• 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!

Study #2: Tone of coverage by big 3 during Trump's first month

Grim17

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
34,478
Reaction score
17,282
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wow... Two media bias studies in one day and both covering Trump's first 4 weeks in office.

This time the study was conducted by the Media Research Center and they evaluated the tone (whether comments were positive or negative) of the news coverage President Trump received from CBS, NBC and ABC. The MRC excluded "soundbites from identified partisans, focusing instead on tallying the evaluative statements made by reporters and the non-partisan talking heads (experts and average citizens) included in their stories."

Not surprisingly, 88% of the 762 comments made were negative, which works out to nearly an 8 to 1 ratio of negative comments to positive ones.

MRC_trumpBias.jpg


Press coverage of Trump in first month of office: 88 percent 'hostile,' says new study - Washington Times



.
 
Grim17 said:
Wow... Two media bias studies in one day and both covering Trump's first 4 weeks in office.

This time the study was conducted by the Media Research Center and they evaluated the tone (whether comments were positive or negative) of the news coverage President Trump received from CBS, NBC and ABC. The MRC excluded "soundbites from identified partisans, focusing instead on tallying the evaluative statements made by reporters and the non-partisan talking heads (experts and average citizens) included in their stories."

Not surprisingly, 88% of the 762 comments made were negative, which works out to nearly an 8 to 1 ratio of negative comments to positive ones.

View attachment 67214740


Press coverage of Trump in first month of office: 88 percent 'hostile,' says new study - Washington Times



.
Click to expand...

And how much do you think Trumps overall demeanor and behavior had to do with it??
 
He didn't get honeymoon because he's threw it away being a lying bigot before inauguration and a lying, authoritarian bigot after it.

There's not enough hostility if anything.
 
And this is with 44% approval ratings. Who knows you might to see 4 even 5 digits on the red column by the end of the next month.
 
Grim17 said:
Wow... Two media bias studies in one day and both covering Trump's first 4 weeks in office.

This time the study was conducted by the Media Research Center and they evaluated the tone (whether comments were positive or negative) of the news coverage President Trump received from CBS, NBC and ABC. The MRC excluded "soundbites from identified partisans, focusing instead on tallying the evaluative statements made by reporters and the non-partisan talking heads (experts and average citizens) included in their stories."

Not surprisingly, 88% of the 762 comments made were negative, which works out to nearly an 8 to 1 ratio of negative comments to positive ones.

View attachment 67214740


Press coverage of Trump in first month of office: 88 percent 'hostile,' says new study - Washington Times



.
Click to expand...

It is not as though Trump didn't do all he could to infuriate his adversaries. And Trump's enemies are concentrated in the cosmopolitan areas, whose elites control much of the media.
 
year2late said:
And how much do you think Trumps overall demeanor and behavior had to do with it??
Click to expand...


joG said:
It is not as though Trump didn't do all he could to infuriate his adversaries. And Trump's enemies are concentrated in the cosmopolitan areas, whose elites control much of the media.
Click to expand...

I agree that Trump has earned his share of the criticism. I don't think anyone could argue that with a straight face... but 88% negative?

When you couple the results of this study, with the other study I posted today that found that only 3% of the stories ran during the same time period from the CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News reflected positively toward Trump, it's pretty obvious that liberal bias is heavily influencing the coverage Trump receives from the mainstream news media. Something I also don't think anyone could argue with a straight face.

.
 
Grim17 said:
I agree that Trump has earned his share of the criticism. I don't think anyone could argue that with a straight face... but 88% negative?

When you couple the results of this study, with the other study I posted today that found that only 3% of the stories ran during the same time period from the CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News reflected positively toward Trump, it's pretty obvious that liberal bias is heavily influencing the coverage Trump receives from the mainstream news media. Something I also don't think anyone could argue with a straight face.

.
Click to expand...

Trump is not so much being given a hard time of it on facts. Those are being given spin to fit the media and liberals seething after their having lost and the substance of their policies having been put on hold or even in doubt. It is, however, more Trump's style that has enraged and set him up as the focus of hate and irrational fury.
 
Grim17 said:
I agree that Trump has earned his share of the criticism. I don't think anyone could argue that with a straight face... but 88% negative?

When you couple the results of this study, with the other study I posted today that found that only 3% of the stories ran during the same time period from the CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News reflected positively toward Trump, it's pretty obvious that liberal bias is heavily influencing the coverage Trump receives from the mainstream news media. Something I also don't think anyone could argue with a straight face.

.
Click to expand...

I think 88 percent is fair. He has deflected from his own agenda with the alternative facts, and the open hostility. And frankly his angry middle school girl type tweets put a huge (did I say huge;)) target on his back.

His wounds are self inflicted. He set the tone. He is deflecting from his own agenda with his behavior.

And how much do you think repeating "fake news" ad nauseim helps getting his honeymoon.

If he is having issues with his honeymoon,, perhaps he needs to take a step back and evaluate his own performance.
 
Van Basten said:
He didn't get honeymoon because he's threw it away being a lying bigot before inauguration and a lying, authoritarian bigot after it.

There's not enough hostility if anything.
Click to expand...

The face of the modern lib.
 
joG said:
It is not as though Trump didn't do all he could to infuriate his adversaries. And Trump's enemies are concentrated in the cosmopolitan areas, whose elites control much of the media.
Click to expand...

I agree. Trump should avoid fueling the fire. It would make him look much better in the long run.
 
year2late said:
And how much do you think Trumps overall demeanor and behavior had to do with it??
Click to expand...

How much do YOU think it had to do with it?
Better yet, considering the what the function of journalism is supposed to be, how much do you think it SHOULD have had to do with it?
 
bubbabgone said:
How much do YOU think it had to do with it?
Better yet, considering the what the function of journalism is supposed to be, how much do you think it SHOULD have had to do with it?
Click to expand...

His aggressive and negative demeanor and alternative facts had EVERYTHING to do with his coverage.

He denounces anything he does not want to hear as "fake news".

Again...how do you think his tone and accusations - his self inflicted wounds affected his coverage?

I cannot believe this is in a serious question.
 
Grim17 said:
I agree that Trump has earned his share of the criticism. I don't think anyone could argue that with a straight face... but 88% negative?
Click to expand...

It's one of those figures that easy to excuse if you don't like Trump. But it's a suspicious number that begs for some type of explanation. So the question at the end fits.

When you couple the results of this study, with the other study I posted today that found that only 3% of the stories ran during the same time period from the CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News reflected positively toward Trump, it's pretty obvious that liberal bias is heavily influencing the coverage Trump receives from the mainstream news media. Something I also don't think anyone could argue with a straight face.
Click to expand...

And with that, I'll suggest an explanation. It is well known in media studies that the media over time create and feed back into a narrative about presidents. I'd suggest that in Trump's case the media established its narrative during the election: Trump unfit for office and a serial prevaricator. It's completely natural (and biased) for the media to create its storylines based on the narrative it perceives surrounding the president. Trump, I think, will always supply enough of his trademark "Hyperbolese" to give the media whatever excuse it needs to continue the narrative from the campaign.

As you note, Grim, Trump contributes to the problem. But there's good reason to expect that the media are piling on. The two studies you've highlighted are consistent with that hypothesis.
 
year2late said:
His aggressive and negative demeanor and alternative facts had EVERYTHING to do with his coverage.
Click to expand...

This is as good a time as any to blurt out what I'd observed about the "alternative facts" line.

In context, the administration's use of "alternative facts" had a legitimate angle. It produced some facts that argued against a narrative the media had created about attendance at Trump's inauguration. Some of the facts were better than others, and on balance the Trump people had much the worse of the argument. But the media (and the public) have turned the phrase "alternative facts" into an emblem of Trump administration dishonesty. It's a kind of parallel to Nancy Pelosi's statement about needing to pass the ACA to find out what's in it. Pelosi was expressing a rational idea, but the public and conservative press (not the mainstream press, for some reason) made that remark emblematic of the lack of consideration given to the (ill) consequences of the ACA.

It's also a case of the media doing the same thing to Trump that Trump does to the media by calling its mistaken or misleading stories "fake news." Put a twist on the original meaning, then beat your opponent over the head with it to magnify their flaws.
 
year2late said:
His aggressive and negative demeanor and alternative facts had EVERYTHING to do with his coverage.

He denounces anything he does not want to hear as "fake news".

Again...how do you think his tone and accusations - his self inflicted wounds affected his coverage?

I cannot believe this is in a serious question.
Click to expand...

I'm saying a journalist shouldn't be influenced by a subject's tone unless the subject's tone was the point of the story.
Put another way, the tone of the subject of a 3 page NYT story about an FBI investigation shouldn't cause the fact that the FBI hadn't found any evidence of wrongdoing to be buried in the middle of page 3.
 
bubbabgone said:
I'm saying a journalist shouldn't be influenced by a subject's tone unless the subject's tone was the point of the story.
Put another way, the tone of the subject of a 3 page NYT story about an FBI investigation shouldn't cause the fact that the FBI hadn't found any evidence of wrongdoing to be buried in the middle of page 3.
Click to expand...

A subject taking a tone and the negative quality of his words? Of course it should be part of the reporting. And a subject that is calling the press fake when they don't align with what he says? Of course it should be a consideration.
 
Van Basten said:
I wish, most liberals are too nice!

I'm not a liberal, but I stand by that statement.
Click to expand...

Your lean says "slightly liberal", and your posts say "extremely liberal". So, please. :roll:
 
Grim17 said:
Press coverage of Trump in first month of office: 88 percent 'hostile,' says new study - Washington Times
Click to expand...

I'm sure you were equally outraged at the hostile tone of conservative media towards Obama during his first months.





We need to stop acting like "bias" means someone saying something we don't like about someone we like. If somebody is objectively bad, then one would expect the tone of coverage to be more negative than in regards to someone who is already but accused of being bad.
 
countryboy said:
Your lean says "slightly liberal", and your posts say "extremely liberal". So, please. :roll:
Click to expand...

Please what?

Post you don't like = extremely liberal.

Got it! Your command of political theory is wide-reaching as usual.
 
Mr Person said:
I'm sure you were equally outraged at the hostile tone of conservative media towards Obama during his first months.
Click to expand...

Did you have some specific example in mind? I kept tabs on a number of conservative sources during Obama's early months (I historically pay little attention television news, including Fox). I remember a wait-and-see attitude, for he had run his campaign as a uniter. Beyond that, there was upset about the continuation and expansion of TARP (leading to the Tea Party movement) and disappointment that the stimulus bill was tailored according to the wishes of the Democrats. I'd be curious about what you remember about Obama's early months.

We need to stop acting like "bias" means someone saying something we don't like about someone we like. If somebody is objectively bad, then one would expect the tone of coverage to be more negative than in regards to someone who is already but accused of being bad.
Click to expand...

It's possible to report bad things about somebody while using a neutral tone. That's what's expected of objective journalism.
 
Mr Person said:
I'm sure you were equally outraged at the hostile tone of conservative media towards Obama during his first months.
Click to expand...

Both this discussion and those studies, are both about the mainstream news media. With that in mind, exactly what conservative NEWS media are you referring to?

At least you're appear to be admitting that the big 3 are in fact part of the liberal media... That's progress.
 
year2late said:
A subject taking a tone and the negative quality of his words? Of course it should be part of the reporting. And a subject that is calling the press fake when they don't align with what he says? Of course it should be a consideration.
Click to expand...

The tone of a subject's communications should not determine the approach a journalist takes toward reporting the truthfulness or the content of a subject on any matter unrelated to tone.
 
The results of the study were predictable to anyone paying attention. The media is fighting trump for control of policy. They dont like the things he is suggesting doing and giving it bad press to try to get the public to pressure trump into doing things the way the want. Trump is not bending and the more he resists them the more the press piles on.

Looking at the fight from an objective perspective, its absolutely amazing to watch. Like or hate Trump you jave to admit he is a strongwilled man and same can also be said about the media. They both are entrenched in a winner take all battle. Thos is a political death match taking place.

If trump loses he will be remembered as a failed president and his supporters will be criticized for electing an insane leader. Their political voice in future elections will be dismissed as irrational.

The media and the left wing voters have just as much to lose. If trump wins and gets popular opinion on his side, the media will have its credability tarnished as being unscrupulous liars along with their base supporters.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Grim17 said:
Wow... Two media bias studies in one day and both covering Trump's first 4 weeks in office.

This time the study was conducted by the Media Research Center and they evaluated the tone (whether comments were positive or negative) of the news coverage President Trump received from CBS, NBC and ABC. The MRC excluded "soundbites from identified partisans, focusing instead on tallying the evaluative statements made by reporters and the non-partisan talking heads (experts and average citizens) included in their stories."

Not surprisingly, 88% of the 762 comments made were negative, which works out to nearly an 8 to 1 ratio of negative comments to positive ones.

View attachment 67214740


Press coverage of Trump in first month of office: 88 percent 'hostile,' says new study - Washington Times

.
Click to expand...

So if non-partisan, expert opinion is overwhelmingly negative..... what does that tell you exactly?

Hint: It's not that non-partisans are actually secret libruls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom