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


#189

“refusing to condemn” used to be “defend fox news all the time” but as usual you change your argument

i dont post per your wishes or demands, and that isnt proof of anything. sorry

you can turn your caps off now before you hurt yourself


#190

its an impt distinction. you cant help yourself in ignoring it


#191

The reporters are false. They can’t report the truth because they are false.

Instead of saying “fake news,” it should be “fake (false) reporters.”


#192

We are talking about what defines Fake News and it is NOT all the press or even the press that is detrimental to Trump. It is the press the LIES and/or gets a story wrong and never retracts it or corrects it.

That is what Trump has called the “Fake News” and it exists in SPADES today. The news has never been more unreliable. And when the news lies to me it is my enemy. It is the enemy of any democracy, which requires truthful information and relies on the free press to deliver truth.

That’s what we pay them to do and they are not doing it.

M


#193

Yeah, you really don’t know the guy you voted for. At all.


#194


#195

I’ve already answered this ridiculous assertion that Fox News was anti-Obama. Fox news was much more balanced - doing their job - while all the other news outlets were sycophantic and adoring of Obama, who could to little wrong to them, so of course Fox looked anti-Obama in comparison.

AGAIN, when you can show me any legitimate news observer or chronicler that will show Fox as having 90% anti-Obama stories YOU LET ME KNOW.

You cannot.

Yet the Fake News is this distorted with Trump all the time.

M


#196

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.


#197

: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.


#198

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


#199

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.


#200

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


#201


#202

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


#203

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


#204

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:


#205

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.


#206

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


#207

Joe and Mika.


#208

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.”

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.