Will Trump ever get fair treatment?

[So]

BBC News this morning was doing a piece on Trump's first 100 days. Objective it wasn't. It was as good an attempt as I have seen to ridicule a world leader.

They barely stopped short of running the Benny Hill theme tune whilst focusing on Trump's gaffes, before grudgingly adding, "by some measures like immigration and the economoy he's doing OK because things are improving, now back to the studio".

Now, like him or loathe him, shouldn't the BBC and other news agencies at least give Trump a level of respect and balanced treatment instead of pursuing their own political bias? He was, after all, elected by the American people.

[So]

Countdown said:

The beeb are reporting what Trump says and does. The fact that he does and says stupid things which make him look stupid isn't the fault of the Beeb. the fact that he lies, and the beeb then reports what he said, doesn't make the Beeb unfair or impartial.

There are ways of doing things, and the BBC yesterday decided to run a hugely unbalanced piece which was so clearly biased it reflected worse upon them than Trump. My OP was questioning whether news agencies should try to be more neutral; something that many of them seem to be struggling with. Forget for a moment whether you like or dislike Trump and what his successes and failures have been, it's about the tone of reporting by the news agencies.

[So]

Countdown said:

Reporting what he says and does isn't bias. It's fact.

You've missed the point.

I could say, "Countdown missed the point I made, however clear the message might have been. But at other points in the thread he has made some good arguments."

Or I could say, "Countdown missed the quite simple point I was making, which indicates that save the occasional inteligent comment he is thick as pig st".

I have reported the situation two different ways, which do you consider more balanced?

[So]

Countdown said:

So said:

Countdown said:

Reporting what he says and does isn't bias. It's fact.

You've missed the point.

I could say, "Countdown missed the point I made, however clear the message might have been. But at other points in the thread he has made some good arguments."

Or I could say, "Countdown missed the quite simple point I was making, which indicates that save the occasional inteligent comment he is thick as pig st".

I have reported the situation two different ways, which do you consider more balanced?

In Trump's case he genuinely does appear to be as thick as pigst so reporting it as such wouldn't be biased, would it?

He doesn't come across as thick.

I am not a fan particularly, by the way.

[So]

Eric Mc said:

No - but I haven't gone bankrupt over 10 times either
.

Neither has Trump. I am not sure he has been personally bankrupt at all, has he?

[So]

This might be the first time ever that I take one of my own threads off my watch list.