• 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!

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

Well, there's not very many positives about Donald Trump or his administration. There's a reason why his approval rating is in the gutter.

Stronger military, stronger stock market, anticipation of economic revival due to decreased taxes... I think there is much good to focus on with the Trump presidency that gets ignored. The stock market is at it's highest point in history and spiked largely due to a Trump win and ambitions of economic friendly conservative politics, yet it's nearly ignored. I'm sure if it went down or even went down to Obama's levels that would be covered... The media is blatantly and shamefully biased in a strong anti-Trump manner.
 
Take Obama's quip to Medvedev....
Has to go back 5 years, to Obama's first term...to find an inconsequential, forgotten moment....to compare to the daily dumpster fires created by the current WH occupant.
 
It is ridiculous only to the Trump haters. It makes perfectly good sense to anybody who are at all willing and/or capable of seeing what is actually happening.

Only because you are drinking the Kool Aid.
 
Stronger military, stronger stock market, anticipation of economic revival due to decreased taxes... I think there is much good to focus on with the Trump presidency that gets ignored.
Um....we just made it past 100 days, and this is what you point to....some things that have not happened...to explain as a cause for a market that has been on an increase since June of '16? The market is starting to wake up and smell the coffee, it ain't necessarily so...




Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke doesn’t understand why Wall Street is consistently slow on the uptake. “It always puzzled me a little bit,” Bernanke said at the annual SALT conference in Vegas, “[That financial markets tend to be] “blasé about [political risks] until the last moment.”
 
If Trump didn't get a reaction, he would go to even more extreme tweeting. He is fairly reckless with his public comments. That might fly in the business world as a negotiating tactic, but when he is up against a republican congress that is lukewarm at best and a democratic opposition that is rabid, any strategy he has is nullified by that tactic. He really is floundering as bad as Carter was after the Iranian Hostage situation unfolded. Maybe even worse. If he wants to get anything done, he really needs to clean house, beginning with his Chief of Staff.

While I agree with you on the point that the President makes it easy for the rabid flocks to spin their webs, let's not get carried away with comparisons to Jimmy Carter.

President Trump has been in office 120 days. A foreign country hasn't taken over an embassy and taken hostages. President Trump is not like a deer in headlights like Carter was.
 
I find it unimaginable that you can't see the train wreck that you elected. Let's just review the past 10 days of our national life. Firing Jim Comey. Threatening Comey. Lying about the reasons for firing Comey. Admitting to the reasons for firing Comey that self-conflicted the previous reasons for firing Comey. Blabbing secrets to Sergey Lavrov. Denying that secrets were blabbed. Then blabbing about blabbing to Lavrov.

Even Ann Coulter realizes it!

Most Pres usually wait until there second term to implode, guess the Liar in Chief was in a hurry.
 
Well, there's not very many positives about Donald Trump or his administration. There's a reason why his approval rating is in the gutter.

Because our "news media" is nothing more than leftist propaganda?
 
That's a pretty lame point, because practically everyone does that, including you. I look at the press coverage and news reporting on Donald Trump's actions and statements as president, as well as those of the Trump administration, and I have come to the conclusion that his presidency has been less than satisfactory so far.

I think the point being here twofold
1) If 80% of the media coverage being told is negative, what are the chances you'd know of positive developments from the Trump admin? Where would you receive this information?
2) I think it is safe to say, most people on websites like this are high-information individuals. The steps you take to get current events information is probably far greater than the steps taken by 90% of the rest of the populace. So, where do THEY get their information and how likely is it that they'd notice anything good from this administration when none of the good is being reported?

I don't even think it is an issue of fake news. It is simply selectively choosing which news to share and how that news gets framed. Let's look at the latest Comey incident where he shared some memo where Trump said something along the lines of, "I hope the charges the go away" for Mike Flynn. Comey never complained nor reported this as possible obstruction. He simply wrote it down. This memo, still unseen by the public or reporting media was reported as, "Trump tries to stop FBI investigation.." Now, he may have signaled what he wanted, but from all public reports, he has not obstructed with the FBI's investigation. Again, though, every major network blasted Trump and gave viewers the impression that Trump did something nefarious. So, the average viewer who gets home from work, sits down to watch the evening news with a beer and his dinner, gets blasted by obstruction of justice allegations made by the press. The story has elements of truth, but leaves out so many key details and is so obviously told in a biased and capricious manner, it is difficult to believe this won't impact people.

Probably even more relevant and where, today, even more people get their news is from social media and the late night talk shows. If they are just regurgitating stories told on their networks or, in the case of Facebook, stupid posts with 20 words about how Trump is evil... it just cuts poorly no matter how you slice it.

Now, the rebuttal is, well... Trump's a buffoon. Yup. Absolutely. So what? Does this mean he shouldn't be covered with some amount of objectivity? Sure. Tell us when f's up. Nothing wrong with that. However, don't ignore it when he does something positive and don't take every moronic thing he does and turn it into some sort of national scandal. There are mistakes and then their are tragedies. The news takes his actions and measures them against what they want rather than what he promised. Take border security. Take any side you want. The fact is that Trump promised voters he'd crack down on illegal immigration and fix the problems at the border. So, when illegal immigration is reduced some 70% and he begins to make progress towards the border wall he promised, that's a win. However, the news takes the negative angle. He's deporting children. His wall won't work. Whatever. The point is that the news, if its balanced, gives him credit for the progress he's made in fulfilling his promise without regard to the personal ideologies of the reporters having to tell the story. Quite simply, that isn't happening and that is unfortunate.
 
that's horsecrap. the MSM was bashing Trump before he even took office at a level never seen in the past

Yes, Trump was just as unqualified when he campaigned, as he has been in office. Some people paid more attention than others apparently.
(I paid partial attention but thought Trump couldn't be THAT bad...I was wrong).
 
Your TDS is over the top. Get over your butthurt and learn to accept HRCs defeat like a mature adult.
Enough of that Fenton, I don't care that a Dem didn't win, I care that Trump is a pathetic excuse for an average person on the street, much less POTUS. Replace him with crazy-creepy Cruz for all I care.

Gorsuch is big, it swung the court away from the lunatics for a generation and Trumps most likey going to get to alloint another SC judge and theres nothing the whiney Dem losers can do about it

Huge, it's huge. It's the biggest move any president has made in American history. And we're gonna build that wall, don't even think we won't!
 
still upset that an antigun left-winger was denied the ability to swing the court to the big government side?

NO. I'm simply pointing out that it's not a big "accomplishment" of Trump. It's a big Republican victory, for sure, but the victory was had when basically any warm bodied Republican took office. It has NOTHING to do with Trump's abilities.

The only thing annoying about all that is that Republicans blocked Obama from putting someone in, it was obstructionist politics at its finest.
 
And that's so far right of center that it needs a new label? I am unaware that any of those other people or groups are part of the Dept. of Education. And so far, I haven't seen anything Betsy has done that I think is detrimental to education. She certainly couldn't do much worse to education than what I see up close and personal. So education gets worse and worse under the former Education Secretaries. And she will do it differently I hope, I hope, I hope and maybe things will be better.

You'll have to try harder than that to convince me you have anything at all other than pure prejudice against President Trump or that you are doing anything other than what I see a highly unprofessional and unethical media doing.

Perhaps you and others should be reading sources that aren't slobbering sycophants for the One Percenters who are trying to destroy public education in this nation
Trump’s first full education budget: Deep cuts to public school programs in pursuit of school choice

The budget proposal calls for a net $9.2 billion cut to the department, or 13.6 percent of the spending level Congress approved last month.
(. . .)
The cuts would come from eliminating at least 22 programs, some of which Trump outlined in March. Gone, for example, would be $1.2 billion for after-school programs that serve 1.6 million children, most of whom are poor, and $2.1 billion for teacher training and class-size reduction.

The documents obtained by The Post — dated May 23, the day the president’s budget is expected to be released — outline the rest of the cuts, including a $15 million program that provides child care for low-income parents in college; a $27 million arts education program; two programs targeting Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students, totaling $65 million; two international education and foreign language programs, $72 million; a $12 million program for gifted students; and $12 million for Special Olympics education programs.

Other programs would not be eliminated entirely, but would be cut significantly. Those include grants to states for career and technical education, which would lose $168 million, down 15 percent compared to current funding; adult basic literacy instruction, which would lose $96 million (down 16 percent); and Promise Neighborhoods, an Obama-era initiative meant to build networks of support for children in needy communities, which would lose $13 million (down 18 percent).

The Trump administration would dedicate no money to a fund for student support and academic enrichment that is meant to help schools pay for, among other things, mental-health services, anti-bullying initiatives, physical education, Advanced Placement courses and science and engineering instruction. Congress created the fund, which totals $400 million this fiscal year, by rolling together several smaller programs. Lawmakers authorized as much as $1.65 billion, but the administration’s budget for it in the next fiscal year is zero.
(. . .)
There is currently only one federally funded voucher program, in the District of Columbia. A recent Education Department analysis of that program found that after a year in private school, voucher recipients performed worse on standardized tests than their counterparts who remained in public school.
 
In the OP, we can read that "80% of media coverage about Trump is negative" THAT is not quite true.

IF one actually reads the article, and multiple people have posted various quotes, one might notice that little phrase about "one-third of articles reviewed were seen as neutral"

shall we do a little math? If one-third are neutral and therefore not examined, that leaves us with two-thirds of ALL articles being rated positive or negative. 80% of 67% is 54% of ALL articles are negative. Hmmm, 54% (actually 53.6, but I rounded up) doesn't sound near as bad as 80% but guess what gets the headline?
 
NO. I'm simply pointing out that it's not a big "accomplishment" of Trump. It's a big Republican victory, for sure, but the victory was had when basically any warm bodied Republican took office. It has NOTHING to do with Trump's abilities.

The only thing annoying about all that is that Republicans blocked Obama from putting someone in, it was obstructionist politics at its finest.

turtleman (no relation) played hardball and chicken. He won

I am glad he did. MG was another bannerrhoid
 
Yes, Trump was just as unqualified when he campaigned, as he has been in office. Some people paid more attention than others apparently.
(I paid partial attention but thought Trump couldn't be THAT bad...I was wrong).

Hillary was and is worse.
 
Trump is a petty vindictive man-child ****wit. Are the press supposed to cover it up?
 
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/

Overall 80% negative coverage of Trump with CNN, NBC and CBS all more than 90% negative coverage in the first 100 days. Also, Obama's favorable coverage was FAR in excess than the last four presidents. The bias is....unsettling.
a
When he stops giving the media and endless supply of tweets, accusations, and inaccuracies to deal with the coverage will appear less biased.

Seriously.....Trump is a reality TV star....he is putting crap out there to gain attention. He is dumstruck that people take him at his words. And he whines about people (media) taking his words and looking into what he says.

If he wants to have his agenda be the focus....it is not in the hands of the media. He is control of his own words and actions.

But because of his past words and behavior....and him consistently not being responsible for what he says...I think it has reached the point of no return. This all just needs to play out now.

But until Trump realizes he has at least partial responsibility for this media **** show....he will keep enduring the same fate.
 
the neglecting is on your part, when you have tried to put forth the news is bad because trump is bad and that not what the OP is about

The study didn't evaluate President Trump either way. It just evaluated the media coverage of President Trump.

Your conclusion, that the media must be biased against your wannabe-martyr, is not sound.

But that won't stop his supporters from erroneously jumping to that conclusion because he vaccinated them against reality.
 
That's a pretty lame point, because practically everyone does that, including you. I look at the press coverage and news reporting on Donald Trump's actions and statements as president, as well as those of the Trump administration, and I have come to the conclusion that his presidency has been less than satisfactory so far.
It's unfair to make tumpty dumpy responsible for his own tweets. Personal responsibility is for those that disagree with the conservative narrative.


Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
 
The study didn't evaluate President Trump either way. It just evaluated the media coverage of President Trump.

Your conclusion, that the media must be biased against your wannabe-martyr, is not sound.

But that won't stop his supporters from erroneously jumping to that conclusion because he vaccinated them against reality.

again you don't get it

its not me, the study is saying the news media is projecting the stories on trump through a biased lens.

so the story is not about trump and not about me personally saying the news media is bias, the study is saying based on the tone of how the news is reported its negative.
 
again you don't get it

its not me, the study is saying the news media is projecting the stories on trump through a biased lens.

so the story is not about trump and not about me personally saying the news media is bias, the study is saying based on the tone of how the news is reported its negative.

No, it isn't, you clearly did not read and/or understand the study.
 
Back
Top Bottom