Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent Of Anti-Trump Media Bias

[domer76]

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

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.

[anatta]

Utterly retarded.
His actions are unrelentingly negative.
The media is just reporting the truth.
Cry harder mangina

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

[anatta]

IDIOT.
THERE ISN'T A SINGLE POSITIVE THING TRUMP HAS DONE.

and there it is..pretty much what the NYTimes/WaPo uses as their metric for advocacy journalism

[evince]

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

[evince]

and there it is..pretty much what the NYTimes/WaPo uses as their metric for advocacy journalism

he will go down in history as the worst president to ever serve


you shits will go down as traitors

[Rune]

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

What positive?

[Rune]

and there it is..pretty much what the NYTimes/WaPo uses as their metric for advocacy journalism

Go ahead and prove me wrong Trump ball licker.
List the positives.
Do it or shut the fuck up.

[MAGA MAN]

List the positives.

Trump drives you liberals to near suicide lol

[anatta]

Go ahead and prove me wrong Trump ball licker.
List the positives.
Do it or shut the fuck up.

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'

[PostmodernProphet]

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-c...0a9d-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.

/shrugs......fuck the Harvard report......its just telling demmycrats what demmycrats have been saying..........'nuff said.....

[Hesher]

Extra stupid warrants extra negative coverage. If the unpresident acted presidential things would be different. He can change the rules for himself and his flock but everyone else doesn't have to drink that orange Kool-aid.

[cancel2 2022]

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations



The academics based their study on seven US outlets and three European ones.

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive. - "Fair and Balanced" indeed.

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:



The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 days got a good write-up overall – with 59% of reports positive.

Bill Clinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:



Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility.
This study suggests that, at least when it comes to recent history, he’s right.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ump-media-bias

Holy shit, you don't need Harvard to tell you that. Look on here, it is a constant litany of bullshit and bollocks.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo

[BRUTALITOPS]

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations



The academics based their study on seven US outlets and three European ones.

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive. - "Fair and Balanced" indeed.

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:



The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 days got a good write-up overall – with 59% of reports positive.

Bill Clinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:



Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility.
This study suggests that, at least when it comes to recent history, he’s right.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ump-media-bias

liberals can't see this or understand it because of their culture privilege.

[Rune]

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'

Tell me what Trump has done that is good for the people.....if you can?

[Rune]

Trump drives you liberals to near suicide lol

That truly is the only thing though, isn't it?
Trump has done a single praiseworthy thing.