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.”
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
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.
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? I’m 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 it’s 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 didn’t 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. It’s CONSTANT.
That’s some fun speculation, but I just don’t think there’s any merit to that.
As I mentioned above, part of the reason for the “91% negativity” in coverage of Trump is because he creates negative narratives. He creates the negativity, and when it’s covered by the news, it’s classified as “negative” since the story doesn’t make him look good. But the reason it doesn’t him look good is because the thing he did wasn’t good.
Obama didn’t have the same plethora of negative stories because Obama wasn’t paying off porn stars, dealing with shady “lawyers” who were paid to make things go away, wasn’t constantly threatening to sue, didn’t 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 wasn’t constantly coming from him the way it oozes from Trump. Fox had to try to create negative stories about him. For YEARS, we heard “Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Weather Underground, started his career in Bill Ayers living room, pals around with terrorists, it’s not God bless America, it’s God ■■■■ America, Jeremiah Wright.” 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.
That’s just not true. It sounds like you’ve 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 “negative” 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 anyone’s 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.
No, I literally explained to you HOW the Harvard study classified “negative coverage.” I explained their methodology to you, and you seem to not want to accept that.
No, that’s not what the studies show. They don’t state there’s bias-they state there is more negative coverage. That doesn’t imply bias. It means a high percent of stories paint the president in a negative light-that’s 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 “negative” because it makes him look bad. That doesn’t make CNN biased for reporting it-it just means the story didn’t make Trump look good, but the reason isn’t because of CNN-it’s because Trump probably paid off a porn star. His doing, not CNN’s.
Well, that’s 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 doesn’t take into account “Neutral” 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, “positive coverage” means stories that make the president look good. When Trump wakes up and starts tweeting threats, tantrums, and anger, and that gets reported, it’s considered “negative.” Trump does this regularly. So of course there’s 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 Baier’s coverage of Obama during his first year, and it was something like 78% negative.
Show the Pew study you’re referring to.
I literally provided an example of it above. Why you ignored it, I can’t 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 hasn’t been.
If that’s your attempt to show bias, I think what we see is exactly what I’ve stated numerous times-the coverage of Trump is more negative because HE is more negative.
Here are some other Pew Fox studies. You probably won’t 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 “negative coverage” 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 that’s 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 Obama’s 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. That’s patently ridiculous.
I didn’t miss any point. I explained to you HOW the defined “negative coverage” and you seem not to be able to grasp the concept of their methodology-or you refuse to accept it. It’s hard to tell which.
There’s a major difference between “deserves it” and “is his own doing.” 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, “Paid a porn star hush money” is a negative story. Trump did the negative thing, so when the story is run, it’s considered a negative story, but it’s not the outlet’s fault the story is negative-it’s Trump’s fault for doing the negative thing.
I don’t 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. That’s 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. It’s neutral. That seems to be where you’re confused.
Economy booming=positive story. That stuff gets covered. Appointing a nominee you like=neutral. It’s positive if you like it, negative if you don’t, but by the criteria in the stories, it’s simply Trump doing his job. That’s 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 years…it shouldn’t come as any surprise to you that the media doesn’t 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. There’s 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 there’s 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 that’s 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 can’t 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 weren’t CONSTANTLY wrapping himself in blankets of controversy, the stories wouldn’t 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 it’s 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. You’re acting like that’s the only Pew study ever done. Wow. How does this even have to be explained?
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 Trump’s statements think it’s 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 “historic,” and “a great diplomatic achievement.”
Trump simply recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and the news media calls it “reckless, dangerous, deeply stupid decision” and would “damage U.S. interests in the Middle East for years to come and will make the region more volatile.”
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 Trump’s 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, I’m not trying to tell you that Fox is perfect. I’m telling how BAD the others are, in comparison.
And I’m 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 Harvard’s 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.
For starters, there were times he did. I’ve 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 wasn’t a negative of a person or president as is Trump, which means the stories about him aren’t going to be as negative. Obama wasn’t paying off porn stars, defrauding people with a MLM real estate school scam, donating to Florida prosecutors so they wouldn’t join the Trump U lawsuit, constantly threatening people, etc. Trump does that ■■■■ and way more.
Then he needs to stop BEING so negative and SAYING negative things and DOING negative things. And there won’t be as much negative coverage.
You. Are. Not. Reading. The. Words. I. Am. Typing. Or. Reading. The. Methodology. Of. The Studies.
It’s not about disagreement. The studies have very specific criteria for what is considered negative. It’s not like or dislike. It’s about how a story portrays the president. I can’t put this any more clearly in the English language for you. Is there another language I can use?
If Trump weren’t 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 “meant.”
Because no one got hurt in the process, Cuba is our next door neighbor, and there’s 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.
It’s 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 can’t expect everyone to receive it positively, ESPECIALLY when he presents it in a “in your face, libs” way. And Trump’s continued bad poll numbers prove that, to an extent, Trump is not perceived as doing a good job. That’s 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 “positive accomplishments” 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 it’s 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? Haven’t been hearing about her much at all lately, but you seem to think it’s 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 ■■■■■■■ 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, “OMG THE MEDIA SHOULD STOP TALKING ABOUT IT.”
Just like Fox did for 8 years.
For example, Fox ran this chyron with the following chart during Obama’s presidency:
The headline reads “more than 4 in 10 Americans feel that the economy is getting worse.” But the chart shows a HIGHER number believed it’s 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 ■■■■ like this ALL THE TIME.
You have provided no evidence regarding good, bad, or bias. Not a single one of the studies you provided gets into that.
I’ve 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 media’s. Stop ■■■■■■■ around with and paying off porn starts, stop bragging about grabbing women by the ■■■■■, 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 you’ve ever said and done, stop hiring crooked people to work under you, stop ■■■■■■■■■■■■ us about fake audience sizes and voter fraud, stop acting like you’ve brought world peace by meeting a single time with NK, etc etc etc etc and the coverage won’t be negative.
You cited a single Pew study from the 2008 election coverage and use that as proof that “Fox was the most balanced of the big guys” and continually prove your misunderstanding of the Harvard study, despite me drawing in crayon for you to understand.
I can’t force you to understand that which you refuse to understand. Truly amazing how hard you’re digging in defending Trump.