Harvard Study: Media Bias Against Trump

[Charles]

So instead of citing biased news sources for your viewpoint you've back peddled to citing yourself as the reliable source.
Okay.

We all use different sources, I would suppose. I would never rely only on media interpretations or presentations. Neither would I rely solely on the words of Trump and his administration. When they contradict each other it is up to everyone to determine who they find most reliable. I do not have to read many Trump tweets, hear many of his speaches or listen to him for a very long time in order to determine that his definition of truth is way to sloopy for me to trust him in all matters. Neither do I trust media in all matters. Basically you have to evaluate all the time. That's what I think quite many in here seem to forget. You cannot say Trump is always wrong, Hillary is always wrong, CNN is always wrong and create boxes like that. But quite many in here are doing that.

[Charles]

You've some good thoughts there; however, the percentage of negative stories on the networks combined with the percentage of democrats in journalism kind of adds up to something a tad bit self-serving. Is it surprising the news is this lopsided when 95% of journalists are Democrats?

If you get your news from sources that are 95% opposition I would expect you to walk away with a negative representation of Trump.

For example, if Tassman laid down a really good argument in Apologetics 301 and we voted on it here on TWEB what percentage of approval do you think he'd get?
If you received an assessment of his argument only from Christians how many of those assessments would paint it fairly?

This is why you'll never catch me watching the news.
If I wanted to make up trash about Trump, well, I can do that on my own.
I don't have to watch some overpaid hairdo to get gossip.

Thanks. What i would like to point to is that I find this investigation must be biased in someway in and of itself. Like I pointed to, it does not allow for news coverage to be neither positive nor negative but just fact based reporting. At least that kind of news is not counted in this investigation. So an article with the headline "The Chinese president is about to visit Donald Trump" would have to be interpreted as either positive or negative. But based on what? Who determines whether it is god or bad? And another example "Trump says CNN is fake news". Is that positive or negative coverage. Many reader will find the statement wrong. But if that is what he actually said is it then negative coverage? Who determines that and based on what?

It is only fair to be aware of what might be biased and you may be right that media is biased while I may also be right that this study is in itself biased to some degree.

I like your use of the Tassman example because I think you are right that he would probably get a rather low approval. (I would vote for him, by the way!). But while he would not get a high percentage what would happen would be that those who oppose him would come up with ideas that were obviously weaker than his. So based in numbers, he would not have any succes. Based on perhaps slowly changing the mind of the readers, then, slowly, he might change peoples perspective, making them more open to his approach.

[Starlight]

So instead of citing biased news sources for your viewpoint you've back peddled to citing yourself as the reliable source.

I watch quite a few video clips of Trump of footage of Trump or his spokespeople saying stuff in interviews.

Is your conspiracy theory that the 'liberal' media are faking video footage?

[Meh Gerbil]

I watch quite a few video clips of Trump of footage of Trump or his spokespeople saying stuff in interviews.
Is your conspiracy theory that the 'liberal' media are faking video footage?

[rogue06]

Would they show the interviews where he performed well?
Do they ask questions that would allow for favorable responses?
What is the commentary like after the interview?

Those are going to be few and far between given what happened afterwards to those responsible if Trump isn't portrayed by them as being anything less than a rabid ogre.

Look at how the left savaged Jimmy Fallon for not attacking Trump when he was a guest on the Tonight Show. For the crime of being polite many now refuse to watch his show and his viewership has dropped significantly.

[Mountain Man]

So instead of citing biased news sources for your viewpoint you've back peddled to citing yourself as the reliable source.
Okay.

Yeah, but he's the smartest guy in an empty room, so you can totally trust him.

[Mountain Man]

Those are going to be few and far between given what happened afterwards to those responsible if Trump isn't portrayed by them as being anything less than a rabid ogre.

Look at how the left savaged Jimmy Fallon for not attacking Trump when he was a guest on the Tonight Show. For the crime of being polite many now refuse to watch his show and his viewership has dropped significantly.

Meanwhile, Stephen Colbert has centered his show around vindictive, mean-spirited tirades against Trump, and his ratings shot up.

Of course this all assumes we can trust ratings.

[Psychic Missile]

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?

Liberal media loved him ordering missiles shot at an empty airbase for some reason.

[Teallaura]

...

For example, if Tassman laid down a really good argument in Apologetics 301 and we voted on it here on TWEB what percentage of approval do you think he'd get?
If you received an assessment of his argument only from Christians how many of those assessments would paint it fairly?

...

Sadly, this is true - and it shouldn't be. We need to at least TRY to be fair.

And we don't as much as we should. Me included.

[Teallaura]

Was FOX overwhelmingly negative when it came to Obama? I'm not sure. I thought they were pretty evenhanded, all things considered, and if they were overwhelmingly negative, it was offset by the overwhelmingly positive coverage he got from every other mainstream outlet. Trump is getting nothing but negative, except for FOX which is about 50/50 positive versus negative.

They were never as negative as I wanted them to be when I was mad at the guy...

[Teallaura]

Lots of good stuff happened, probably no recent president did as much in so short time (which is why fake news media lie and says he failed)

Off top of head:
1) SCOTUS: Scalia replacement in
2) TPP: killed
3) Jobs: YUUUUUGE number of new jobs, hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousand
4) Wall: last I heard they testing prototypes, progressing well!!!
5) Deportation of illgals: ICE deporting them, also
6) Illegal immigration: YUUUUGE drop in illegals coming in!!!
7) Rebalancing trade with China (also other countries): new trade deals with China signed recently
8) Keystone pipeline: approved
9) Syria (&Russia), NK (&China): handled okay with no WW3
10) Obamacare: repeal in progress

I repeat myself but fake news media says Trump failed, so 'I can think for myself' you parrot and say he failed

I haven't been following the economy and I'm not much of a Trump fan but I have already noticed some signs of economic improvement.

[Leonhard]

I haven't been following the economy and I'm not much of a Trump fan but I have already noticed some signs of economic improvement.

There were plenty of economic improvements during the Obama administration. People forget that Obama started his presidency right at the collapse of the housing bubble in the US, which economists had warned of for a long time.

[Meh Gerbil]

Liberal media loved him ordering missiles shot at an empty airbase for some reason.

The Cash, Cocaine, and Call Girl party loves it when money is spent.

[Leonhard]

As for the OP, I don't get what you guys are saying. Do all news reporting have to be 50-50 balanced? Isn't that the kind of fake balance people were complaining about a decade back?

Personally I don't watch news, and the only times I know that Trump has done anything, is through the US bloggers I read. So far though I haven't seen what good exactly his presidency has accomplished. When I ask conservatives he seems to be good only on two points: One judge in the supreme court (who won't overturn Roe) and not being Hillary.

The wall is dead (thankfully - what a waste of money), that horrible muslim ban is dead, and so far Trumpcare is looking to be even worse than what was developed during the Obama administration, and the Republicans seem to be shocked to find out that what Trump actually wants is single-payer healthcare via taxation.

[Sea of red]

As for the OP, I don't get what you guys are saying. Do all news reporting have to be 50-50 balanced? Isn't that the kind of fake balance people were complaining about a decade back?

They have this ridiclous idea that no matter how bad Republicans perform the news should balance out that reality with a 50% denial of it - as if that's healthy for the citizenry.