Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Positive and negative is irrelevant. What matters is if they give the fullest picture of the candidate or leader's actions and words.
Would you say a network giving 52% negative and 48% positive coverage to Clinton or especially Jill Stein was more objective than one giving 93% Negative and 7% Positive.
Better yet, how about one giving 52 Pos/ 48 Neg to Swedish Socialism and another one giving a 93 Neg / 7 Pos of the same. Somehow, I doubt the most impassioned conservatives on here would agree that the former is more objective than the latter. In fact, they'd probably smile lightly, if not cheer, the latter channel.
"The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever," Patterson wrote.
"Nevertheless, the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump's contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his presidency," he added.
Since the media aggregate was 80%, it shows that CNN/NBC were actually more neutral. They're only off by |(93-80)|/80, or 16.25%. Fox, however, was off by |(52-80)|/80 or 35%. Of course that's sort of self-fulfilling as more of the media does have a liberal bias. None the less, the fact that Fox which has a conservative bias was still more negative than positive does tell you that Trump just has had a rough first 100 days. It would be interesting to compare outlet to outlet numbers for the past Presidents. Eg, Bush was 57/43 negative but what were Fox's numbers? One assumes mostly positive. Clinton was 60/40 negative. But what were NBC's numbers?
As many others are saying, these are statistics that show that CNN and other left wing media is churning out negative media about Trump and Fox is being moderate with their positive and negative reporting.
That's where the issue lies. Trump has been the worse president in his first one hundred days in history. Fox News should not be 50/50. He has not been a good president. It's gotten even worse than the first 100 days.
But let's just focus on the 100 days. There are so many scandals and allegations against him it's sick. You can't defend him against the dozens of court cases, bankruptcies, the things he's said about minorities and particular people. This doesn't even include what he's done as PRESIDENT (right after his first 100 days):
Trump has made no significant progress on any major legislation.
Trump is far behind staffing his administration.
The Trump administration is more nagged by scandal than any previous administration.
Trump has no clear foreign policy.
Trump is by far the least popular new president in the modern polling era.
Credit: New York Times April 26, 2017
So does Mr. Trump deserve any credit for solid economic results? If you think the economy is driven by concrete, specific policies around taxes, spending, monetary policy and regulation, the answer is no. If you think that what really matters is the mood in the executive suite, then just maybe.
Few of the jobs companies are promising to create in the U.S. can be attributed to a sudden renewed commitment to USA Inc. inspired by Trump’s “America First” policies. Indeed, the businesses Trump has been quick to praise have been careful not to characterize their recent hiring announcements as new. And as usual with corporate investments of this scale, such plans are typically months — or even years — in the making, suggesting they long predate the presidential election.
Another widely publicized corporate initiative that Trump trumpeted — a promise by SoftBank to create 50,000 high-tech jobs in the U.S. — was the result of a tech fund the company announced on Oct. 14 — three weeks before the election. Given the massive tech industry in the U.S., economists say much of the planned $50 billion investment would have found its way to the states regardless of who occupied the White House.
Bayer and Monsanto said in a joint statement after Spicer’s remarks that the “combined company expects to spend approximately $16 billion in R&D in agriculture over the next six years with at least half of this investment made in the United States.” That amounts to about $2.7 billion a year, which roughly equates to what the combined companies already spend in that area globally, [Wall Street analyst Jeremy] Redenius said.
Yeah... You definitely didn't even read the article you said helped your argument... LOL half the things were not true.
Repeal Obamacare immediately? Nope.
Starting on building the wall immediately? Nope.
Getting Mexico to pay for it? Nope.
Eliminating common core? Hasn't mentioned it since before election.
Helping Syrians? Nope.
Bring back waterboarding? Nope.
Taking no salary? Oh yeah, a couple hundred thousand while he strips billions from necessary programs in our country.
There's dozens of other things that he's promised that he hasn't muttered since he has become president.
You wanted someone who wasn't a political figure, but he was twiddling thumbs with politicians his whole life. And now he's a "seasoned politician" not being able to get most of his stuff passed. YOu wanted a politician who could make moves, right? You thought because he was a "successful" businessman, he would make "bigly" moves, right?
Comparing Madoff to the same level as Trump, proves the point that the mainstream media is no longer objective or honest.
ROFLMAO Madoff was a boy scout compared to Trump. MSM is not the enemy. Only someone afraid of the truth would attack the media in such a way. Trump did not improve the economy in 7 months. Trump did not make the stock market surge in 7 months. Jobs were not created in 7 months. This is propaganda for the low information crowd to jump on like a monkey on a cupcake. MSM is negative about Trump because more the half of America is negative about Trump, and don't even get me started on the world view about Trump.
Partisan bias? Sure. Fox had to create fake news and get caught for it before fake news was was shown to a delusional base that fake news really came from Trump. Rubes fall for it. Intelligent people research. Oh wait I forgot about the Enguirer. Trump seems to think that rag deserves to be considered real news.
Fake news? It's not hard to figure that spin out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
