Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Spent the first 25 mins on Trump bashing
then a paltry 2 mins on the news event of the day (the terrorist massacre)
then straight back into more Trump bashing
that has to be a record in the art of avoidance and deflection journalism, even for them
then a paltry 2 mins on the news event of the day (the terrorist massacre)
then straight back into more Trump bashing
that has to be a record in the art of avoidance and deflection journalism, even for them
Show More
Percentage wise, right up there with CNN, NBC, etc, etc;
How negative was press coverage of President Trump's first 100 days in office? Far more than that of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, according to a new report from the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.
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.
The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.
Barone's Guide to Government: Freedom of Religion
Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads
Accusations of bias aside, it's simply a fact that a number of negative things happened in Trump's opening 100 days. The Russia investigation, for example, was a source of endless criticism from Democrats and other Trump opponents. The travel ban executive order led to intense argument and losses for the administration in the courts. The healthcare debacle created more negative coverage because it was a major screwup and a setback for both Trump and House Republicans.
That said, the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93 percent 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.
Ninety-three percent negative — that's a lot by anybody's standards. "CNN and NBC's coverage was the most unrelenting — negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks," the study noted. "Trump's coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity."
The Harvard study had plenty of criticism for Trump. "Never in the nation's history," the authors wrote, "has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy."
But the authors made clear that journalists are very much part of the problem. "At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it," the study said:
The public's low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press's watchdog role. One of the more remarkable features of news coverage of Trump's first 100 days is that it has changed few minds about the president, for better or worse. The nation's watchdog has lost much of its bite and won't regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties. The news media's exemplary coverage of Trump's cruise missile strike on Syria illustrates the type of even-handedness that needs to be consistently and rigorously applied.
www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative
How negative was press coverage of President Trump's first 100 days in office? Far more than that of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, according to a new report from the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.
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.
The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.
Barone's Guide to Government: Freedom of Religion
Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads
Accusations of bias aside, it's simply a fact that a number of negative things happened in Trump's opening 100 days. The Russia investigation, for example, was a source of endless criticism from Democrats and other Trump opponents. The travel ban executive order led to intense argument and losses for the administration in the courts. The healthcare debacle created more negative coverage because it was a major screwup and a setback for both Trump and House Republicans.
That said, the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93 percent 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.
Ninety-three percent negative — that's a lot by anybody's standards. "CNN and NBC's coverage was the most unrelenting — negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks," the study noted. "Trump's coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity."
The Harvard study had plenty of criticism for Trump. "Never in the nation's history," the authors wrote, "has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy."
But the authors made clear that journalists are very much part of the problem. "At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it," the study said:
The public's low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press's watchdog role. One of the more remarkable features of news coverage of Trump's first 100 days is that it has changed few minds about the president, for better or worse. The nation's watchdog has lost much of its bite and won't regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties. The news media's exemplary coverage of Trump's cruise missile strike on Syria illustrates the type of even-handedness that needs to be consistently and rigorously applied.
www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative
Lefties, who spout off that Fox is equally biassed in The Don`s favour might be interested in that 52% NEGATIVE figure; you see, lefties, the one big division between you and all good, right thinking people is that we are honest, YOU are not.
Sorry, just spotted another typo! Wouldn`t want any lefties to think I don`t even know how to spell their favourite word, `biased`...
The Harvard study had plenty of criticism for Trump. "Never in the nation's history," the authors wrote, "has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy."
Do you think your own cut and paste might give us a clue as to why the press coverage is so negative. Even Fox News coverage couldn't go in his favour.
Do you think your own cut and paste might give us a clue as to why the press coverage is so negative. Even Fox News coverage couldn't go in his favour.
It`s called `being honest`,an unusual concept for lefties.
No mention of Rapist or Men being nearly Kicked to death on there ,Plat ?
Not a dickie bird.
The perpetrators would have to be either Trump or Brexit supporters to even register on their journalistic radar.
The perpetrators would have to be either Trump or Brexit supporters to even register on their journalistic radar.
Channel 4 News is a total joke these days, it's just a bunch of angry incredibly biased lefty tawsers going after whatever leftie cause celebre of the day.
It might be 15 minutes of Trump bashing, 10 minutes of Brexit bashing, the obligatory 15 minutes about "diversity" issues, 10 minutes totally on the side of the religious militants (of their fav religion) in Syria who kicked their civil war off and 5 minutes hating Boris. Currently they've wiped the schedules to try and delegitimise trump and brexit by this nonsense about facebook data usage - it's blatant and just sad.
I don't know how they can pretend to be a serious neutral news program, they are nothing of the kind.
I'm sure it was never anything like this bad 10-20 years ago.
That interview that went viral where Newman tried to take down a right leaning Academic and got totally destroyed was fantastic. She just tried to twist everything he said into the most ridicuous (and hopefully damaging )exageration and throw it back at him, she had no interest in what he was actually saying. He handled it calmly and magnificently. And she's one of the more neutral journalists, the others on it are worse!
That leftist nutcase Mason (..who this week was saying Facebook should be nationalised..) left Channel 4 news as he felt it constrained him as it wasn't left wing enough - surprises me. He should have just hung on.
It might be 15 minutes of Trump bashing, 10 minutes of Brexit bashing, the obligatory 15 minutes about "diversity" issues, 10 minutes totally on the side of the religious militants (of their fav religion) in Syria who kicked their civil war off and 5 minutes hating Boris. Currently they've wiped the schedules to try and delegitimise trump and brexit by this nonsense about facebook data usage - it's blatant and just sad.
I don't know how they can pretend to be a serious neutral news program, they are nothing of the kind.
I'm sure it was never anything like this bad 10-20 years ago.
That interview that went viral where Newman tried to take down a right leaning Academic and got totally destroyed was fantastic. She just tried to twist everything he said into the most ridicuous (and hopefully damaging )exageration and throw it back at him, she had no interest in what he was actually saying. He handled it calmly and magnificently. And she's one of the more neutral journalists, the others on it are worse!
That leftist nutcase Mason (..who this week was saying Facebook should be nationalised..) left Channel 4 news as he felt it constrained him as it wasn't left wing enough - surprises me. He should have just hung on.
This is the (8.5 million views now) interview I'm talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
Came at him in the usual Channel 4 new "attack the non PC guy, how dare he not be on the same page as us and the Guardian" mode and got put on her posterior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
Came at him in the usual Channel 4 new "attack the non PC guy, how dare he not be on the same page as us and the Guardian" mode and got put on her posterior.
C4 news used to be excellent, circa 20 years ago. My old man would turn in his grave if he saw it now 
Best video on the internet, never ever has so much been revealed about a certain person in so little time.
Have you read his book?
https://jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-for-life/
£10 from Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/12-Rules-Life-Antidote-Chaos/dp/0241351634
https://jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-for-life/
£10 from Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/12-Rules-Life-Antidote-Chaos/dp/0241351634
Books, plural ...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jordan-B.-Peterson/e/B001HMLIKQ/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jordan-B.-Peterson/e/B001HMLIKQ/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0
I try not to watch C4 news now as it's just, as I say, a joke. I often tune in about half way through. After they've covered the main news of the day (normally going apeshit about trump) if you tune in about 7:30ish odds on it'll be someone from a minority lecturing, as the interviewer agrees, as to why all white non SJWers are scumbags. If you made a drinking game out of it you'd end up like George Best.
Guru Murphy's technique when he starts losing his one sided interview it to silence the person winning the argument.
Talking of bias, that shockingly biased arrogant patronising t1t James O'Brien who made Newsnight totally unwatchable has now been removed from their list of journalists, because he couldn't be impartial. Just happened to read about it. I hadn't even noticed as newsnight has went so downhill I rarely watch it, when I used to watch every night like clockwork..
Guru Murphy's technique when he starts losing his one sided interview it to silence the person winning the argument.
Talking of bias, that shockingly biased arrogant patronising t1t James O'Brien who made Newsnight totally unwatchable has now been removed from their list of journalists, because he couldn't be impartial. Just happened to read about it. I hadn't even noticed as newsnight has went so downhill I rarely watch it, when I used to watch every night like clockwork..
Half way through trilby, now i have to read his first book, map of something.
Aye, Newsnight used to be the mutt's nuts too & I'd tune in every night - years ago but no more.
O'Brien had a gig at it? Lol, that would have to have been the final nail!
I'm going to order it, IS. His current one.
O'Brien had a gig at it? Lol, that would have to have been the final nail!
I'm going to order it, IS. His current one.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539