TV Networks’ Coverage of Trump Was 90% Negative in 2018, Study Shows

AJ, have you noticed not one lefty in this thread has been able to provide data to back their claims?

Everyone else noticed.

 

I don't think theres a question about it.

Its present and overwhelming.

 

True because I know Fox would never let facts get in the way of their need to cater to the 40% of the population that supports Trump.

 

Is it your premise that the MSM is otherwise neutral?

Is that what you are saying?

 

We had a GOP Congress for the last 2 yrs also and look at the fix we are in.

 

Why would we need to back up the 90% number. If you don't think it is an accurate reflection of Trump's Presidency it is up to you to prove that the number is bias rather than just honest reporting. Any President who has managed to lie over seven thousand times in only two years probably deserves even higher negative coverage.

 

You've got your logic wires crossed guy.

I made the statement that it was accurate, and nary a lefty has proven otherwise.

 

Define " otherwise" . And just out of curiosity why do you not consider FOX mainstream media?

 

No Try reading what I said again. I think the number is probably accurate but it doesn't reflect bias just honest factual reporting. Understand my point now,

 

We've known that was a lie for decades, yet the liberal media still persists on telling it...

 

I think some people disapprove of some of Trump's policy choices, that some people think its better to confront North Korea more forcefully and was a mistake for Trump to meet Kim, but I also believe the rhetoric became overheated with this crossing insults and threats and that something had to be done to keep Kim from lobbing missiles across Japan, things have toned down a bit, there's a long way to go, but an offer of denuclearization is a good thing that should be taken up. Ninety percent of the media coverage on this portrayed Trump's move as deplorable.

I think it is ridiculous NATO members like Germany, Britain, France and Italy can barely contribute 2% of their budgets on military spending. NATO has a formidable, well paid and very technologically advanced force with extensive and sophisticated installations capable of containing and repelling a Russian attack, but that this force is overwhelmingly equipped and paid for by the US despite the fact NATO's members are all highly developed and financially capable nations, that they should contribute more to their own defense. Trump's criticism of NATO members' insignificant military spending has been overwhelmingly criticized by the media.

I think the US is not accomplishing much remaining in Syria, the threat from ISIS has effectively been significantly reduced, their caliphate demolished, we aren't getting flashy videos of their decapitations and tossing homosexuals from tall buildings, meanwhile Syria, Turkey, Russia, Iran and the Kurds are getting entangled in a clear quagmire where there's a growing risk US forces could be caught up in the crossfire, Assad is not going to be overthrown and Russia won't lose its naval base, so there's no point in remaining. I haven't seen any favorable coverage of Trump's decision to withdraw forces from there.

I think the tax cuts last year provided a tremendous boost to the economy, I'm sure it was a fabulous windfall for large corporations and wealthy taxpayers, but I know it personally benefited me and hundreds of millions of other workers who immediately got a boost as lower amounts were deducted from their paychecks. We all experienced the effect, GDP rose, unemployment fell and corporations made capital investments. There's been negligible positive coverage in the media of this policy decision.

I think each of these examples of Trump's policy choices, which were all very negatively reported, could bear more intelligent consideration, that although Kim could renege, NATO is a longstanding ally, ISIS could resurge and the economy could tank, intelligent people could use better analysis of such policy choices and were not getting any from mainstream media where the talking heads all uniformly agreed whatever Trump does it is awful.

 

Well of course it was overwhelmingly negative! The guy is an inarticulate blithering idiot who screws up everything he attempts. Oh and the treason thing.

 

why would there be negative coverage of Obama, for a republican caused recession?

 

I'm not amused, it worries me that something described as "mainstream" media which includes global networks of TV broadcasters, major internet content providers with the greatest audiences, plus all the major periodical publications, are all providing distorted coverage, 90% of it derogatory and critical of Trump.

Trump's criticism of NATO's low military spending is a good example, Mauritania, Ukraine, Lebanon, Jordan, Namibia, Armenia, Bahrain and Azerbaijan, all devote more than 4% of their GDP on the military. Sure Ukraine has a war going on, but how come Mauritania, Armenia and Namibia spend more of their GDP than Germany, Britain and France? Sure the GDP of Mauritania, Armenia and Namibia is insignificant compared to that of Germany, Britain and France and that military equipment is expensive, but how can major industrial powers and economic powerhouses in Western Europe justify such paltry contributions? Why can't this be discussed in the mainstream? I think it is not discussed simply because Trump has complained about this, to give the subject any consideration would seem like acknowledging he could be right about something.

When I was in college we had all sorts of lefties opposed to the military; pacifists, the anti-nuke and anti-interventionists, even the environmentalists were against the military. They all have slightly different concerns, some pacifists are religious, anti-interventionists sometimes are concerned about colonialism or US imperialism, some of the anti-nukes oppose just the proliferation, others all such weapons and there are some that abhor even nuclear energy -NONE has given any favorable consideration to withdrawal from Syria or summitry with Kim? This doesn't make any sense unless everyone is simply following this mainstream distortion.

 

Fox News has higher ratings than NBC, CBS & ABC?

Prove it.

 

no, each outlet does their own thing, they all report daily events, and unless they add to it, it is all on the up-and-up. i.e., local stations focus on traffic and weather, with some local sports and crimes, but nothing even close to your accusations. the major broadcasting networks have a half hour to the news with plenty of commercials, cable news is commercial heavy also.

what you are whining about is editorial and editorial only, the rest is complete bs.

 

that is about putin. here is more.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...wants-lift-sanctions-related-russian-oligarc/

 

Except for the fact that Obama had already gotten agreement from all the NATO countries to increase their military spending to the recommended 2% by 2024. So what trump did was start a fight that was already won.

OTOH, when attempting to revive a fight that was already won, so he can win is something trump is really good at.

I agree that the majority of coverage on trump is negative. He earns it every day with his lies, his bullying, his petulant intransigence, his ignorance and his ridiculous self aggrandizement.

 

Yes the liberal media all over the developed world. Nothing like a good worldwide conspiracy to keep the intelkectual elite occupied.

 

I don't care what happens in lesser nations, and what lies they spread to their people. In America they spread the global warming hoax to this day...

 

As in besides fox.

Fox is MSM, but along with CNN and MSNBC has a fraction of the viewership seen with the sites studied in the OP.

Are you saying besides Fox, the rest are unbiased?

 

So 90% negative reporting is unbiased?

The TV networks are not the talking heads from the media, their premise (its thin) is that they are neutral and unbiased.

 

Because according to the Republicans he didn't save America fast enough. But now that Trump has achieved his promised 5% GDP growth I guess the Republicans are entitled to whine about Obama. Oh, and in case it is necessary that was sarcasm. Anyone seen the GDP projections for next year?

 

I haven't seen any evidence of bias.

 

We should all be underwater by now.

Al Gore said so what 20 years ago?