JustHenry wrote:
When the majority of the media back the same political party, ANY political party, you no longer have journalism.  Yes, you can track who they back...simply look at their political donations.

Welcome aboard, mate. Will Lindsey G. win/lose?

JustHenry wrote:
When the majority of the media back the same political party, ANY political party, you no longer have journalism.  Yes, you can track who they back...simply look at their political donations.

You seem to think journalism can have no perspective. I dont believe that is true. Journalism should report facts- If those facts seem supportive of one side or the other--so be it. The reader is responsible for determining the truth of the reporting.

when one or both of the candidates for any given political office are deeply polarizing, deeply divisive- with unpopular views---- it is simply fair reporting to cover that aspect.

When an incumbent goes thru an entire term of office without ever achieving 50% approval of the voters--- it would be dishonest to say otherwise.

And when one side or the other spends 4 years demeaning any media he(she) deems less than supportive--- it is understandable that they dont bust their asses trying to find positive news about him(her)...

JustHenry wrote:
When the majority of the media back the same political party, ANY political party, you no longer have journalism.  Yes, you can track who they back...simply look at their political donations.

The media for a long time has been in the can for the democratic party, there was even a situation, I dont know if its true or not, that Hillary had been given the questions beforehand to a debate, which is an absolutely ridiculous level of collusion.

The bigger problem is the censorship of large media sites as with what is happening with twitter and facebook determining what people are even allowed to see and form their own opinion. thats North korea style.

for all their issues regarding Trump, they seem to be taking on all the qualities they complained Trump would usher in.
its like the liberals have ushered in the modern day version of book burning. they didn't even think twice. they just did it.

JustHenry wrote:
When the majority of the media back the same political party, ANY political party, you no longer have journalism.  Yes, you can track who they back...simply look at their political donations.

What "majority of media'? Name names, cite proof.  Otherwise, save it for Daily Caller. Thank you.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
The media for a long time has been in the can for the democratic party, there was even a situation, I dont know if its true or not, that Hillary had been given the questions beforehand to a debate, which is an absolutely ridiculous level of collusion.

The bigger problem is the censorship of large media sites as with what is happening with twitter and facebook determining what people are even allowed to see and form their own opinion. thats North korea style.

for all their issues regarding Trump, they seem to be taking on all the qualities they complained Trump would usher in.
its like the liberals have ushered in the modern day version of book burning. they didn't even think twice. they just did it.

Utter garbage.

"...there was even a situation, I dont know if its true or not, that Hillary had been given the questions beforehand to a debate"

YOU DONT KNOW IF ITS TRUE OR NOT BUT YOU STATE IT ANYWAY? That is what passes for journalism in trumpworld. And you have the colossal nerve to accuse professional journalists? And what is just amazing, you actually think you can get away with it. So sorry.

And BTW, that story is FALSE. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clint … re-debate/

"The bigger problem is the censorship of large media sites as with what is happening with twitter and Facebook "

ARE YOU SERIOUS? If it wasn't for social media, your favorite white supremacists, conspiracists, Russbots, Neo-nazi proudboy camo dress up tuff guys could never find each other. They would still be under the rocks they came from.

Not that facts mean anything to you, as we all have seen here time and time and time again. Debating a fact denier is a waste of time.  Nothing you say here is to be trusted or believed. Not your anecdotes, not your statistics, NOTHING. Try Alex Jones, down the hall, then take a right, then right, then right and there you are. HOME

Baanthai wrote:

Welcome aboard, mate. Will Lindsey G. win/lose?

I'm pro-second amendment wo I hope Lindsey Graham wins.

Focuspuller wrote:

What "majority of media'? Name names, cite proof.  Otherwise, save it for Daily Caller. Thank you.

There have been numerous reports of who mainstream media moguls and talking heads donate to.  It's readily available, look it up.  Don't expect me to do your homework.

JustHenry wrote:

There have been numerous reports of who mainstream media moguls and talking heads donate to.  It's readily available, look it up.  Don't expect me to do your homework.

Oh! "Numerous reports?" Why didn't you say so? And "people are saying?"  😂😂😂

"Don't expect me to do your homework"

You got it exactly backwards, but ignorance attached to arrogance is endemic on your team.

JustHenry wrote:
From Wikipedia.  Stats on media bias.  That took all of a couple of seconds.  You can do the same if you doubt my claim on political donations.

"According to a study by Lars Willnat and David H. Weaver, professors of journalism at Indiana University, conducted via online interviews with 1,080 reporters between August and December 2013, 28.1% of US journalists identify as Democrats, 7.1% as Republicans, and 50.2% as independents.[81][82][83] Additionally, a 2018 Arizona State University and Texas A&M University study of 462 financial journalists found thirteen times more financial journalists identified as "liberal," as opposed to "conservative." The study found 58.47% of financial journalists surveyed identified as "liberal," but only 4.5% identified as "conservative."[84]

An October 2017 Pew Research report found that 62% of stories involving US Republican President Donald Trump during his first 60 days in office had a negative assessment, compared to only 5% of stories with a positive assessment. By comparison, the study found that Democratic President Barack Obama received far more favorable coverage in his first 60 days in office; 42% of stories involving Obama during that period were identified as positive, and only 20% were identified as negative.[85][86] A May 2017 study from Harvard University's Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy of Trump's first 100 days in office also identified a similar negative tone in coverage. The study found that 93% of CNN & NBC coverage of President Trump during the period was negative. The survey also found 91% of CBS coverage was negative and that 87% of New York Times coverage was negative during Trump's first 100 days.[87]

An October 2018 Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,000 likely voters found 45% of Americans believed that when most reporters write about a congressional race, they are trying to help the Democratic candidate. Alternatively, only 11% believed that most reporters aimed to help Republican candidates.[88]"

That journalists are also citizens with opinions does not PROVE bias or false reporting, despite what fevered conspiracist right wingers are predisposed to think. And as a trump worshipper, you would of course consider fair and truthful NEWS coverage to be BIASED against trump, as in naming him a serial LIAR, because he just happens to be one. Is THAT counted as "negative in tone?"

"An October 2018 Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,000 likely voters found 45% of Americans believed that when most reporters write about a congressional race, they are trying to help the Democratic candidate."

You are not serious. Quoting a right-leaning polling firm on the question of liberal bias? You are joking.

You have proven nothing other than which bias YOU happen to have.

And BTW, Wikipedia? Really?

JustHenry wrote:

There have been numerous reports of who mainstream media moguls and talking heads donate to.  It's readily available, look it up.  Don't expect me to do your homework.

I suppose you think Fox news is a charitable organization, non-profit, aimed at truth, justice and the American way... ever heard of the Murdock Family? Hannity, Carlson, Bartiromo----never got the Pulitzer because ...wonder why....

And that pillar of conservative truths---Rush Limbaugh. Ever keep track of how many times he sells his own goods in the course of a broadcast? Or do you think HE is also a non-profit, charitable organization?

or maybe you support the wonderful journalism by Trump's favorite ass kissers-- OANN (One America News Network)--- owned by conspiracy theory king--Robert Herring.

Most of the folks who complain about media bias wouldnt recognize it if they fell over it.

JustHenry wrote:
[...]
An October 2017 Pew Research report found that 62% of stories involving US Republican President Donald Trump during his first 60 days in office had a negative assessment, compared to only 5% of stories with a positive assessment. [...]

one of my favorites- had he done anything positive to report---maybe it would have been different.

Trump got exactly what he deserved. He had been in office less than 24 hours when he started lying to the American public from the White House-

largest inauguration crowd my ass.

and it just got more outrageous by the hour... four years of his shit and most of the US is sick of him and his lies.

JustHenry wrote:
[...]
An October 2017 Pew Research report found that 62% of stories involving US Republican President Donald Trump during his first 60 days in office had a negative assessment, compared to only 5% of stories with a positive assessment. [...]

I just did a quite sampling of "Trump News" that is currently showing on major news sites...

- Trump administration's accomplishment press release includes "Ending the COVID-19 Pandemic"
- Rally where Trump suggested that he'd fire Fauci after the election
- Trump claims that "he can only lose the election if Democrats commit massive fraud"
- Trump claims "that 50,000 ballots were found in a river.  This did not happen. (Trump and his team have never named the supposed river.)"
- Trump claims "that California authorities admitted to having found one million fraudulent votes in the state. That never happened"
- Trump claims that his Trump train supporters "were protecting the Biden bus in Texas"
- Trum denies that the FBI is investigating the Texas Trump Train incident after the FBI confirms that they are investigating it
- Trump tells Fox & Friends describes  his time as President saying the experience has been “mean” and marked by "horrible people.”
- ‘Something must be done’: Trump lashes Supreme Court for ruling on Pennsylvania ballots.  “It will also induce violence in the streets,” the president wrote about the decision, which allows the state to count mail-in ballots up to three days after Election Day
- "A second-term Trump administration is considering expelling Cabinet members who have crossed the president, refused to mount investigations he has demanded or contradicted him on coronavirus"

etc, etc, etc...

I think that most people realize that all Trump has to do to reduce the amount of "negative" press coverage, is quit saying and doing so many crazy things, as they are going to get reported.   Duh.

LightDreams wrote:
I just did a quite sampling of "Trump News" that is currently showing on major news sites...

- Trump administration's accomplishment press release includes "Ending the COVID-19 Pandemic"
- Rally where Trump suggested that he'd fire Fauci after the election
- Trump claims that "he can only lose the election if Democrats commit massive fraud"
- Trump claims "that 50,000 ballots were found in a river.  This did not happen. (Trump and his team have never named the supposed river.)"
- Trump claims "that California authorities admitted to having found one million fraudulent votes in the state. That never happened"
- Trump claims that his Trump train supporters "were protecting the Biden bus in Texas"
- Trum denies that the FBI is investigating the Texas Trump Train incident after the FBI confirms that they are investigating it
- Trump tells Fox & Friends describes  his time as President saying the experience has been “mean” and marked by "horrible people.”
- ‘Something must be done’: Trump lashes Supreme Court for ruling on Pennsylvania ballots.  “It will also induce violence in the streets,” the president wrote about the decision, which allows the state to count mail-in ballots up to three days after Election Day
- "A second-term Trump administration is considering expelling Cabinet members who have crossed the president, refused to mount investigations he has demanded or contradicted him on coronavirus"

etc, etc, etc...

I think that most people realize that all Trump has to do to reduce the amount of "negative" press coverage, is quit saying and doing so many crazy things, as they are going to get reported.   Duh.

But every single one of those things is a positive to trump's followers, so trump's negative press is really nothing more than a matter of perspective.  It's positive, man! 

The problem comes because trump says, "Don't call governors who don't treat you right."  And people have to "be appreciative of government help." He signed a tax bill which would hurt the states he lost.  Or when ignores blue states for testing, or blames blue states for this or that.  How can trumpeteers not see that as positive?


In a Sept 17th article:
"The blue states had tremendous death rates," Trump said at a White House news briefing on Wednesday. "If you take the blue states out, we are at a level I don't think anybody in the world would be at." (Contrary to Trump's claim, Republican-controlled Texas and Florida are among the top five hardest-hit states in terms of coronavirus deaths, based on data compiled by The New York Times.)  How could anyone see that as negative press?

(The wiki article that had been quoted was taking statistically unrelated statistics and mashing them up to fit a theory that could not possibly been proven with an honest evaluation of those surveys.)