In more ways then one. We would be better off not reproducing that

Posted by bad_luck on 5/18/2017 11:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rjj4191 on 5/18/2017 10:14:00 PM (view original):
why am I using to big of words or does making sense offend your liberal sense of values

The period is your friend.

I've not found that to be true. Women are really grouchy when Red Fred rolls around.

Mike is always Mr Class!

C'mon, we were ALL thinking that. At least, all of us that are married.

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:





https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/

Kind of does make Fox look 'fair and balanced', eh?

Posted by toddcommish on 5/19/2017 12:41:00 PM (view original):
C'mon, we were ALL thinking that. At least, all of us that are married.

there's a difference between thinking it and posting it.

Posted by wylie715 on 5/19/2017 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 5/19/2017 12:41:00 PM (view original):
C'mon, we were ALL thinking that. At least, all of us that are married.

there's a difference between thinking it and posting it.

True, just like there's a difference between thinking it and saying it aloud.

Kinda like the difference between "still married" and "divorced"

Posted by moy23 on 5/19/2017 1:46:00 PM (view original):
Kind of does make Fox look 'fair and balanced', eh?

I bet they weren't "fair and balanced" with positive/negative Obama news.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/19/2017 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 5/19/2017 1:45:00 PM (view original):

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:





https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/

So you can go one of two ways with this:

1) CNN, NBC, CBS, the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal all decided that they were going to conspire against Trump to make him look bad. They decided to do this despite being competitors. The Wall Street Journal also decided to take part despite being a traditionally conservative paper.

OR

2) They are simply reporting what happens. Trump is responsible for the fact that his news is almost always negative. The fact that even Fox News is majority negative should say a lot.

The distinction is probably being lost on you, but the report is based on TONE, not content.

So "Trump signs new law" is different from "TRUMP RUINS LIVES OF MILLIONS"

I tend to consider the WSJ the middle of the road journalistically. Granted, they'll skew towards the business/financial relevance, and realistically, that's what affects us most day-to-day, so that's reasonable. Even so, if you think that 70/30 is the reasonable balance of negative/positive or even negative/neutral Trump activities, the top 3 on the list are pretty far off-base in their negativism.

If you read the NYT and the WSJ, and watch FoxNews, you're probably able to find reality somewhere in there. If you get all your info from CNN, NBC/MSNBC, and CBS, you're probably just stupid.