45th President of the United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 8)
Discussion
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....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...
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...
A key part of the study states “The media’s credibility today is at low ebb, but the Trump presidency is not the time for the press to pull back“ The key point is that Trump encourages this battle with the press, and his actions deserve the scrutiny they receive.
Trump is a compulsive liar and a overwhelmingly combative. The reporting reflects that accurately.
Al Gorithum said:
Jimbeaux said:
Do you have a comment regarding the main topic of the Harvard study, that the media are biased? Are you just going to omit the heart of the main topic?
Yes Sir. Of course the media is biased. Are you surprised?Personally I don't watch any of the US "news" agencies (for the above reason). I watch/listen to Trump, then watch/listen to what he says/does, ditto for people more informed/better educated/more rational/more truthful/successful that he is, verify sources if needed then come to the conclusions that I've mentioned previously.
I'm open minded enough to change my mind I do hope that he does something worthy of merit that counteracts the nefariousness.
Please allow me to ask you a question that merits a genuine answer: How would you feel if it was proven (post presidency - he can't be indicted while in office) that Trump is a Russian asset (after all, the signs are there if you care to look)? Would this bother you at all? I'm not having a dig, just genuinely interested to get a better understanding.
"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."
As to your question, yes. That would anger me very much. I do not believe he is a "Russian Asset" or "agent"; however, if he was, then lock him up. The same could be said of some Dems for that matter.
To restate; I do not always like how Trump acts, he is a narcissist, etc. I like his policies as it pertains to Trade, the economy, and defense. Agree with those policies or not, that is the reason I support him despite his personal shortcomings.
Kennedy was praised for his policies despite humping on Monroe and a bevy of other toys as well as having the Presidency bought by his father's illegal bootleg money. Had the news scrutiny existed then as it does today, it would not have mattered as he was a Democrat. You just saw the Harvard study of 93% biased in favor of Dems.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 18th February 16:51
andyeds1234 said:
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....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...
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...
A key part of the study states “The media’s credibility today is at low ebb, but the Trump presidency is not the time for the press to pull back“ The key point is that Trump encourages this battle with the press, and his actions deserve the scrutiny they receive.
Trump is a compulsive liar and a overwhelmingly combative. The reporting reflects that accurately.
Jimbeaux said:
"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."
Absolutely. Works for both sides, which is why they do it.Jimbeaux said:
As to your question, yes. That would anger me very much. I do not believe he is a "Russian Asset" or "agent"; however, if he was, then lock him up. The same could be said of some Dems for that matter.
Good to know. Refreshing! Thanks for your honesty 
Jimbeaux said:
Kennedy was praised for his policies despite humping on Monroe and a bevy of other toys as well as having the Presidency bought by his father's illegal bootleg money.
Whataboutery. Let's look forward 
Edited by Al Gorithum on Tuesday 18th February 16:58
Al Gorithum said:
Jimbeaux said:
"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."
Absolutely. Works for both sides, which is why they do it.Jimbeaux said:
As to your question, yes. That would anger me very much. I do not believe he is a "Russian Asset" or "agent"; however, if he was, then lock him up. The same could be said of some Dems for that matter.
Good to know. Refreshing! Thanks for your honesty Jimbeaux said:
Kennedy was praised for his policies despite humping on Monroe and a bevy of other toys as well as having the Presidency bought by his father's illegal bootleg money.
Whataboutery. Let's look forward Edited by Al Gorithum on Tuesday 18th February 16:58
And to you Sir.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?
OK, now we can move forward.
Jimbeaux said:
. I like his policies as it pertains to Trade, the economy, and defense. Agree with those policies or not, that is the reason I support him despite his personal shortcomings.
What exact defence policies do you think he has done well? Collaboration with enemy states would to me, point him out as a massive defence and security risk.Jimbeaux said:
andyeds1234 said:
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....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...
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...
A key part of the study states “The media’s credibility today is at low ebb, but the Trump presidency is not the time for the press to pull back“ The key point is that Trump encourages this battle with the press, and his actions deserve the scrutiny they receive.
Trump is a compulsive liar and a overwhelmingly combative. The reporting reflects that accurately.
Bias is not the same as negativity.
“Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? That question cannot be answered definitively in the absence of an agreed-upon version of “reality””
Edited by andyeds1234 on Tuesday 18th February 17:10
walm said:
Your straw man is transparent.
No one is arguing that the media isn't biased.
You just came up with that on your own.
Everyone accepts the media is biased.
Why don't you come up with evidence to support actual arguments here, not ones you made up.
The media was generally negative about Mugabe. Were they biased or just reporting the fact that he was a pretty bloody awful individual? Did Pol Pot get a good press? Hitler? Mussolini? Putin outside of state run media? Probably not. Did they deserve one?No one is arguing that the media isn't biased.
You just came up with that on your own.
Everyone accepts the media is biased.
Why don't you come up with evidence to support actual arguments here, not ones you made up.
When you have a leader who is basically despicable the media is not biased when they report it, the despot gets what is due. I listen to NPR a lot. They report facts and ask questions of leaders. They are not afraid to ask real questions and as a result are vilified by the right. I want a media that points out, factually, the bad things that leaders do. The worst kind of media is the FOX news type who report in a truly biased manner for an audience of one.
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
Al Gorithum said:
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?
Actually I just Googled it. So some people think Obama lied about the implications of his healthcare reforms. Others don't.Edited by Al Gorithum on Tuesday 18th February 17:15
It's more whataboutery, but is that all is you have against the Gentleman? You haven't found anything substantial like adultery, business failings, collusion with foreign enemies, obstruction of justice, collusion with fellons, quid pro quos, stealing from charities, being banned from operating charities, running a fake university, putting unqualified and un-vetted members of his family in positions of authority/national security, firing decent professional people, campaign finance violations etc?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but there's no point in having a mind if one isn't prepared to change it when necessary
Edited by Al Gorithum on Tuesday 18th February 17:38
Jimbeaux said:
It appears that contrary information, when presented, is treated to the (conceptual examples to follow)"That is not reliable"; "That is a lie"; "That opinion does not matter because Fox", etc & etc.
The groupthink (small group) here has resulted in what appears to be irreversible Myopia in this thread.
The BBC could make a miniseries off of this. "The Myopians"-Volume 8".
Are you familiar with the fable of the boy who cried wolf?The groupthink (small group) here has resulted in what appears to be irreversible Myopia in this thread.
The BBC could make a miniseries off of this. "The Myopians"-Volume 8".
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.
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 s 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.
tty stuff that trump does?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
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/w...
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.
Eric Mc said:
Jimbeaux said:
. I like his policies as it pertains to Trade, the economy, and defense. Agree with those policies or not, that is the reason I support him despite his personal shortcomings.
What exact defence policies do you think he has done well? Collaboration with enemy states would to me, point him out as a massive defence and security risk.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
Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 18th February 21:26
Al Gorithum said:
Al Gorithum said:
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?
Actually I just Googled it. So some people think Obama lied about the implications of his healthcare reforms. Others don't.Edited by Al Gorithum on Tuesday 18th February 17:15
It's more whataboutery, but is that all is you have against the Gentleman? You haven't found anything substantial like adultery, business failings, collusion with foreign enemies, obstruction of justice, collusion with fellons, quid pro quos, stealing from charities, being banned from operating charities, running a fake university, putting unqualified and un-vetted members of his family in positions of authority/national security, firing decent professional people, campaign finance violations etc?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but there's no point in having a mind if one isn't prepared to change it when necessary
Edited by Al Gorithum on Tuesday 18th February 17:38
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff