Christianity Today Op Ed

[Jaecp]

The concept that the American media coddles Trump is jaw-droppingly moronic. Analysis repeatedly shows that over 90% of their coverage is negative and they only give grudgingly minimal coverage for how well the economy is doing, the record setting low unemployment rates among minorities, the new trade deals he has worked out or a whole slew of things that they would spotlighting if a Democrat was president.

The vast vast majority of things Trump has done are negative and the fact that the economy kept trending in the same direction it was when he took office is not indicative of anything significant. New trade deal? USMCA is a mild update to NAFTA and it hasn't been ratified yet. So, again, big deal. Trump is a criminal and a disgrace to the office. I didn't think he'd beat pardoning a war criminal, but hey, I guess becoming one is on brand at this point. The dude is coddled in the US media compared to European media, plain as day.

[Cow Poke]

It’s the duly elected House of Representatives, whether you like it or not, and it has impeached the president.

A) It wasn't the "duly elected House of Representatives", Tassy -- it was the incredibly partisan DEMOCRATS of the House.
2) I'm totally fine with the fact that the partisan hacks impeached Trump.

No. It was the intention of the FF that the Senate run an impeachment trial impartially and fairly – as reflected in the oath the Senators are Constitutionally bound to swear: “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of [in this case, Donald J. Trump] now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

"Fair" is relative. Fair to whom? If the House sends them a highly partisan stinkbomb, the Senate has the option of rejecting it. Whether you like it or not.

[MaxVel]

LOL

Dude,

You might have forgotten me, but I haven't forgotten you. I'll refer you to my previous post about how European media doesn't coddle him like ours does. That is the truth and it remains my answer. Which, incidentally, you never actually directly addressed ;P you just pretended like I'd agreed with you and wrote something wacky

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten you.

You said : "Plus, plenty of the TWeb atheists aren't American and their news doesn't give Trump cover like our news media does"

I haven't seen much, if any, positive coverage of Trump, but rather a fair bit of biased and loaded headlines with articles whose content doesn't support the claim the headline makes. IOW, trash journalism, opinion presented as objective reporting, and all anti-Trump.

All the non-American news coverage I have seen is unrelentingly anti-Trump, including persistent use of skewed language ('Trump rages' etc) in headlines, and stretching the truth if not breaking it, in content. Nothing positive is said about Trump or anything he does.

Seems about right

Trump rages a lot. American media cuts around his insanity. Europeans are calling it like it is because they don't have a vested interest like our news media does. He's a bad leader and easily our most financially corrupt in a century

The sentence in bold either means that you agree that non-American media coverage of Trump is overwhelmingly negative; or that you agree that propaganda and lies are the 'right' way to report on Trump. Since I do remember you, and have seen some of your recent posts here, I naturally took you to mean the latter. Further, given my post above, you couldn't possibly think that I agree that "Europeans {their media} are calling it like it is..." as I had pointed out the anti-Trump bias and distortions of fact all too common in supposed 'news reports'.

Knowing that you clearly see yourself as both morally and intellectually superior to posters here who don't share your political hobbyhorses, it's obvious that you wouldn't be concerned about lies and propaganda being presented as truth if it attacks Trump and supports your fan-boy admiration of Democrats.

Correct, the European media doesn't 'coddle' Trump, they regularly slant their articles against him and never miss a chance to ridicule and cast him in the worst possible light, even if that means stretching the truth.

Either you care about the truth, and want people to reject Trump for good reasons, in which case you would be against media falsehoods and lies about Trump**; or you care about 'winning', in which case anything is fair if it makes people dislike or hate Trump. Which is it?


Me, I want to know the truth, which is why I find it suspicious that I see so much gutter 'journalism' directed against Trump.


** If he's really as bad as you say, then cheap clickbait headlines and less than factual articles are harmful - they make people less likely to believe the truth about Trump.

[Mountain Man]

It

I mean, yeah

Anyone that's not a Republican has seen through Trump significantly longer than Democratic leadership has. Plus, plenty of the TWeb atheists aren't American and their news doesn't give Trump cover like our news media does

Our media gives Trump cover? What?

[lilpixieofterror]

It
Our media gives Trump cover? What?

Do you hate Trump, with ever fiber of your being?

If not, you’re giving Trump ‘cover’.

[One Bad Pig]

The concept that the American media coddles Trump is jaw-droppingly moronic.

I doubt that even JimL has managed to plumb that level of stupid.

[Jaecp]

It
Our media gives Trump cover? What?

Yeah, they do. Why do you think Maxvel is interpreting European media being meaner? It's not because they're making stuff upz but because they're not invested in making Trump look like he's a functioning human being

[Jaecp]

Max, again,

Trump getting more negative press overseas has to do with the media describing him accurately. I dunno what else you expect me to say.

Like, it's standard practice for you guys to just... Blatantly "misinterpret" what liberals say on this website.

I used to get some enjoyment out of slowly explaining why people were wrong, but I don't got time for that when I know you know the actual thing I said

So, Max and anyone else, be honest or I'm not going to respond to your carefully crafted nonsense unless it's a good faith arguments and all that,

Cool? Cool!

[seanD]

Max, again,

Trump getting more negative press overseas has to do with the media describing him accurately. I dunno what else you expect me to say.

Like, it's standard practice for you guys to just... Blatantly "misinterpret" what liberals say on this website.

I used to get some enjoyment out of slowly explaining why people were wrong, but I don't got time for that when I know you know the actual thing I said

So, Max and anyone else, be honest or I'm not going to respond to your carefully crafted nonsense unless it's a good faith arguments and all that,

Cool? Cool!

You'll respond lol. And, ya, thinking the US media is covering for Trump, other than Fox News (although even some commentators on Fox have been critical), is insane, and I think even takes TDS into a whole other reality.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, they do. Why do you think Maxvel is interpreting European media being meaner? It's not because they're making stuff upz but because they're not invested in making Trump look like he's a functioning human being

Honestly, I don't know where you're finding positive coverage of Trump in mainstream news. The only difference with international coverage is that there's not the equivalent of Breitbart or FOX News to provide some balance.

[JimL]

You'll respond lol. And, ya, thinking the US media is covering for Trump, other than Fox News (although even some commentators on Fox have been critical), is insane, and I think even takes TDS into a whole other reality.

The media isn't there to make you happy, if they're tough on Trump it's because he's earned it. And he has! But are they tough enough? Being that the country is pretty much split down the middle politically, the media can't win in the eyes of the public. Approximately 70% of both sides have opposing views concerning the media's toughness, or lack thereof, in it's coverage of Trump. Independents are split down the middle regarding the same issue, half believing the media's too tough, the other half, not tough enough.

[oxmixmudd]

Honestly, I don't know where you're finding positive coverage of Trump in mainstream news. The only difference with international coverage is that there's not the equivalent of Breitbart or FOX News to provide some balance.

Breitbart and Fox are not 'balance', they are mostly pro-Trump propaganda. People that get the majority of their information from them are, when it comes to Donald Trump, in a little bubble where the real world is excluded and they can hear what makes the happy.

[seanD]

Breitbart and Fox are not 'balance', they are mostly pro-Trump propaganda. People that get the majority of their information from them are, when it comes to Donald Trump, in a little bubble where the real world is excluded and they can hear what makes the happy.

That's another common regurgitated talking point in this forum, yet I just got through watching a Fox clip of them interviewing Gabbard and her criticism of Trump's actions against Iran, and they didn't even try and talk over her...

I highly doubt we'll even see MSNBC or CNN go that far.

[lilpixieofterror]

Breitbart and Fox are not 'balance', they are mostly pro-Trump propaganda. People that get the majority of their information from them are, when it comes to Donald Trump, in a little bubble where the real world is excluded and they can hear what makes the happy.

And the MSM are pro liberal propaganda. People that get the majority of their information from them are, when it comes to Democrats, in a little bubble where the real world is excluded and they can hear what makes the happy.

That was easy. Come back when you got more than a smear.

[DivineOb]

The concept that the American media coddles Trump is jaw-droppingly moronic. Analysis repeatedly shows that over 90% of their coverage is negative and they only give grudgingly minimal coverage for how well the economy is doing, the record setting low unemployment rates among minorities, the new trade deals he has worked out or a whole slew of things that they would spotlighting if a Democrat was president.

What percentage of the coverage Trump receives on Fox is negative? Surely it's quite low since it has to balance out MSNBC and CNN which must contribute a good fraction of that 90%.