Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent Of Anti-Trump Media Bias

I wonder why Drumpf fan boys never link to the actual academic reports, but give us some link to what some obscure blog thought about the report?

Here is the link to the Harvard report.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-...il&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085


He has been the most incompetent, least popular, and most prone to misteps and blunders of any president in the first 100 days in my entire adult lifetime.

So is just reporting the facts considered "negative"?

What was truly remarkable to me in this study is that Drumpf has historically low approval rating, even though the media let's voices from his propogandists dominate while mostly filtering out anti-Trump voices.

"Republican voices accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency, compared to only 6 percent for Democrats and 3 percent for those involved in anti-Trump protests."

Annata's Harvard Study at
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-...il&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
I wonder why Drumpf fan boys never link to the actual academic reports, but give us some link to what some obscure blog thought about the report?

Here is the link to the Harvard report.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-...il&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085


He has been the most incompetent, least popular, and most prone to misteps and blunders of any president in the first 100 days in my entire adult lifetime.

So is just reporting the facts considered "negative"?

What was truly remarkable to me in this study is that Drumpf has historically low approval rating, even though the media let's voices from his propogandists dominate while mostly filtering out anti-Trump voices.
Click to expand...
Fan boys, great description!
 
Cypress said:
He has been the most incompetent, least popular, and most prone to misteps and blunders of any president in the first 100 days in my entire adult lifetime.



What was truly remarkable to me in this study is that Drumpf has historically low approval rating, even though the media let's voices from his propogandists dominate while mostly filtering out anti-Trump voices.
Click to expand...

misteps according to who? you? the media?
Let me explain to you who disagrees with you and why that matters.
305 electoral votes, and it means you lose AGAIN.

And approval rating polls are just like the approval ratings polls that said Hillary was going to win in a landslide.

So I would suggest you either turn the channel, or think for yourself. Your present source of info is leading you down the loser path, AGAIN
 
the "blog" was an easy format to c/p - that link is full of methodology ,and a difficult read

(I looked for coverage on WaPo and unsurprisingly could not find it..an hysterical irony for sure) :rolleyes:

CYPRESS link to the study shows the same results -but being the full study is very difficult to speak to

All six portrayed Trump’s first 100 days in highly unfavorable terms (see Figure 6). CNN and NBC’s coverage was the most unrelenting—negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks. Trump’s coverage on CBS also exceeded the 90 percent mark. Trump’s coverage exceeded the 80 percent level in The New York Times (87 percent negative) and The Washington Post (83 percent negative). The Wall Street Journal came in below that level (70 percent negative), a difference largely attributable to the Journal’s more frequent and more favorable economic coverage.
Click to expand...

Negative on All Counts

Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days was not merely negative in overall terms. It was unfavorable on every dimension. There was not a single major topic where Trump’s coverage was more positive than negative (see Figure 7)..etc
++

you can read the conclusion, but even that is biased. What's remarkable about it is this is HARVARD
and even a liberal bastion is forced to admit the coverage is unrelentingly negative
 
anatta said:
it shows what is obvious about the coverage. Media coverage is slanted or heavily biased to show and amp up anything negative about an issue where Trump is concerned.

So if you are talking about "the wall" for ex - you'll hear about costs, eminent domain, and splitting up families.
You will not hear about keeping recidivist border crossers with felony records out -like Kate Steinle's killer for ex.

The media is so heavily invested in spinning the negative, the distorted reportage is essentially fake news
Click to expand...

No you fucking retard.
It shows that Trump's actions are unpopular as fuck.
It isn't the media negative, they are responding in kind to Trump.
You biased shitstain.
 
anatta said:
the "blog" was an easy format to c/p - that link is full of methodology ,and a difficult read

(I looked for coverage on WaPo and unsurprisingly could not find it..an hysterical irony for sure) :rolleyes:

CYPRESS link to the study shows the same results -but being the full study is very difficult to speak to



Negative on All Counts

Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days was not merely negative in overall terms. It was unfavorable on every dimension. There was not a single major topic where Trump’s coverage was more positive than negative (see Figure 7)..etc
++

you can read the conclusion, but even that is biased. What's remarkable about it is this is HARVARD
and even a liberal bastion is forced to admit the coverage is unrelentingly negative
Click to expand...

Trump is unfavorable in every dimension you ignorant fucktard.
Lets look at his efforts so far;
Cutting health insurance for 24 million Americans
Cutting meals on wheels
Cutting foid stamps
Cutting environment regs
Giving away National Parks
Not wanting to reverse the private prison system
Going after small time reefer users
Supporting confiscation of cash from citizens
Increasing an already bloated military budget
Coddling Russia
Building an unwanted hyper-expensive wall.
Cutting funding for planned parenthood.
Insulting Mexicans, women,journalists and the intelligence community.

The simple truth is he is doing nothing that Americans consider positive.
 
Cypress said:
I wonder why Drumpf fan boys never link to the actual academic reports, but give us some link to what some obscure blog thought about the report?

Here is the link to the Harvard report.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-...il&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085


He has been the most incompetent, least popular, and most prone to misteps and blunders of any president in the first 100 days in my entire adult lifetime.

So is just reporting the facts considered "negative"?

What was truly remarkable to me in this study is that Drumpf has historically low approval rating, even though the media let's voices from his propogandists dominate while mostly filtering out anti-Trump voices.
Click to expand...

He isn't capable of addressing it.
He needs a dumbed down version.
 
anatta said:
the "blog" was an easy format to c/p - that link is full of methodology ,and a difficult read

(I looked for coverage on WaPo and unsurprisingly could not find it..an hysterical irony for sure) :rolleyes:

CYPRESS link to the study shows the same results -but being the full study is very difficult to speak to



Negative on All Counts

Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days was not merely negative in overall terms. It was unfavorable on every dimension. There was not a single major topic where Trump’s coverage was more positive than negative (see Figure 7)..etc
++

you can read the conclusion, but even that is biased. What's remarkable about it is this is HARVARD
and even a liberal bastion is forced to admit the coverage is unrelentingly negative
Click to expand...

IDIOT.
THERE ISN'T A SINGLE POSITIVE THING TRUMP HAS DONE.
 
I Love America said:
I think it is safe to say that even if Trump cured lung cancer the headline would be Trump Hat s Women: Leaves Millions to Die of Breast Cancer
Click to expand...

I think it is safe to say you're a fucking idiot. Is it biased? Nope. It's the truth. Just like the coverage of Orangetweet.
 
Rune said:
Utterly retarded.
His actions are unrelentingly negative.
The media is just reporting the truth.
Cry harder mangina
Click to expand...
you are incapable of realizing that the "unrelenting negative" coverage ( i.e.extreme bias) is 180 degrees from reporting the truth.
You might as well say pravda is the truth. Media coverage isn't state sponsored like Russia-
it's highly partisan coverage instead. It's written to supply form to that pre-set narrative..i.e. fake news
 
I bet if they did this in Nixons time all stations would have been negative on Nixon.

there is a reason why

its called FACTS
 
anatta said:
you are not understanding. look at the issues in the OP. when they are reported on, they are spun with high negative coverage.
In many cases because of an utter lack of balance they are hit pieces. Or the negative factors are so emphasized,
the positive features are muted towards the background

This isn't up for debate, the Harvard study shows this
Click to expand...

What positive?
 
Rune said:
Go ahead and prove me wrong Trump ball licker.
List the positives.
Do it or shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...
you are so gaddamed stupid you do not understand biased coverage. This is pathetic even for yourself.

"positive" (in terms of issues) for me isn't "positive" for you. that's a value judgement.

The TYPE OF COVERAGE is what is in question here..
as the source says the "unrelenting negativity" precludes giving a full (unbiased) picture
hence 'advocacy journalism'
 
Cypress said:
I wonder why Drumpf fan boys never link to the actual academic reports, but give us some link to what some obscure blog thought about the report?

Here is the link to the Harvard report.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-...il&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085


He has been the most incompetent, least popular, and most prone to misteps and blunders of any president in the first 100 days in my entire adult lifetime.

So is just reporting the facts considered "negative"?

What was truly remarkable to me in this study is that Drumpf has historically low approval rating, even though the media let's voices from his propogandists dominate while mostly filtering out anti-Trump voices.
Click to expand...

/shrugs......fuck the Harvard report......its just telling demmycrats what demmycrats have been saying..........'nuff said.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top