Fox was downright funny in its perpetual negative news about Obama.
And president Obama reacted negatively towards FNC, and repeatedly spoke out against them.
So, if the script was flipped, and it was Obama who found himself in Trumps predicament? If he viewed all of the broadcast and cable news shows,except one, were strongly negative in their reporting of him? Iâm sure, his public comments and complaints about his unfair news media treatment would have increased dramatically. and he would have ended up sounding like Trump.
I know itâs a hypothetical, but Obama was acting out against FNC, and that was just one network. All the others were pro-Obama, always seeking to paint him and his admin in a favorable light.
But he didnât have the obsession with it that Trump has. Trump made it a campaign issue. He whined about it during the debates (just like Newt and Ted used to do). He tweets about it ALL THE TIME. He whines about it in every speech. Itâs CONSTANT.
Thatâs some fun speculation, but I just donât think thereâs any merit to that.
As I mentioned above, part of the reason for the â91% negativityâ in coverage of Trump is because he creates negative narratives. He creates the negativity, and when itâs covered by the news, itâs classified as ânegativeâ since the story doesnât make him look good. But the reason it doesnât him look good is because the thing he did wasnât good.
Obama didnât have the same plethora of negative stories because Obama wasnât paying off porn stars, dealing with shady âlawyersâ who were paid to make things go away, wasnât constantly threatening to sue, didnât run a fraud MLM university to rip people off, etc. etc. etc.
There was PLENTY of negative coverage of things Obama said/did. But it wasnât constantly coming from him the way it oozes from Trump. Fox had to try to create negative stories about him. For YEARS, we heard âBill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Weather Underground, started his career in Bill Ayers living room, pals around with terrorists, itâs not God bless America, itâs God â â â â America, Jeremiah Wright.â etc. etc. etc. NONSTOP. Obama is indoctrinating children with his back to school speech, he ate mustard, he wore a tan suit, narcissist in chief, wants to meet with dictators without preconditions, etc. etc. etc.
Thatâs just not true. It sounds like youâve let Fox tell you about what other networks were doing and saying instead of finding out for yourself.
You gave me a lot of your opinion about what the figures mean and where they come from but the numerical facts are the facts. The studies SHOW a much greater anti-Trump bias in the stories than previous presidents. Regardless of what you or they define as ânegativeâ it is MORE negative - demonstrably more - with Trump than any other president. And to do that the press HAS TO BE ignoring all the positives of this administration and focusing almost exclusively on any negative they can find.
WHY they show it is always subjective discussion but they clearly have it.
And AGAIN I asked you to show me any study - ANY STUDY - that showed a similar anti-Obama bias by Fox to that extent and you still CANNOT.
Fox during the Obama years was - according to Pew Research - the MOST balanced news operation of all the big players. That you perceived them as overtly negative is simply NOT backed up by anyoneâs numbers. They WERE the most negative of all on him but that is because everyone else had abdicated their job as a critic of Obama. To them, he could do no wrong, and the Pew bias numbers show that.
M
No, I literally explained to you HOW the Harvard study classified ânegative coverage.â I explained their methodology to you, and you seem to not want to accept that.
No, thatâs not what the studies show. They donât state thereâs bias-they state there is more negative coverage. That doesnât imply bias. It means a high percent of stories paint the president in a negative light-thatâs not bias. It means if Trump pays a porn star to keep her yapper shut near the election, and CNN reports that Trump may have paid a porn star to keep her yapper shut near the election, the story is considered ânegativeâ because it makes him look bad. That doesnât make CNN biased for reporting it-it just means the story didnât make Trump look good, but the reason isnât because of CNN-itâs because Trump probably paid off a porn star. His doing, not CNNâs.
Well, thatâs because Trump is MORE negative-demonstratably more-than any other president (for which the stats have been measured).
Again, read the actual study. 91% is only a measure of EITHER positive or negative-it doesnât take into account âNeutralâ stories, that neither paint the president in a positive or negative light. Those made up a very sizable portion of the stories covered-but they were removed for the sake of JUST looking at the + or -.
And according to the studies, âpositive coverageâ means stories that make the president look good. When Trump wakes up and starts tweeting threats, tantrums, and anger, and that gets reported, itâs considered ânegative.â Trump does this regularly. So of course thereâs going to be a lot of negative. When he wakes up and congratulates a person for a thing, and CNN covers it, it is counted as positive.
If Trump himself were more positive, and surrounded himself with less controversy, the coverage would be considered less negative in the studies.
I literally just linked one in my last response to you. They included a sample of Baierâs coverage of Obama during his first year, and it was something like 78% negative.
Show the Pew study youâre referring to.
I literally provided an example of it above. Why you ignored it, I canât say.
Again, show the Pew poll to which you are referring.
If this is it:
Then it also shows that the coverage of Bush and Clinton were very similar, Obama was better received, and Trump hasnât been.
If thatâs your attempt to show bias, I think what we see is exactly what Iâve stated numerous times-the coverage of Trump is more negative because HE is more negative.
Here are some other Pew Fox studies. You probably wonât like what they have to say.
One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-to-1. The assessments of the president in the media were substantially more negative than positive in every one of the 23 weeks studied. In no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the President positive in tone.
You miss the point. The Harvard study classified ânegative coverageâ the same way for ALL the networks and compared that to each of them, so the percentage is a REAL percentage - regardless of what you think it means. They were FAR more negative in their coverage than Fox and FAR MORE negative than previous presidents. They CONTIN UE to be so, by the way.
You want to say that he deserves it and thatâs why he gets it in such high percentages. The simple fact is it it SO FAR OVERBOARD that bias is easily evident. You write all the negative stories you can when you are BIASED to do so, because there are a HUGE amount of positive stories that you are CHOOSING not to write and not to cover at all. The percentage of negativity tells us that.
I can spend and HOUR detailing all the accomplishments of the Trump administration in less than 2 years, and MOST of them are never spoken of in most of the press. That they FOCUS only on as much negativity as they can is proof of their bias.
The PROBLEM is he does things that should be a positive story on all the networks every day and yet it NEVER makes it to air on most of the networks. I know because I know where to find the positive stuff and I see tat it is never reported. They CHOOSE to do that.
Do you not understand that?
When a network devotes HOURS on end to Stormy Daniels information that could be detailed in five minutes it is CLEAR that they are CHOOSING to run that story ad naseum and to have the MOST negative affect they can prodiuce
I just told you that if you know where to look you CAN FIND Trump as extremely positive. You have chosen to watch networks that will NOT report those stories. Why would you view be anything but negative?
And I linked to a story that said that ALL the networks were in about that same range during Obamaâs first year, which was not a good year for him. Fox was NOT an outlier at all. Yet NONE of them were 90% or more. Thatâs patently ridiculous.
Here is one:
M
I didnât miss any point. I explained to you HOW the defined ânegative coverageâ and you seem not to be able to grasp the concept of their methodology-or you refuse to accept it. Itâs hard to tell which.
Thereâs a major difference between âdeserves itâ and âis his own doing.â When the negative things Trump says and does are covered by the news, then he is squarely the reason for the stories being negative.
By nature, âPaid a porn star hush moneyâ is a negative story. Trump did the negative thing, so when the story is run, itâs considered a negative story, but itâs not the outletâs fault the story is negative-itâs Trumpâs fault for doing the negative thing.
I donât deny that all networks go overboard in their coverage, but its value is null because they all do it. On an every day basis, Trump is negative so the stories about him are, by the criteria of the studies, negative. Thatâs his fault.
The positives (to you) of his presidency (Gorsuch, for example) are subjective-covering that Trump nominated Gorsuch is not classified as a positive/negative story by nature. Itâs neutral. That seems to be where youâre confused.
Economy booming=positive story. That stuff gets covered. Appointing a nominee you like=neutral. Itâs positive if you like it, negative if you donât, but by the criteria in the stories, itâs simply Trump doing his job. Thatâs neither positive nor negative, according to the methodology of the studies.
I want you to think REALLY hard about why this point does not help your argument.
Are you thinking?
Still thinking? Done yet?
If YOU can cover all the things YOU consider to be positive in an hour, and Trump has been president for nearly two yearsâŚit shouldnât come as any surprise to you that the media doesnât focus on it since it only takes an hour to cover. Trump creates negative news DAILY by tweeting, saying controversial things during speeches, etc. Like I said, Trump CREATES the negativity EVERY DAY. Thereâs no need to talk about his YOOOGE list of accomplishments because they can be detailed in an hour. His negativity takes much longer to detail, because thereâs A LOT of it.
The stories go on and on and on because Trumps keep them relevant. Let me give you an example. Just in another thread, a poster lamented that Mueller loves being in the limelight and thatâs why the investigation is dragging out. What this poster fails to realize, intentionally or not, is that Mueller is only in the limelight because Trump canât help but constantly talk about how Mueller is conducting a witch hunt. Trump keeps the name relevant. Trump puts it in the limelight. If Trump werenât CONSTANTLY wrapping himself in blankets of controversy, the stories wouldnât exist in the first place for the MSM to cover. But Trump frequently drums up controversy, so the stories are, by default, going to be negative A LOT-and itâs HIS doing. Do you not understand that?
But those positive stories can be covered in an hour. He creates negative news about himself EVERY SINGLE DAY.
Yes, I already addressed that above:
And I posted more Pew studies that are far less favorable toward Fox than that one. Youâre acting like thatâs the only Pew study ever done. Wow. How does this even have to be explained?
Well said. A president who keeps saying negative things, doing loony stuff, and paying off porn stars is going to get that stuff reported by the press.
And because itâs all negative, itâll be classified that way.
Perhaps the water carriers want more news about Trump making a birdie on the eighth without cheating again.
Because Obama did not have the vast, overwhelming majority of the news media going negative on him. Trump did, including Republican Trump-hating nevertrumpers like National Revue Online
Once again, you and those like you, who disagree with Trumpâs statements think itâs a legitimate negative news story.
For example, Trump makes his first speech . as he entered the race, and the news media goes negative, inferring his immigration comments are racist, and he wants to go door to door and deport everyone.
Obama opens a embassy in Cuba, the pro-Obama news media write positive stories, calling it âhistoric,â and âa great diplomatic achievement.â
Trump simply recognizes Jerusalem as Israelâs capital, and the news media calls it âreckless, dangerous, deeply stupid decisionâ and would âdamage U.S. interests in the Middle East for years to come and will make the region more volatile.â
Just because Trump does something people in the news media do not like, does not make it a legitimate negative story, just because the news media takes their reporting and commentary in that direction.
Even CNN reporting on one of Trumpâs stupid twitter fights does not make it legitimate negative news, just because most everyone at CNN thinks they are stupid.
And AGAIN you miss the point. They have a CHOICE which stories they want to cover. If they wanted to present a more balanced view - a REALISTIC view of the president - then they would NOT choose to run that much negativity all day long. You seem to think that there is so much negativity that they HAVE TO run it all day long. In fact, they repeat THE SAME CRAP all day long - like 12 hours of Stormy Daniels, which is a five minute story, while CHOOSING not to cover some realty great things that are totally NOT MENTIONED at all - initiatives in education and health care, energy and job training, for instance. Those are positives that everyone can agree are positives and they get no mention, because⌠Stormy!!
Furthermore, they try to take any positive and turn it into a negative! They do it all the time - find a reason to bitch or find the one unhappy person in a thousand and make them the focus, as if it is the norm.
They make a biased choice and it is evident to all of us who have legitimate and less biased sources.
Lastly, Iâm not trying to tell you that Fox is perfect. Iâm telling how BAD the others are, in comparison.
And Iâm STILL WAITING for you to come up with anyone who can show Fox was 90% or more negative on Obama in ANY YEAR of his presidency. You will find NO SUCH REPORT.
You cannot, because Pew was correct when they said that Fox was the most balanced of the big guys, whereas Harvardâs findings have been replicated elsewhere, giving them even more credence.
Stop trying so hard to negate the truth of the Harvard findings and the Pew findings, regarding balanced coverage. They will not go away for you.
M
Trump says and does a lot of horrible things each week. Those are all stories.
Sometimes world leaders are horrified by the things Trump has said or done. Those are all stories.
Trump lashes out in random to a new tangent with a false statement. Story.
At the end of the week, MarkyS is here to complain in all caps, âWhy all the negative press?â
1 Like
For starters, there were times he did. Iâve already provided one Pew study that showed that at one point, during the 2012 election, coverage of him was overwhelmingly negative, by a 4-1 ratio. And as I keep saying, Obama simply wasnât a negative of a person or president as is Trump, which means the stories about him arenât going to be as negative. Obama wasnât paying off porn stars, defrauding people with a MLM real estate school scam, donating to Florida prosecutors so they wouldnât join the Trump U lawsuit, constantly threatening people, etc. Trump does that â â â â and way more.
Then he needs to stop BEING so negative and SAYING negative things and DOING negative things. And there wonât be as much negative coverage.
You. Are. Not. Reading. The. Words. I. Am. Typing. Or. Reading. The. Methodology. Of. The Studies.
Itâs not about disagreement. The studies have very specific criteria for what is considered negative. Itâs not like or dislike. Itâs about how a story portrays the president. I canât put this any more clearly in the English language for you. Is there another language I can use?
If Trump werenât such an asshat trying to stir the pot like he always does, he could have made those comments in a much more innocuous way, but instead, as usual, he says a thing that can easily be interpreted to be bad, then has to clarify later what he really âmeant.â
Because no one got hurt in the process, Cuba is our next door neighbor, and thereâs no reason not to try to warm ties.
Conversely, Trump buddies up to NK and Russia and the right-wing media goes bananas and calls those great diplomatic achievements, and the right-wing media went BANANAS and lost their collective minds that Obama would dare meet with those that hate us, without preconditions.
As does most of the rest of the world, not just the US media.
Itâs not about whether what he does is liked or dislike, but how the story affects the president. When he intentionally does a thing he knows will be controversial, he canât expect everyone to receive it positively, ESPECIALLY when he presents it in a âin your face, libsâ way. And Trumpâs continued bad poll numbers prove that, to an extent, Trump is not perceived as doing a good job. Thatâs on him.
Official statements from the president are newsworthy.
As you said, it only takes an hour or so to run down the list of âpositive accomplishmentsâ of the Trump admin. He create negativity DAILY-through tweets, speeches, more tweets, SHS going out and lying for him, etc. He creates negative news EVERY SINGLE DAY. Of course itâs going to be reported. If he wants the news to be more positive, he needs to start being more positive, and less of an ass, EVERY SINGLE DAY.
When was the last time Stormy was a big story anyway? Havenât been hearing about her much at all lately, but you seem to think itâs all they talk about.
And part of the reason they DID keep talking about is because Trump himself kept reacting to it. I mean, 20 years ago, a president wholly lacking moral character was a BIG â â â â â â â DEAL worthy of LOTS OF NONSTOP PRESS COVERAGE. I was still in high school then, but I remember hearing the words BLUE DRESS for a VERY long time in the media. Now when a president pays off at least one porn star hush money right before an election, âOMG THE MEDIA SHOULD STOP TALKING ABOUT IT.â
Just like Fox did for 8 years.
For example, Fox ran this chyron with the following chart during Obamaâs presidency:
The headline reads âmore than 4 in 10 Americans feel that the economy is getting worse.â But the chart shows a HIGHER number believed itâs getting better, and that there had been a major reduction in those who thought it was getting worse , and a major increase in those who thought it was getting better, from the prior year.
But they chose to portray that poll negatively. And they pulled â â â â like this ALL THE TIME.
Such as?
You have provided no evidence regarding good, bad, or bias. Not a single one of the studies you provided gets into that.
Iâve provided multiple studies now that show that there were indeed times when coverage of Obama by ALL media, but especially Fox, were overwhelmingly negative.
But again, Trump reached 91% for that period because of HIS own doing-not the mediaâs. Stop â â â â â â â around with and paying off porn starts, stop bragging about grabbing women by the â â â â â â stop picking fights, stop insulting people, stop talking about blood coming out wherever, stop lying so damned constantly, stop literally doing all the things you bitched about Obama doing, stop directly contradicting nearly everything youâve ever said and done, stop hiring crooked people to work under you, stop â â â â â â â â â â â â us about fake audience sizes and voter fraud, stop acting like youâve brought world peace by meeting a single time with NK, etc etc etc etc and the coverage wonât be negative.
You cited a single Pew study from the 2008 election coverage and use that as proof that âFox was the most balanced of the big guysâ and continually prove your misunderstanding of the Harvard study, despite me drawing in crayon for you to understand.
I canât force you to understand that which you refuse to understand. Truly amazing how hard youâre digging in defending Trump.
âWhy donât they cover all the positive things that I said I could tell you about in just an hour? Why does the evil liberal media only cover the things Trump says and does on a daily basis?â
You should try not hating your children.
If the shoe fitsâŚright?
Please. It only takes 3 minutes to tell me that Trump and Stormy Daniels are at odds. You are trying to equate a detailed LIST of accomplishments with ALL-DAY coverage and discussion of negative stories. It also would only take an hour to list the negative stories, too - or less!
No. Iâm using her as an example of what the negative networks do - they cover a negative Trump story all day long and KEEP after it all day long, leaving ZERO room for any positive stories or even stories of other news events unrelated to politics. That is WHY their negative story percentages are so high. Itâs all they choose to do.
You canât get away with that. Pulling that out of thin air doesnât tell me WHAT ELSE they said or put in a following chyron minutes or even seconds later or what was discussed and by whom during that segment. It is USELESS.
Iâm STILL WAITING for you to come up with HARD FIGURES from a reputable and unbiased source that says Fox was EVER in the 90% negative range for Obama.
You have provided no evidence that Fox was âespeciallyâ negative. They fell into the about the same as the other network - very close. And as the Forbes piece stated the negativity for all was in the 70% range, which they said was typical for a presidentâs first year and showed other presidents with similar 1st-year numbers - nothing even remotely CLOSE to what Trump is handed on a daily, weekly and monthly basis and has been from the jump. And it isnât just the negativity but the AMOUNT of coverage, as well. The networks cover Trump MUCH more than previous presidents. Heâs ratings GOLD, so that increases the impact of all the negativity. Itâs UNRELENTING and all day long.
Give me another study from a reputable and credible source that disputes the Pew results, if you have one. There is a dearth of them.
Itâs not about digging in to defend Trump. Itâs MUCH more about CALLING OUT the incredible bias of the press against him and against conservatism, in general. That makes THEM less and less credible every day. They report as if the entire nation is on the left. Yet they wonder why used car salesmen are held in higher repute by the public.
M
