45th President of the United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 8)

[Jimbeaux]

gregs656 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Here is a link referencing the Harvard Kennedy School on media bias. They are by no means a right leaning institution. They have hits on Trump in the piece but drive home the fact that the media is biased. You will be pained to know that Harvard found only Fox offered a near equal positive/negative view.

You are misrepresenting the report here. They don't drive home the fact that the media is biased against Trump, they do mention several times that the media has a bias towards negative reporting as it drives viewing figures.

That he is reported negatively against, mostly using things he has actually said, tweeted etc, is not the same as a bias against him.

I honestly don't know how someone could read that report and their takeaway from it be that the media are biased against Trump.

Incorrect sir. The report clearly laid out the differences toward the last few POTUSes, not just negative reportinf in general.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 18th February 18:34

[Jimbeaux]

TheHat said:

Jimbeaux said:

God give me strength. My point is that if facts are overwhelming reported in a manner biased against Trump, as the Harvard study indicated, it is not logical to assume that people are reaching erroneous conclusions due to erroneous or unethical reporting.

Is your argument that people are reporting only the stty stuff that trump does?

That is what the study linked said.

[Jimbeaux]

timmybob said:

Al Gorithum said:

Jimbeaux said:

OK, let's move somewhat forward to the Obama period. "You can keep your Doctor if you Like". That turned out to be a lie. The media response?

Sorry Sir I don't know what that means. I know about the Birther lies, the Muslim lies and pseudonym lies, but what's this Doctor thing all about please?

Edited by Al Gorithum on Tuesday 18th February 17:15

The media actually paid a lot of attention to that claim at the time, despite the suggestion otherwise. It even got 'four Pinocchios' from the WaPo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/w...

From WAPO? Oh, well that settles it. . That was the source that Walm mentioned he ignores for extreme anti-Trump bias.

[Jimbeaux]

tangerine_sedge said:

gregs656 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Here is a link referencing the Harvard Kennedy School on media bias. They are by no means a right leaning institution. They have hits on Trump in the piece but drive home the fact that the media is biased. You will be pained to know that Harvard found only Fox offered a near equal positive/negative view.

You are misrepresenting the report here. They don't drive home the fact that the media is biased against Trump, they do mention several times that the media has a bias towards negative reporting as it drives viewing figures.

That he is reported negatively against, mostly using things he has actually said, tweeted etc, is not the same as a bias against him.

I honestly don't know how someone could read that report and their takeaway from it be that the media are biased against Trump.

This. The negative reporting is because there was so much bad news around Trump in the first 100 days. When all the media (apart from Fox) reports 80-93% bad news, one can only assume that Trump had a dreadful first 100 days. Perhaps if he didn't lie about things that don't matter (biggliest inauguration crowd ever!) then the bad to good ratio might have been better.

The study in the link dedicated a paragraph to just that, and still concluded it was overly negative bias.

[Jimbeaux]

Look fellows, the point I am trying to make is that you are all basing your arguments upon the same sources of facts, facts that the study clearly stated was biased against Trump. Many of your concerns are correct, I am merely pointing out you may have skewed data. Not simply biased toward the negative only, but Trump as well. You are building some of these things while feeding from a bent trough. If you don't like it, take it up with Harvard.

Now, work beckons. You evening shift folks can slice and dice in myopic bliss. Have a good evening gentlemen (and any ladies present) and a better morning.

[TheHat]

Jimbeaux said:

TheHat said:

Jimbeaux said:

God give me strength. My point is that if facts are overwhelming reported in a manner biased against Trump, as the Harvard study indicated, it is not logical to assume that people are reaching erroneous conclusions due to erroneous or unethical reporting.

Is your argument that people are reporting only the stty stuff that trump does?

That is what the study linked said.

I didn't realise it was their job to cheerlead for him.

He's an odious man - and he was well before he became president.

Your prepared to over look that because you share his values and enjoy the upside of his policies.

That's your prerogative. Other people are entitled to call a a .

[Gameface]

Max_Torque said:

Are you familiar with the fable of the boy who cried wolf?

I'm familiar with the old man who cried fake news.

Does that count?

[timmybob]

Jimbeaux said:

From WAPO? Oh, well that settles it. . That was the source that Walm mentioned he ignores for extreme anti-Trump bias.

You incorrectly suggested that the media ignored the issue and as you know from living here, that wasn't the case at all. I chose the WaPo as a source most accuse of being left-leaning and because their fact-checker did tackle this statement. You can't have it both ways. Although I shouldn't be surprised given how disingenuous you have repeatedly shown yourself to be.

[andyeds1234]

Jimbeaux said:

Look fellows, the point I am trying to make is that you are all basing your arguments upon the same sources of facts, facts that the study clearly stated was biased against Trump. Many of your concerns are correct, I am merely pointing out you may have skewed data. Not simply biased toward the negative only, but Trump as well. You are building some of these things while feeding from a bent trough. If you don't like it, take it up with Harvard.

Now, work beckons. You evening shift folks can slice and dice in myopic bliss. Have a good evening gentlemen (and any ladies present) and a better morning.

Again.... the study does not state the coverage is biased, just that it is negative.
More often than not, the data is accurate, and the media correctly reports it in a negative manner.

The primary source of my Trump data comes straight from the mouth of Trump himself, and it doesn’t take much more than that to form a valid opinion of him, and his intentions.

[Escapegoat]

andyeds1234 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Look fellows, the point I am trying to make is that you are all basing your arguments upon the same sources of facts, facts that the study clearly stated was biased against Trump. Many of your concerns are correct, I am merely pointing out you may have skewed data. Not simply biased toward the negative only, but Trump as well. You are building some of these things while feeding from a bent trough. If you don't like it, take it up with Harvard.

Now, work beckons. You evening shift folks can slice and dice in myopic bliss. Have a good evening gentlemen (and any ladies present) and a better morning.

Again.... the study does not state the coverage is biased, just that it is negative.
More often than not, the data is accurate, and the media correctly reports it in a negative manner.

The primary source of my Trump data comes straight from the mouth of Trump himself, and it doesn’t take much more than that to form a valid opinion of him, and his intentions.

This.

[unrepentant]

Trump is commuting the prison sentence of corrupt ex Governor of Illinois Rob "how much will you pay me for a Senate seat" Blagojevich despite being advised against it by republicans. There is no reason whatever to do this apart from using it as a precedent to pardon Manafort, Stone, Flynn etc..

Drain the swamp!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-commu...

[Countdown]

Jimbeaux said:

andyeds1234 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Here is a link referencing the Harvard Kennedy School on media bias. They are by no means a right leaning institution. They have hits on Trump in the piece but drive home the fact that the media is biased. You will be pained to know that Harvard found only Fox offered a near equal positive/negative view.
In case you can't be bothered to read it all, I draw your attention to paragraph 5 as well as the last three.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harv...

An opinion piece, taken from a right wing tabloid...hmm....

The Harvard report states that coverage of Trump was overwhelmingly negative, apart from Fox, whose coverage was much more positive.

And in other news, Hitler has mainly been negatively reported on, with the exception of certain choice publications...

You are being misleading. The paper references the Harvard study, far from right leaning. Furthermore, Fox has a 58% negative / 42% positive. Pretty balanced compared to the other sources listed in the Harvard study. Nice try at a spin though; you fit right in here.

No, not at all. It really doesn't work like that.

If a person does 95 stupid things and 5 positive things, reporting 50 negative and 50 positive isn't "Fair and impartial". fair and impartial would be reporting 95 stupid things and 5 positive things.

[gregs656]

Jimbeaux said:

The study in the link dedicated a paragraph to just that, and still concluded it was overly negative bias.

No it doesn't conclude that it was overly negative, it does suggest that his negative coverage is 'hardly surprising' due to his first 100 days being 'marked by far more missteps, and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any president in memory, perhaps ever'

Direct quote hidden below.

It does suggest that the negative press may assist Trump and cause people to sympathise with his claim that the press are biased against him, and therefore that the negative press may be counter productive in demonstrating that the media are not biased

That is not the same thing as saying there was an overly negative bias. The report actually goes some length to suggest that the negative press is his own fault - they highlight, for example, that usually negative press is focused on groups that don't have a voice to combat it, but in the case of Trump most of what is considered negative reporting is commenting on things he has actually said or done, using his own words.

It is a bit peculiar to try and spin a relatively short report that anyone can read in 10 minutes as you are trying to.

Any such assessment would also have to weigh the news media’s preference for the negative, a tendency
in place long before Trump became president. Given that tendency, 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.'

[andyeds1234]

Interestingly the Harvard study was funded by Rebecca Donatelli, campaign advisor to multiple Republican presidential campaigns.

“She has consulted to nearly all of the national GOP committees, and scores of Senate, House, and gubernatorial campaigns including the Republican National Conventions in 2004, 2008 and 2012” “ In 2016 Campaign Solutions worked with twelve of the sixteen Republican presidential campaigns“

https://www.campaignsolutions.com/team/becki-donat...

[unrepentant]

Mike Milken pardoned now! King of the junk bonds and prolific insider trader.

Hang in there Bernie Madoff. You could be next!

Drain the swamp!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-pardo...

[Jimbeaux]

unrepentant said:

Mike Milken pardoned now! King of the junk bonds and prolific insider trader.

Hang in there Bernie Madoff. You could be next!

Drain the swamp!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-pardo...

He was released 27 years ago after a 22 month sentence. You post this as if he was still locked up.

From your link:

“In fact, one of the lead prosecutors later admitted that Mr. Milken had been charged with numerous technical offenses and regulatory violations that had never before been charged as crimes,”

He violated Exchange Security laws. Jailed for 22 months and paid a $600,000,000 fine. Since his release in 1993 he has given more than $80,000,000 to cancer research and other charitable causes. He is 73.

Now Madoff took ordinary peoples' savings and ruined many. If he is pardoned, I will vote against Trump myself.

Now, the prison reform act Trump led and signed (praised in bipartisan fashion) has released to date 3100 federal prisoners of varying crimes; perhaps you want to check on them as well.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 18th February 21:28

[Countdown]

Jimbeaux said:

From your link:

“In fact, one of the lead prosecutors later admitted that Mr. Milken had been charged with numerous technical offenses and regulatory violations that had never before been charged as crimes,”

Does that mean they were legal or illegal?

[Escapegoat]

Jimbeaux said:

He was released 27 years ago after a 22 month sentence. You pardon him as if he was still locked up.

#97 of Things you Might Have Said to Trump.

Edited by Escapegoat on Tuesday 18th February 20:49

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

Jimbeaux said:

From your link:

“In fact, one of the lead prosecutors later admitted that Mr. Milken had been charged with numerous technical offenses and regulatory violations that had never before been charged as crimes,”

Does that mean they were legal or illegal?

Illegal.

[Escapegoat]

This just in... "I'm actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country"

Guess who said that?