Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

[AlbqOwl]

What a ridiculous post.

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.

 

[Absentglare]

How do you know when it is obvious from the OP that there is no objective coverage of the positives about Donald Trump? Even the things that would have been praised had it been Obama are portrayed in a negative light by the MSM.

The OP doesn't say that the coverage is not objective. That is the explanation you have for the observation.

The observation is that the coverage is very negative. That is true. You claim that is because of:

(A) The media is exceptionally dishonest, they are being unfair to him.

My explanation is different:

(B) The president is exceptionally horrible, they are being fair to him.

Note that the difference between the two is contingent upon whether we trust the narrative from the media, or the narrative from President Trump. Politifact has rated, what, 83% of President Trump's statements as half true to pants-on-fire lies.

It's interesting that the OP provides evidence that the president is genuinely horrible, exceptionally so, and yet people are using this as evidence that the whole rest of reality is wrong.

 

[MTAtech]

They sat in silence for 8 years under Obama as our Nation and the Middle East were led into decline.

Obama flies 400 million USD to Switzerland so it can be laundered and then flown into the single largest State sponsor of terror ?

No biggie, Obama's a Democrat. Fake news stories and made up sources ? Impeach, impeach, impeach !!!

Lol..what a bunch of hacks

Perhaps in an alternate universe or a bad LSD trip, 'Obama led the nation in decline,' but certainly not the universe I live in. In that universe, Obama inherited a range of problems, both economic and foreign policy, and handled them rather well.

I don't have any idea what you are talking about regarding $400 million. But I do remember this from President Obama's predecessor. How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish

 

[TurtleDude]

Most of it, honestly.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

I disagree-much of it is based on a hatred for the GOP even though Trump is far closer to the Dems than many other GOP nominees in recent history. He's blamed for gun banner Merrick Garland not being seated even though that was not his doing

 

[backpacker]

When the only thing the left's MSM partners feed their followers with is negative, not difficult to understand why some people have been convinced to believe that.

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.

 

[Master PO]

The observation is that the coverage is very negative. That is true. You claim that is because of:

(A) The media is exceptionally dishonest, they are being unfair to him.

My explanation is different:

(B) The president is exceptionally horrible, they are being fair to him.

Note that the difference between the two is contingent upon whether we trust the narrative from the media, or the narrative from President Trump. Politifact has rated, what, 83% of President Trump's statements as half true to pants-on-fire lies.

It's interesting that the OP provides evidence that the president is genuinely horrible, exceptionally so, and yet people are using this as evidence that the whole rest of reality is wrong.

the OP is stating on how the news is presented and that is in a negative tone, not on whats being reported on.

the OP suggest that trump is correct in his assessment of the coverage of him.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility.

This study suggests that, at least when it comes to recent history, he’s right.

hostility would refer to tone of coverage

 

[Absentglare]

the OP is stating on how the news is presented and that is in a negative tone, not on whats being reported on.

the OP suggest that trump is correct in his assessment of the coverage of him.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility.

This study suggests that, at least when it comes to recent history, he’s right.

hostility would refer to tone of coverage

Yes, the tone of coverage into what President Trump does is overwhelmingly negative.

This is obviously because the things he does are overwhelmingly negative.

You're free to spit in the face of Occam's Razor and support some conspiracy theory where everything that isn't positive about President Trump is a lie meant to harm him (?) or something.

 

[Master PO]

Yes, the tone of coverage into what President Trump does is overwhelmingly negative.

This is obviously because the things he does are overwhelmingly negative.

You're free to spit in the face of Occam's Razor and support some conspiracy theory where everything that isn't positive about President Trump is a lie meant to harm him (?) or something.

well you still didn't get it, the study is not what trump does creates negativity

the study shows that the news is not taking a center position, but using the tone of negativity in its reporting of stories on trump

the news is supposed to present facts, and not be left or right or present negativity

 

[Fenton]

Perhaps in an alternate universe or a bad LSD trip, 'Obama led the nation in decline,' but certainly not the universe I live in. In that universe, Obama inherited a range of problems, both economic and foreign policy, and handled them rather well.

I don't have any idea what you are talking about regarding $400 million. But I do remember this from President Obama's predecessor. How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish

You live in a alternate Universe then. How could a Democrat claim Obama didnt lead this nation into decline ?

The Democratic party has suffered staggering losses over the last 6 years and inherting a bad situation doesnt justify making it much much worse

 

[<alt>doxygen]

The OP doesn't say that the coverage is not objective. That is the explanation you have for the observation.

The observation is that the coverage is very negative. That is true. You claim that is because of:

(A) The media is exceptionally dishonest, they are being unfair to him.

My explanation is different:

(B) The president is exceptionally horrible, they are being fair to him.

Note that the difference between the two is contingent upon whether we trust the narrative from the media, or the narrative from President Trump. Politifact has rated, what, 83% of President Trump's statements as half true to pants-on-fire lies.

It's interesting that the OP provides evidence that the president is genuinely horrible, exceptionally so, and yet people are using this as evidence that the whole rest of reality is wrong.

It's a worldwide plot to bring down Lone Ranger the Donald by the evil deep administrative state. Everyone's in on it, including, obviously, some Trump admin staff. This is proven by the fact that even foreign coverage of Trump reflects Trump and not what his supporters ever shrinking sycophant media bubble is telling them.

Speaking of hardcore Trumpers, I watched Hannity for about 10 minutes the other night. He seems ready to blow a gasket.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

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.

Yawn. More 'blame the media' bull**** to distract from the fact that Trump is responsible for the mess he's now in.

How laughably Nixonian.

 

[YorkshirePete]

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.

Always amuses me, the leftie coverage.
Never a mention of knees news and how many stations is rush on?? Total dominance

 

[AlbqOwl]

The OP doesn't say that the coverage is not objective. That is the explanation you have for the observation.

The observation is that the coverage is very negative. That is true. You claim that is because of:

(A) The media is exceptionally dishonest, they are being unfair to him.

My explanation is different:

(B) The president is exceptionally horrible, they are being fair to him.

Note that the difference between the two is contingent upon whether we trust the narrative from the media, or the narrative from President Trump. Politifact has rated, what, 83% of President Trump's statements as half true to pants-on-fire lies.

It's interesting that the OP provides evidence that the president is genuinely horrible, exceptionally so, and yet people are using this as evidence that the whole rest of reality is wrong.

As a person formally trained in what the media should be and who worked in the media for a fair number of years, I can assure you that it is not the media's job to analyze how 'horrible' anybody is. It is the media's job to fact check and report the news as fairly, honestly, and objectively as possible. The modern MSM does not do that.

 

[Absentglare]

well you still didn't get it, the study is not what trump does creates negativity

the study shows that the news is not taking a center position, but using the tone of negativity in its reporting of stories on trump

the news is supposed to present facts, and not be left or right or present negativity

No, i suspect you didn't read the study or you are unwittingly misinterpreting the results. The study did not assess whether the negative tone had merit or not, it simply observed whether the tone was positive or negative.

There are two major explanations for the observation: (A) President Trump is treated unusually badly by every major news outlet, even Fox (B) President Trump is acting unusually badly.

Now, the question is which authority has more accuracy. Is it, "every major news outlet" which a huge net, literally thousands if not tens of thousands of career professionals? Or is it one man, President Trump, and his handful of bullied and abused yes men who are leaking to the press in historic volume?

Occam's razor is a test that applies to a range of possible explanations that suggests the explanation that makes the least assumptions is most likely.

Your assumption is that the tens of thousands of career professionals are all part of some massive conspiracy to defame President Trump for no discernible reason.

My assumption is that President Trump is a liar, which i can see follows directly from the statements he gives that i know to be lies.

My assumption is much more sound than yours.

 

[bubbabgone]

The media doesn't have to try very hard to make Trump look bad. There's a reason why narcissists aren't likeable people.

The media's criticisms should focus on legitimate and provable facts.
These stats show they can't be doing that.
So much of what makes headlines one day has collapsed days later.
I won't argue that Trump is narcissistic.
But narcissists not being likable is not always true.
Lots of people fell for Obama and still swoon over the guy.
If you can be a narcissist AND and a good actor you can get away with it.

 

[Absentglare]

It's a worldwide plot to bring down Lone Ranger the Donald by the evil deep administrative state. Everyone's in on it, including, obviously, some Trump admin staff. This is proven by the fact that even foreign coverage of Trump reflects Trump and not what his supporters ever shrinking sycophant media bubble is telling them.

Speaking of hardcore Trumpers, I watched Hannity for about 10 minutes the other night. He seems ready to blow a gasket.

It is interesting watching the left maintain their composure as they try to quell impeachment murmurings and the like- whereas the right has been in a steady crescendo of epic meltdown proportions.

I think a lot of people are going to snap when the house of cards predictably comes crashing down.

 

[Master PO]

No, i suspect you didn't read the study or you are unwittingly misinterpreting the results. The study did not assess whether the negative tone had merit or not, it simply observed whether the tone was positive or negative.

There are two major explanations for the observation: (A) President Trump is treated unusually badly by every major news outlet, even Fox (B) President Trump is acting unusually badly.

Now, the question is which authority has more accuracy. Is it, "every major news outlet" which a huge net, literally thousands if not tens of thousands of career professionals? Or is it one man, President Trump, and his handful of bullied and abused yes men who are leaking to the press in historic volume?

Occam's razor is a test that applies to a range of possible explanations that suggests the explanation that makes the least assumptions is most likely.

Your assumption is that the tens of thousands of career professionals are all part of some massive conspiracy to defame President Trump for no discernible reason.

My assumption is that President Trump is a liar, which i can see follows directly from the statements he gives that i know to be lies.

My assumption is much more sound than yours.

oh, really?

right in the beginning it say this: 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:

this states how the stories by news agencies are represented, which is in a negative tone, it has nothing to do with trumps actions and if he is horrible making for negativity....which is what you have put forth.

news is not supposed to be bias, not by presenting it from a positive or negative perspective, but to present facts and allow the viewer to make up his mind

 

[Absentglare]

As a person formally trained in what the media should be and who worked in the media for a fair number of years, I can assure you that it is not the media's job to analyze how 'horrible' anybody is. It is the media's job to fact check and report the news as fairly, honestly, and objectively as possible. The modern MSM does not do that.

They show what he is doing. Showing what he's doing, when what he's doing is horrible, is, in fact, their job. And this explanation would be wholly consistent with the findings of this study.

 

[Absentglare]

oh, really?

right in the beginning it say this: 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:

this states how the stories by news agencies are represented, which is in a negative tone, it has nothing to do with trumps actions and if he is horrible making for negativity....which is what you have put forth.

You are still confusing the justified observation (the coverage is negative) with your unjustified explanation (that the press is actively misleading).

 

[Somerville]

well you still didn't get it, the study is not what trump does creates negativity

the study shows that the news is not taking a center position, but using the tone of negativity in its reporting of stories on trump

the news is supposed to present facts, and not be left or right or present negativity

“Percentages exclude news reports that were neutral in tone, which accounted for about a third of the reports.” The 80% comes from those reports in the media which showed a positive or negative view.

Wrong yet again.

Notably, Harvard defines negative coverage as “stories where the actor is criticized directly” and “stories where an event, trend, or development reflects unfavorably on the actor.” When you do controversial things — which polls show a huge amount of things Trump does are — you get criticized by certain people. And when you promise to accomplish amazing things and the results contradict all that you promised, it's difficult to cover that as a win.

Trump could offset that if he were succeeding legislatively, but none of the pieces of major legislation he has promised have passed, and his biggest executive actions have been highly controversial and, in three cases, been halted by the courts.

 

[polgara]

OK.
But one might credibly say that the negative coverage of Trump last year was a reflection of the tone he took during his campaign, no?

I honestly don't know, but Trump is definitely not what we have become used to seeing in a politician! That "differenceness," for lack of a better word, may have been what appealed to the people that voted for him, and since it looks as if he's trying to keep his campaign promises to them, they still appear to be 100% behind him. Will he succeed in his quest to change the status quo? Time will tell, but it's not going to be a piece of cake with all the global elite aligned against him with their one-world-government agendas at stake.

Just thinking out loud....

 

[AlbqOwl]

They show what he is doing. Showing what he's doing, when what he's doing is horrible, is, in fact, their job. And this explanation would be wholly consistent with the findings of this study.

The Trump haters, including most of the MSM, do stick to their guns re their prejudices for sure, no matter how dishonest they have to be to do that.

 

[Master PO]

“Percentages exclude news reports that were neutral in tone, which accounted for about a third of the reports.” The 80% comes from those reports in the media which showed a positive or negative view.View attachment 67217761

Wrong yet again.

:lamo, oh so you are saying the news is supposed to report coverage based on bias

the study is simple and very clear, it simply states coverage is in a negative tone to a large extend

the study is not about trump creates his own negativty.

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:

 

[Master PO]

You are still confusing the justified observation (the coverage is negative) with your unjustified explanation (that the press is actively misleading).

you have put forth the coverage is negative because trump is horrible, and that not what the subject matter of the OP is about.

again its stating the presentation of news is reported in a negative tone.

"that the press is actively misleading"....that is the case the story of the OP is making, and i am only stating that to you which you failed to understand

 

[<alt>doxygen]

The Trump haters, including most of the MSM, do stick to their guns re their prejudices for sure, no matter how dishonest they have to be to do that.

There are, to be sure, a lot of diehard Trump haters out there. The percentage is probably somewhat lower that that of his diehard supporters. The rest of us are just watching with a combination of alarm and amusement.

I'll say again, the MSM mainly reports the days events, which includes things Trump does, says, tweets or whatever. Trump is, and always has, managed to make himself look both confused and foolish. That isn't the media - that's the Donald. He was the same way during the campaign. Talking in circles with a few buzzwords & dog whistles thrown in worked well in that mode. Being POTUS is VERY different. Having the POTUS contradicting himself 3 times in a week is alarming to a lot of people.

On top of that, I dislike most of his cabinet and more than half of his EO's and the other things he's tried to implement with a signature. That's my opinion. Everyone gets to have one.

The GOP agenda is largely not something I agree with, and that's all Trump has tried do so far. Thankfully, Ryan's congress can't seem to do anything. Perhaps they've had too much practice doing nothing.