Harvard Study: Media Bias Against Trump

[Psychic Missile]

What do you expect the press to praise him for? He hasn't done anything worth positive coverage.

[rogue06]

Interesting when the focus is on the actual News reporting, leaving out Talk and opinion shows, We see how balanced Fox News is and how unbalanced MSM is.

That is what a variety of studies conducted found before 2008 when Fox did take a turn to the right. Prior to then they provided the most balanced coverage.

[rogue06]

Trump is probably the single worst and most incompetent president in US history. His first 100 days have had about 3 scandals per week. Is the press supposed to present that as 50/50?

I'd say it depends on how dedicated you are to searching for molehills to transform into mountains that you are. And barring that, simply making something up.

You're right, Trump has given his opponents boat loads of stuff to find fault with but they aren't content with that.

[Meh Gerbil]

What do you expect the press to praise him for? He hasn't done anything worth positive coverage.

The press before the election: Trump's explosive temperament will offend world leaders and start WWIII.
The press after the election: Trump invites Chinese government official to MarGaLo , cuddles with world leaders to make a buck.

^--- This is one of many examples of where it would have been impossible for Trump to meet with the Chinese ambassador without the press putting a negative spin on it. There are numerous examples of this sort of thing. They were reporting on how much ice cream he had to eat, for cryin' out loud.

I also ask you what the others will not answer:
1: Given the extreme bias.
2: Given that 95% of the press are Democrat

What makes you think you'd get a good report on Trump even if he did do well?

[Starlight]

Your views on his presidency came from where?

A huge variety of sources. I use a couple of source aggregators, which aggregate a couple of dozen sources each. So I see what is reported by news outlets here in NZ about Trump, I see what international sources are saying, and I see what within-US sources are saying.

The 97% negative coverage on CNN or from the rest of the media that is 95% Democrat?

I don't watch CNN. It's sad that the rest of the media aren't 100% Democrat because the current Republican party in the US is insane and unhinged and a serious threat to your country.

[rogue06]

It is interesting to see liberals defend the total one-sidedness of how the press covers Trump fairly much saying it's okay because they don't like Trump.

[Meh Gerbil]

A huge variety of sources. I use a couple of source aggregators, which aggregate a couple of dozen sources each. So I see what is reported by news outlets here in NZ about Trump, I see what international sources are saying, and I see what within-US sources are saying.

I'm glad you've aggregated the 97% bias of the media into one handy location.
Doesn't solve the root problem.

I don't watch CNN. It's sad that the rest of the media aren't 100% Democrat because the current Republican party in the US is insane and unhinged and a serious threat to your country.

Again, how would you know the actual nature of Trump's presidency.

I see that the Biblical account of Jesus is hand waved away because the authors were Christians.
I see that since the story of Jesus was handled by Christians they must have been biased and they must have distorted the story.

Yet somehow the press, a ridiculous majority of which are biased to one party, manages to get it right.

You are very inconsistent with how you handle your sources.

[RumTumTugger]

I don't watch CNN. It's sad that the rest of the media aren't 100% Democrat because the current Republican party in the US is insane and unhinged and a serious threat to your country.

So in other words you are saying You don't want to hear anything that does not agree with your view. That is definition of a closed mind.

[RumTumTugger]

I'm glad you've aggregated the 97% bias of the media into one handy location.
Doesn't solve the root problem.

Again, how would you know the actual nature of Trump's presidency.

I see that the Biblical account of Jesus is hand waved away because the authors were Christians.
I see that since the story of Jesus was handled by Christians they must have been biased and they must have distorted the story.

Yet somehow the press, a ridiculous majority of which are biased to one party, manages to get it right.

You are very inconsistent with how you handle your sources.

Meh Gerbil are you trying to get Starlight to leave another thread? You know he does not like to be shown for arrogant close minded fool he is.

[Starlight]

Again, how would you know the actual nature of Trump's presidency.

Because I see what different people say and use my brain. Trump says one thing, his spokespeople another, and the media another, and then a day later stories change. I get a feel for who is a pathological liar (Trump) and who is usually more accurate than not (the media).

I see that the Biblical account of Jesus is hand waved away because the authors were Christians.

Nah, it's because it is (a) a document written thousands of years ago. In general I just couldn't care less about such things. (b) a religious text and there's been plenty of religious nuts in all ages of history so that I just roll my eyes at their claims in general - when Sathya Sai Baba's followers in the 20th century claimed he did miracles I just roll my eyes, or when Joseph Smith had the 10 commandments on gold tablets, or when Scientology says Xenu alien souls or whatnot... all religions are some combination of loopy, gullible idiots, and scam artists.

I see that since the story of Jesus was handled by Christians they must have been biased and they must have distorted the story.

Even modern people who witness a car accident can sincerely disagree over what really happened. Semi-literate people in a religious cult thousands of years ago who convinced themselves they were having visions of their dead leader, might have been totally sincere in their beliefs, but their beliefs would still have little connection to reality.

You are very inconsistent with how you handle your sources.

No. I use critical analysis and critical thinking at all times.

[Mountain Man]

Of course we already knew this, but now it is official!

This is one of those "Well, duh! " stories.

Curiously, the media started out biased in favor of Trump early in the primary because they thought he was a joke candidate and would be easy pickings for Hillary on her way to the White House. Then when they started to realize that Trump had a real chance of winning, they became rabidly biased against him, and they haven't let up.

[seer]

This is one of those "Well, duh! " stories.

Curiously, the media started out biased in favor of Trump early in the primary because they thought he was a joke candidate and would be easy pickings for Hillary on her way to the White House. Then when they started to realize that Trump had a real chance of winning, they became rabidly biased against him, and they haven't let up.

That is exactly right...

[Yttrium]

This just in: media coverage of Kim Jong-un has been overwhelmingly negative. Why is the media so biased against the guy? Could it be that he just keeps staying stupid/insane things?

What if the media is overwhelmingly negative about Trump not because he's a Republican, but because he just keeps saying stupid and/or delusional things? I think it's safe to say that if Pence was Prez, he wouldn't be drawing so many negative reviews. In fact, I'm still looking forward to Pence taking over one of these days...

[mikewhitney]

It seems also that the media bias (as well as the bias of the Senate and Representatives) against Trump thus reflects their elitism -- their bias against the common man. Albeit Trump is richer than most of us, but he is 'common' in the sense of not being prepped as a politician (or having the bloodline or whatever) that is accepted by these elite groups.

The true American way would be to give Trump the opportunity to learn although he makes mistakes. Are our leaders so evil so as to work against those selected by the people?

[Mountain Man]

This just in: media coverage of Kim Jong-un has been overwhelmingly negative. Why is the media so biased against the guy? Could it be that he just keeps staying stupid/insane things?

What if the media is overwhelmingly negative about Trump not because he's a Republican, but because he just keeps saying stupid and/or delusional things? I think it's safe to say that if Pence was Prez, he wouldn't be drawing so many negative reviews. In fact, I'm still looking forward to Pence taking over one of these days...

So you really think Trump is deserving of the overwhelmingly negative coverage he gets from the media? You don't think the reporting could be just a little more balanced when it comes to our own President?