CNN goes crazy - accuses President Trump of being "hate leader" and compares him to Hitler

You can call it whatever you want, but the EFFECT is the same. You incessantly whine about CNN and left-wing bias, and refuse to condemn Fox bias. It’s happened time and time again.

Exactly like I said. Thanks for confirming.

How does holding down the shift key hurt anyone? Don’t be such a snowflake. If caps offends you that much, I highly recommend you avoid the Hannity News section of this site.

:rofl:

That you actually believe this says volumes about your (lack of) integrity and your fealty to Fox and the GOP. They appreciate it.

Well, first we have to figure out who at Fox is supposed to be a journalist and who isn’t. That’s the rub.

Obama wasn’t a thin-skinned snowflake who created negative news about himself by lying incessantly, as if that were the job he were elected to do. Trump literally creates negative news when he threatens, insults, calls out, derides, lies, contradicts himself, lies more, etc. The negativity is his own creation. If he were such a blowhard constantly picking fights with people, the coverage wouldn’t be so negative. HE creates the negative narratives that are covered. If he weren’t such a horse’s ass, and actually did what he said he would, which is try to unite the country, there wouldn’t be so much “negative” coverage.

And of course, we are talking about a study done by MRC, and if I posed a study from Media Matters, which is just the left-wing version of MRC, you’d have a hissy fit about the source. Now go ahead and lie to me and tell me you’d treat a similar study from MMfA the same as a MRC study.

I’m not talking about the MRC or Media Matters.

Harvard did a study that found MOST of the MSM were biased heavily against Trump and heavily FOR Obama. HARVARD. This article refers to the Harvard study:

Pew Research backs up my claim that Fox is the more balanced news network.

Here is a story concerning what you call the anti-Obama bias of Fox and the MRC has nothing to do with it: What it shows is that Fox was just the LEAST obsequious and fawning on Obama, so they looked like they were anti-Obama, in comparison. The entity looking into the bias is the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University:

And lastly, Obama wasn’t thin-skinned??? PLEASE.

Obama was always bothered that he didn’t have 100% of the news coverage in his favor. He ragged on Fox all the time because they criticized him at times. He just wasn’t as crude in his condemnations but he had them all the time. He even sicked the DOJ on Fox, at one point.

Give me a break!

M

Obama wasn’t remotely as thin-skinned as Trump. Trump can not let a single criticism go unanswered. Obama had his moments, but to try to compare him to Trump in that department is just being dishonest.

And if you’re going to cite Pew data from the 2008 election coverage, and cite a Forbes article from NOVEMBER 2009, that doesn’t remotely mention the NEXT EIGHT YEARS of Fox coverage of Obama, then it’s very easy to see you’re remembering things with your partisan 'member berries.

The Harvard Study shows that EVEN FOX had majority “negative coverage” of Trump-and it’s not because they were largely critical.

And like I said before:

“Trump literally creates negative news when he threatens, insults, calls out, derides, lies, contradicts himself, lies more, etc. The negativity is his own creation. If he were such a blowhard constantly picking fights with people, the coverage wouldn’t be so negative. HE creates the negative narratives that are covered. If he weren’t such a horse’s ass, and actually did what he said he would, which is try to unite the country, there wouldn’t be so much “negative” coverage.”

If Trump weren’t so controversial, and hasn’t spend his life bragging about things like “grabbing them by the ■■■■■■ the coverage wouldn’t be considered “negative.”

Obama didn’t spend his entire adult life scamming people, sleeping around, divorcing and remarrying, ripping people off, threatening, insulting, etc. etc. etc. He didn’t come into office with that baggage. Controversy has followed Trump his entire life…that is to say, Trump has created controversy his entire life, so to act surprised that the media would…cover those controversies is pretty naive.

Trump could easily have positive coverage if he wasn’t such an ass hat to others. It’s his own doing.

Turning off Joe and Mika would be a good start. :grinning::+1:

Joe and Mike are on MsDnc not fox. :sunglasses:

You’re giving me all the reasons you think that Trump deserves condemnation as a man.

But they cannot and will not acknowledge and COMMEND him as a president and he has been one of the most successful presidents in my lifetime, and he is less than two years in!

They hate him and all he stands for and they cover him as if they do and it is very apparent.

That makes them useless to me.

The BIG difference is that he just won’t take their crap, as all the previous GOP presidents did. That is FINE with me.

I asked you to cite ANYONE with figures that show Fox had outrageous anti-Obama bias in their coverage and you cannot do it because it DID NOT HAPPEN. They were the toughest on him but even in their toughness they were FAR more fair than the media has been with Trump. They seemed anti-Obama because the rest of the press was so FAWNING that Fox stood out from them.

I expect the press to properly be tough on any president. That’s their job. But this press has gone completely OVERBOARD with rank and obvious hatred.

They are thus useless as a font of good information. They are literally joined with the opposition and believe themselves to be above criticism, which makes them BLIND to what they are doing, day in and day out.

They fully DESERVE the pitiful public rankings they now enjoy.

M

2 Likes

Brian Stelter is just a senior media correspondent for CNN and host of the CNN show 'Reliable Sources," it’s not he represents CNN or anything. Right? :man_shrugging:t6:

How does whether Trump responds to his political attackers, and viewing him as being “thinned skinned” because of it, have anything to do with senior CNN journalists making outrageous slurs against the man, calling him a “hate leader?”

It’s like a self fulfilling Trump prophecy that the news media is openly biased and hostile towards him, when senior folks at CNN attack the president in such a vehement and despicable manner.

it’s going to be a long 8 years for you

Joe and Mika.

No, I’m giving you reasons the coverage about him is considered “negative.”

Also, did you actually READ the Harvard study, btw?

Regarding the study:

“It’s important to note that caption: “Percentages exclude news reports that were neutral in tone, which accounted for about a third of the reports.” So it’s not quite true that 80 percent of all Trump coverage is negative — just that 80 percent of coverage that tilts positive or negative is negative.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/19/coverage-of-president-trump-has-been-4-to-1-negative-but-that-isnt-really-the-point/?utm_term=.5639c289146d

And then just a little further, EXACTLY what I said in my prior posts was shown:

"Such is the case with Trump. There haven’t been many big successes to speak of in his first 100 days, and from there, his penchant for controversy and the objective disorder in his administration tend to more than fill the vacuum.

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."

“One of the most successful” is certainly subjective. I don’t think that needs to be explained.

So don’t watch. Welcome to America where you’re not required to consume a product you don’t want. Weird, I know.

“Fair” is not the term being discussed here, and no, they most certainly weren’t.

They didn’t “seem” anti-Obama. They were. When you have Glenn Beck on your morning show stating Obama hates white people, and another guy claiming the birth certificate was doctored, and the now sitting president, before he was president, being paraded all over the network drumming up the idea that the then sitting president was illegitimate because the BC was fake and he had guys looking into it and you will not BELIEVE what they have found…you can’t tell me, with a straight face, that they were “far more fair.”

But you want some scientific data regarding Obama’s first year from Fox? Here you go. Scroll down to page 8 to see how Fox’s "non partisan side treated Obama. It wasn’t very friendly.

You need to read the studies carefully to understand what they mean by “negative.” And seriously, if you don’t think Fox went completely OVERBOARD with its hatred of Obama, then again, you’re intentionally being terribly obtuse and showing your selective memory of the Obama years.

That’s Fox during the Obama years. But you’ll find I’ve also been terribly critical of sources like CNN and MSNBC in my years on the Hannity forums. I’m no friend to them-but to say Fox has not been just the right-wing version of that is truly dishonest.

You need to follow lines of discussion to understand the context of statements made-the part of that post you quoted is no exception.

When a president himself is largely negative, and has spent his life doing negative things, and continue to do those things as president, then the coverage is going to be negative.

Why? I don’t have a dog in the fight. I’m an 30-something privileged straight white guy whose life generally not be hugely impacted by who is president. I agree or disagree with presidents on things, but I’ll continue not voting for Ds and Rs for president as I’ve done since my 2nd vote for Bush Jr in 2004. That’s the difference between us. I stand on principle. I didn’t get a tingle up my leg for Obama, and didn’t vote for him either time. You get a special feeling in your leg at just the thought of the word “Trump.”

Fair enough.

CNN is doing much more than simply reporting the news on Trump, they are openly hostile to him, and completely unobjective, biased, etc… because they have a personal dislike of Trump on a personal level and they disagree with his politics.

Trump only seems largely negative to you because you disagree with his politics, his mannerisms, his words and the way in which he argues with his political critics.

I think that SOMETIMES, SOME CNN personalities do that-and I’ve been critical of that when they have. The point I’ve been making in this thread, however, is that this is not new behavior from the media. Fox spent 8 years behaving badly toward Obama-very badly. For God’s sake, the current sitting president was a regular on Fox pushing the idea that Obama wasn’t born in America.

Trump seems largely negative to me because he’s a negative person who has spent his life surrounding himself with controversy. And again, in the studies above that have been cited showing how negative the media is to Trump clearly define how they view “negative” coverage-most of which has been because Trump himself is “negative” under the parameters set forth by the study.

As I quoted above regarding the Harvard study:

"…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."

When Trump tweets an insult, and the “lamestream media” covers that store, it is considered a “negative story” because the story makes Trump look bad…but it only looks bad because the thing he said was negative. And he spends a lot, if not most, of his time doing this. So of course he’s going to be viewed negatively, and those who report on it are going to be seen as being negative toward him.

And look, as I said above, I don’t disagree that there are times when it goes too far, and that happens on both sides toward both parties. It’s not a new phenomenon, and I don’t find a lot of it to be unfair. The difference is that Obama didn’t spend the same amount of time and effort acting like Trump does. There’s no comparison-Trump brings negative attention to himself, then complains when people point out his bad behavior and calls it fake news. What the president does and says will ALWAYS be highlighted by the media, and when the president’s words, actions, and deeds are negative, that’s on him.

The FNC was very fair with Obama, only certain people were overly critical of the president, like our host, Sean Hannity. Obama lashed out at Hannity because of it, and held FNC accountable for allowing it, since he derided Hannity and FNC many times, even at times trying to exclude the FNC. With the White house spokesman admitting:

“This White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox News from newsmaking interviews,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest

Exactly, you don’t like Trump on a personal level.

CNN loves to focus on televising and showcasing the negative commentary by Trump’s critics, even creating entire round table discussions complaining about Trump’s latest tweet, because they don’t like his tone, choice of words etc…

As to this:

Trump is only doing controversial things, if you disagree with them. If you like that he’s keeping campaign promises, such as lowered taxes, low unemployment, improving economy, increased jobs, and appointing Constitutionalist judges to the courts, then those things would not be controversial

Colluding…

Not. Remotely. True.

There is a plethora of examples of Fox completely carrying their narrative from the opinion (which is a majority of their programming) to the “straight news.”

There’s a very good The Daily Show clip where Jon Stewart very meticulously depicts this:

Have a watch-he absolutely rips Fox to shreds, demonstrating how their “straight news” narrative is directly created by their opinion narrative. He did this all the time. And I mean, all you had to do was watch any random segments throughout the day to see it. They didn’t even try to hide it.

And the “lamestream media” came out in defense of Fox, on more than one occasion.

Which is irrelevant to the point I made.

That’s exactly what Fox did for 8 years. That’s not up for debate-it’s exactly what happened.

Paying a porn star not to speak up during the election is controversial, whether or not I “disagree” with it. Trump constantly insulting people is controversial regardless on whether I agree that the person deserved it. Trump constantly lying is controversial, whether or not I disagree with the lies is irrelevant. It’s not hard to prove his constant lies. God Himself could come down and tell you about them, but you would find a way to explain it away.

Trump can’t even stop himself from lying when trying to brag about how great he has been. And you don’t even care. Which is my point-you aren’t even willing to admit that Trump himself creates the controversy and that simply reporting on it isn’t biased or negative. Again, if Trump weren’t such an asshat, there would be far less negative coverage. Fox went dirty with Obama very early on-that’s a fact.

I don’t agree when left-leaning networks get dirty, such as the article in the OP. But I can at least be consistent and call it out when both sides do it. Get up off your knees and reduce your fealty to the GOP.