BO and caused his re-election. The MSM caused trillions extra govt spending onto debt. We may never recover from the last 9 years $10T debt bomb. Only an outsider has any chance. Hence, Trump.

 

[The Professor]

CNN and their fucking NON-STOP 24/7 coverage of the orange shitlord helped him win. Not sure why he bashes them, they gave him billions worth of free advertising and publicity.

I have heard others on this forum say the same thing but it is simply not true. All the coverage of Trump by CNN and other members of the MSM was negative and that certainly did not help him. Trump did not win because of CNN; rather he won in spite of CNN. The MSM went so extreme in their criticism that the forgotten hard-working men and women in the country (especially those who lived in the flyover states) weren't buying it. Real Americans realized that the MSM were united in an effort to elect Clinton. America's best and most informed citizens treated them like the biased, hypocritical, agenda-driven Clinton butt-kisser they were.

Every politicians knows that negative ads against the other guy hurts him. That is why negative campaigning is so popular. Apparently you believe that the constant (and unproven) accusations of being a “pussy groper” and unsupported charges of being a Russian collaborator gained Trump votes and helped him win the election. I believe the accusations cost him votes. I'll let others decide which one if us is right. I do have two questions for you. They are just rhetorical and therefore I do not expect an answer.

First, what, if anything, did CNN say about Trump that you consider to be complimentary?

Second, what negative coverage do you think caused people to vote for Trump rather than against him?

As I said, I don't expect an answer.

Conclusion: Unrelenting personal attacks against a candidate do not help his campaign. They are designed to hurt him and they do. Fortunately for Trump, the hard working men and women in this country did not trust the MSM and didn't believe the gossip they were trying to spread. Further, they knew the awful truth about Clinton even though the MSM tried their best to defend her. Perhaps you are confusing politics with Hollywood. Back in the day it was not uncommon for movie producers to invent “scandal” involving the leading men and women to lure people into the movie houses. Sandal on the part of politicians has never been a career enhancer and you should know that. You apparently think the amount of coverage and not the type of coverage is the most important thing and you should know better. Most of us know better. Trump won in spite of CNN not because of CNN and nothing could be more obvious than that.

Nonsense. CNN had multiple guests -- and still do -- who are very supportive and complimentary towards Trump. CNN really does take a fairly centrist position towards politics no matter what conservatives say. Throughout the election I watched a lot of CNN, and I mean a LOT, and the coverage ranged from positive to negative to neutral, just like on any network. But one thing was constant -- you could turn on CNN at any given time and you would be sure that they'd be talking about Trump, unless Anthony Bourdain's show was on.

It was truly sickening. They helped hand the presidency to Trump. I have to give Trump credit for one thing, he understands how media works, and he understands how people get their information. He knows that there are only a handful of corporations who control the media in our country, and he knows how they generate their revenue. He knew that if he could be outrageous and compelling, he would gain coverage with ease because he knows the media weakness -- a news outlet can NOT lose eyeballs to a competitor. If one outlet doesn't cover him, the other one will.

The only thing he had to maintain was endurance throughout the campaign to be as engaging and controversial as possible, and he wouldn't have to fork out tons of cash for advertising because the news outlets would give him PLENTY of free airtime. It was an absolutely brilliant strategy. Even his bashing of the media is a strategic tool for him, he really doesn't "hate" the media -- he's doing that for a reason.

So they had guest that were supportive of Trump. How were they treated" I will tell you. CNN did their very best to attack Trump and his supporters. You are one of the few people who don't get it. At any rate, my dear fellow (or lady, as the case might be), even you would agree that most of the coverage of Trump by CNN and the rest of the MSM was negative.

PS: As expected, you didn't answer my two questions. I really didn't expect an answer but because of your above response I will ask you again expecting an answer: What did CNN ever say about Trump that was positive? And of those Trump supporter who were interviewed, what did they say that was not challenged by CNN?

I'm waiting.

 

[Correll]

Anyone who doesn't kiss The Donald's ass, is an enemy of the United States. FACT
What a whinny bitch thin-skinned dipshit.

I've seen a good bit of BBC coverage of the election, and afterwards.

They are certainly the enemy of Donald Trump and it is completely reasonable of him to treat them as such.

 

[Correll]

CNN and their fucking NON-STOP 24/7 coverage of the orange shitlord helped him win. Not sure why he bashes them, they gave him billions worth of free advertising and publicity.

I have heard others on this forum say the same thing but it is simply not true. All the coverage of Trump by CNN and other members of the MSM was negative and that certainly did not help him. Trump did not win because of CNN; rather he won in spite of CNN. The MSM went so extreme in their criticism that the forgotten hard-working men and women in the country (especially those who lived in the flyover states) weren't buying it. Real Americans realized that the MSM were united in an effort to elect Clinton. America's best and most informed citizens treated them like the biased, hypocritical, agenda-driven Clinton butt-kisser they were.

Every politicians knows that negative ads against the other guy hurts him. That is why negative campaigning is so popular. Apparently you believe that the constant (and unproven) accusations of being a “pussy groper” and unsupported charges of being a Russian collaborator gained Trump votes and helped him win the election. I believe the accusations cost him votes. I'll let others decide which one if us is right. I do have two questions for you. They are just rhetorical and therefore I do not expect an answer.

First, what, if anything, did CNN say about Trump that you consider to be complimentary?

Second, what negative coverage do you think caused people to vote for Trump rather than against him?

As I said, I don't expect an answer.

Conclusion: Unrelenting personal attacks against a candidate do not help his campaign. They are designed to hurt him and they do. Fortunately for Trump, the hard working men and women in this country did not trust the MSM and didn't believe the gossip they were trying to spread. Further, they knew the awful truth about Clinton even though the MSM tried their best to defend her. Perhaps you are confusing politics with Hollywood. Back in the day it was not uncommon for movie producers to invent “scandal” involving the leading men and women to lure people into the movie houses. Sandal on the part of politicians has never been a career enhancer and you should know that. You apparently think the amount of coverage and not the type of coverage is the most important thing and you should know better. Most of us know better. Trump won in spite of CNN not because of CNN and nothing could be more obvious than that.

Nonsense. CNN had multiple guests -- and still do -- who are very supportive and complimentary towards Trump. CNN really does take a fairly centrist position towards politics no matter what conservatives say. Throughout the election I watched a lot of CNN, and I mean a LOT, and the coverage ranged from positive to negative to neutral, just like on any network. But one thing was constant -- you could turn on CNN at any given time and you would be sure that they'd be talking about Trump, unless Anthony Bourdain's show was on.

It was truly sickening. They helped hand the presidency to Trump. I have to give Trump credit for one thing, he understands how media works, and he understands how people get their information. He knows that there are only a handful of corporations who control the media in our country, and he knows how they generate their revenue. He knew that if he could be outrageous and compelling, he would gain coverage with ease because he knows the media weakness -- a news outlet can NOT lose eyeballs to a competitor. If one outlet doesn't cover him, the other one will.

The only thing he had to maintain was endurance throughout the campaign to be as engaging and controversial as possible, and he wouldn't have to fork out tons of cash for advertising because the news outlets would give him PLENTY of free airtime. It was an absolutely brilliant strategy. Even his bashing of the media is a strategic tool for him, he really doesn't "hate" the media -- he's doing that for a reason.

So they had guest that were supportive of Trump. How were they treated" I will tell you. CNN did their very best to attack Trump and his supporters. You are one of the few people who don't get it. At any rate, my dear fellow (or lady, as the case might be), even you would agree that most of the coverage of Trump by CNN and the rest of the MSM was negative.

PS: As expected, you didn't answer my two questions. I really didn't expect an answer but because of your above response I will ask you again expecting an answer: What did CNN ever say about Trump that was positive? And of those Trump supporter who were interviewed, what did they say that was not challenged by CNN?

I'm waiting.

Bill Maher just had Milo on.

Three other guests, One establishment republican and two hard core anti-trumpers.

It was a shout fest where milo was outnumbered 3 and a half to one. Just like it was planned.

And that is about the template for the vast majority of such "interviews".