• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MRC studies negative Trump & Clinton coverage on Big 3 evening news

Thank you Kobie. Now maybe the conversation can progress. :)

The MRC has serious methodology problems and issues with selective inclusion of "evidence" that skews its studies toward the conclusion it was going for all along. This has been pointed out to Grim on numerous occasions and summarily ignored as leftist nonsense.
 
All this talk about how MRC is biased and all of you implying that the number's they're showing isn't accurate...how about instead of just going back and forth why not provide some evidence of your claims?

Nobody is denying that Trump has more "negative" stories written about him. Everyone is conscious of the fact that these negative stories are because Trump is generally a terrible candidate who stays in the spotlight through controversy; not because of any actual bias.
 

Media Matters? Seriously? I've read that article and to put it bluntly, it's crap.

For obvious reasons, those of you on the left like to twist the words "partisan" and "credible" into the same meaning. You all like to pretend that being partisan automatically equals a lack of credibility, which just isn't true. Media Matters and the MRC are both partisan organizations, but unlike the MRC, Media Matters has been proven over and over that they are anything but credible.

Media Matters has been proven more times than I can possibly count to lie, distort and manipulate the truth to serve their obvious political agenda. The same does not hold true for the Media Research Center. Sure, their opinion pieces are highly partisan and one sided (which is why I don't frequent NewsBusters or post their op-eds), but their media studies are factual, accurate, and in their more than 25 years have rarely been disputed by anyone other than leftist kook websites like Media Matters. I have never seen anyone from ABC, NBC, or CBS dispute the facts gleaned from their news broadcasts and used in their studies.

So if you want to claim the study is bogus, let's see the facts?

Since that's never going to happen, I suggest you again bury your heads in the sand and bid us all farewell.

.
 
The MRC has serious methodology problems and issues with selective inclusion of "evidence" that skews its studies toward the conclusion it was going for all along. This has been pointed out to Grim on numerous occasions and summarily ignored as leftist nonsense.

It's funny how you can't cite a legitimate media outlet that concurs with you.

I'm curious Kobie, have you ever heard of Lexis Nexis? It's a subscription only, online main stream news media archive used by every single legitimate media outlet in the country. It provides subscribers a searchable database of the transcripts from every national and cable news broadcast, along with the stories from every prominent newspaper in the country. Every broadcast used by the MRC from their studies, can be easily searched through this service. With all that information readily available, it would be quite easy to disprove the claims made in studies done by the MRC, yet all we seem to get is Media Matters, who have a lot of opinion based accusations and no actual evidence that debunks their studies.

But you go ahead and cling to Media Matters if it makes you feel good.
 
All this talk about how MRC is biased and all of you implying that the number's they're showing isn't accurate...how about instead of just going back and forth why not provide some evidence of your claims? I've yet to see one link to any media news source claiming that what MRC has said is false or not represented accurately. Lot's of talk, but no proof. I'd imagine that if at least ONE of you provided such proof the conversation in this thread would move outside of the "nuh uh!"/"uh huh!" stage.

Can I get a hallelujah?

Every time one of their studies comes out, it's always the same... A hand full of people immediately attack the source and say or imply that their studies aren't credible. Other than citing articles from Media Matters (which are partisan opinion without fact) they never actually post any evidence that would cast doubt on the credibility of their findings.
 
I came across this on Drudge and it's a MRC study of the nightly news coverage from ABC, NBC and CBS, of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump from January 1st, through June 6th of this year
ATTACH=CONFIG]67203043[/ATTACH]



Gosh. If only someone had warned Republicans that the mainstream media would turn against Trump in the General, driving his already-high unfavorables into the Stratosphere in order to give the election to Hillary.




Repeatedly.




For Months.
 
Gosh. If only someone had warned Republicans that the mainstream media would turn against Trump in the General, driving his already-high unfavorables into the Stratosphere in order to give the election to Hillary.




Repeatedly.




For Months.

Absolutely nothing about that study surprised or shocked me. If it hadn't looked that way, that would have been shocking.
 
Back
Top Bottom