Harvard Study Shows Liberals are Lemmings

[Bush92]

The ridiculously false premise here is that no matter how well or how badly a president is doing,

the media is somehow expected to artificially concoct a stew of 50% positive 50% negative stories about that president.

That is sheer idiocy.

Negative bias started during the campaign. Trump is doing good. But you never hear about it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The ridiculously false premise here is that no matter how well or how badly a president is doing,

the media is somehow expected to artificially concoct a stew of 50% positive 50% negative stories about that president.

That is sheer idiocy.

Negative bias started during the campaign. Trump is doing good. But you never hear about it.

How could I NOT hear about the CLAIMS that Trump is doing good (sic) when I read several hundred posts a day right here from clowns like you touting his alleged achievements?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals INGSOC is telling you, "War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength." Liberals have mush for brains and believe everything fed to them by the Ministry of Truth ran mainstream media. Fucking lemmings.
Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

Given the election of Trump, it's pretty hard to argue that conservatives aren't just as gullible as liberals.

He campaigned on the issues that mainstream voters wanted to hear. They were forgotten by WashingtonDC elites in both parties.

"Told them what they wanted to hear", exactly. Famous last words.
Thanks for fessing up to groveling over a con artist. You're in plentiful company --- there's one of you born every minute according to the guy whose name is used to describe Rump by his own sister.

"When it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't."

What sounded too good to be true (to conservatives)

...we'll build a wall and the Mexicans will pay for it...

...repeal Obamacare..!

...35% tariff on imports!...

...Muslim ban!...

 

[Bush92]

Liberals INGSOC is telling you, "War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength." Liberals have mush for brains and believe everything fed to them by the Ministry of Truth ran mainstream media. Fucking lemmings.
Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

Given the election of Trump, it's pretty hard to argue that conservatives aren't just as gullible as liberals.

He campaigned on the issues that mainstream voters wanted to hear. They were forgotten by WashingtonDC elites in both parties.

"Told them what they wanted to hear", exactly. Famous last words.
Thanks for fessing up to groveling over a con artist. You're in plentiful company --- there's one of you born every minute according to the guy whose name is used to describe Rump by his own sister.

"When it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't."

What sounded too good to be true (to conservatives)

...we'll build a wall and the Mexicans will pay for it...

...repeal Obamacare..!

...35% tariff on imports!...

...Muslim ban!...

Attacks on Trump vame on day 1 when media harped on size of Inaguration Day crowd.

 

[Pogo]

Liberals INGSOC is telling you, "War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength." Liberals have mush for brains and believe everything fed to them by the Ministry of Truth ran mainstream media. Fucking lemmings.
Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

Given the election of Trump, it's pretty hard to argue that conservatives aren't just as gullible as liberals.

He campaigned on the issues that mainstream voters wanted to hear. They were forgotten by WashingtonDC elites in both parties.

He also sold Trump University on pitches that people wanted to hear.

"You don't sell solutions ---- you sell FEELINGS" ---- Rump U-lose-versty playbook

 

[Pogo]

Liberals INGSOC is telling you, "War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength." Liberals have mush for brains and believe everything fed to them by the Ministry of Truth ran mainstream media. Fucking lemmings.
Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

Given the election of Trump, it's pretty hard to argue that conservatives aren't just as gullible as liberals.

He campaigned on the issues that mainstream voters wanted to hear. They were forgotten by WashingtonDC elites in both parties.

"Told them what they wanted to hear", exactly. Famous last words.
Thanks for fessing up to groveling over a con artist. You're in plentiful company --- there's one of you born every minute according to the guy whose name is used to describe Rump by his own sister.

"When it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't."

What sounded too good to be true (to conservatives)

...we'll build a wall and the Mexicans will pay for it...

...repeal Obamacare..!

...35% tariff on imports!...

...Muslim ban!...

Attacks on Trump vame on day 1 when media harped on size of Inaguration Day crowd.

Actually that was Rump. He fantasized about the entire population of earth showing up, plus in the same fantasy the rain went away, which means the audience must have been full of idiots using umbrellas for no reason.

It's all part of the same self-delusion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals INGSOC is telling you, "War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength." Liberals have mush for brains and believe everything fed to them by the Ministry of Truth ran mainstream media. Fucking lemmings.
Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

Given the election of Trump, it's pretty hard to argue that conservatives aren't just as gullible as liberals.

He campaigned on the issues that mainstream voters wanted to hear. They were forgotten by WashingtonDC elites in both parties.

"Told them what they wanted to hear", exactly. Famous last words.
Thanks for fessing up to groveling over a con artist. You're in plentiful company --- there's one of you born every minute according to the guy whose name is used to describe Rump by his own sister.

"When it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't."

What sounded too good to be true (to conservatives)

...we'll build a wall and the Mexicans will pay for it...

...repeal Obamacare..!

...35% tariff on imports!...

...Muslim ban!...

Attacks on Trump vame on day 1 when media harped on size of Inaguration Day crowd.

That's because the Trumptards insisted on lying about it.

 

[toobfreak]

Liberals INGSOC is telling you, "War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength." Liberals have mush for brains and believe everything fed to them by the Ministry of Truth ran mainstream media. Fucking lemmings.
Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

Well, can't say much good for even Harvard these days, but did we really need them to tell us the obvious?

 

[toobfreak]

It's all part of the same self-delusion.

Yep. You would be the expert on that!

 

[FA_Q2]

The ridiculously false premise here is that no matter how well or how badly a president is doing,

the media is somehow expected to artificially concoct a stew of 50% positive 50% negative stories about that president.

That is sheer idiocy.

This mentality is part of the problem and your statement is really not materially different from his. I do not expect the media to concoct any such thing. What I do expect is a media that presents stories that are 0% positive and 0% negative because news should not be presenting positive and negative spins at all.

How well or badly a president is doing is something for the people and the talking heads to discuss. Actual news should simply report what is. Unfortunately, that does not sell and this idea that we need a media that tells us what to think is the same monster that allows a Trump presidency to exist.

 

[Bush92]

The ridiculously false premise here is that no matter how well or how badly a president is doing,

the media is somehow expected to artificially concoct a stew of 50% positive 50% negative stories about that president.

That is sheer idiocy.

This mentality is part of the problem and your statement is really not materially different from his. I do not expect the media to concoct any such thing. What I do expect is a media that presents stories that are 0% positive and 0% negative because news should not be presenting positive and negative spins at all.

How well or badly a president is doing is something for the people and the talking heads to discuss. Actual news should simply report what is. Unfortunately, that does not sell and this idea that we need a media that tells us what to think is the same monster that allows a Trump presidency to exist.

Agree...but Trump presidency is not a monster.

 

[guno]

Liberals INGSOC is telling you, "War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength." Liberals have mush for brains and believe everything fed to them by the Ministry of Truth ran mainstream media. Fucking lemmings.
Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

Is that why the blue liberal states have higher educational levels and critical thinking skills and a smaller population of religious nut jobs ?

 

[Pogo]

The ridiculously false premise here is that no matter how well or how badly a president is doing,

the media is somehow expected to artificially concoct a stew of 50% positive 50% negative stories about that president.

That is sheer idiocy.

This mentality is part of the problem and your statement is really not materially different from his. I do not expect the media to concoct any such thing. What I do expect is a media that presents stories that are 0% positive and 0% negative because news should not be presenting positive and negative spins at all.

How well or badly a president is doing is something for the people and the talking heads to discuss. Actual news should simply report what is. Unfortunately, that does not sell and this idea that we need a media that tells us what to think is the same monster that allows a Trump presidency to exist.

Agree...but Trump presidency is not a monster.

Yeah it's more like a petulant infant permanently caught in the "terrible Twos".

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Maybe you should start a thread "Harvard study concludes RW's are outright liars"

Just for the irony value, Brown Shirt?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Who trusts Harvard?

Those who buy degrees from them. Remember, a Harvard degree is purchased, not earned.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The ridiculously false premise here is that no matter how well or how badly a president is doing,

the media is somehow expected to artificially concoct a stew of 50% positive 50% negative stories about that president.

That is sheer idiocy.

This mentality is part of the problem and your statement is really not materially different from his. I do not expect the media to concoct any such thing. What I do expect is a media that presents stories that are 0% positive and 0% negative because news should not be presenting positive and negative spins at all.

How well or badly a president is doing is something for the people and the talking heads to discuss. Actual news should simply report what is. Unfortunately, that does not sell and this idea that we need a media that tells us what to think is the same monster that allows a Trump presidency to exist.

Agree...but Trump presidency is not a monster.

Agreed. The word is 'absurdity', not 'monster'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Credit where credit is due...this article at Forbes (the definitely not liberal Forbes) brilliantly demolishes the RWnut charge that negative stories about Trump prove bias:
Trump's Getting Killed In The Media, But Not Because Of Bias

"If your favorite football team gets destroyed by another team, and the local newspaper writes a story about the game, is the resulting news story--which paints an ugly picture of your team's performance--an example of the newspaper's bias against your beloved team?

Of course not."


"But breathtakingly negative media coverage doesn't equate to "a shocking level of media bias." Remember, the study looked at tone. Here's how the researchers defined it:

Tone is judged from the perspective of the actor. Negative stories include stories where the actor is criticized directly. An example is a headline story where Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump when the Labor Department’s April economic report showed that fewer jobs were created than had been predicted. Schumer was quoted as saying, in part: “Eleven weeks into his administration, we have seen nothing from President Trump on infrastructure, on trade, or on any other serious job-creating initiative.” Negative stories also consist of stories where an event, trend, or development reflects unfavorably on the actor. Examples are the stories that appeared under the headlines “President Trump’s approval rating hits a new low”and “GOP withdraws embattled health care bill, handing major setback to Trump, Ryan.”

Is it bias to report that the president's approval ratings are historically low, or that Trump's efforts to enact his policies have been delayed and overwhelmed by constant questions about Russia, the firing of FBI Director James Comey and other self-inflicted wounds?"

"The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising," the Harvard report says. "The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever."

You see?

Just what we've been trying to tell you nutcases...

 

[Bush92]

The ridiculously false premise here is that no matter how well or how badly a president is doing,

the media is somehow expected to artificially concoct a stew of 50% positive 50% negative stories about that president.

That is sheer idiocy.

This mentality is part of the problem and your statement is really not materially different from his. I do not expect the media to concoct any such thing. What I do expect is a media that presents stories that are 0% positive and 0% negative because news should not be presenting positive and negative spins at all.

How well or badly a president is doing is something for the people and the talking heads to discuss. Actual news should simply report what is. Unfortunately, that does not sell and this idea that we need a media that tells us what to think is the same monster that allows a Trump presidency to exist.

Agree...but Trump presidency is not a monster.

Yeah it's more like a petulant infant permanently caught in the "terrible Twos".

You lost. Get over it. Stop with your temper tantrum.

 

[Bush92]

Credit where credit is due...this article at Forbes (the definitely not liberal Forbes) brilliantly demolishes the RWnut charge that negative stories about Trump prove bias:
Trump's Getting Killed In The Media, But Not Because Of Bias

"If your favorite football team gets destroyed by another team, and the local newspaper writes a story about the game, is the resulting news story--which paints an ugly picture of your team's performance--an example of the newspaper's bias against your beloved team?

Of course not."


"But breathtakingly negative media coverage doesn't equate to "a shocking level of media bias." Remember, the study looked at tone. Here's how the researchers defined it:

Tone is judged from the perspective of the actor. Negative stories include stories where the actor is criticized directly. An example is a headline story where Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump when the Labor Department’s April economic report showed that fewer jobs were created than had been predicted. Schumer was quoted as saying, in part: “Eleven weeks into his administration, we have seen nothing from President Trump on infrastructure, on trade, or on any other serious job-creating initiative.” Negative stories also consist of stories where an event, trend, or development reflects unfavorably on the actor. Examples are the stories that appeared under the headlines “President Trump’s approval rating hits a new low”and “GOP withdraws embattled health care bill, handing major setback to Trump, Ryan.”

Is it bias to report that the president's approval ratings are historically low, or that Trump's efforts to enact his policies have been delayed and overwhelmed by constant questions about Russia, the firing of FBI Director James Comey and other self-inflicted wounds?"

"The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising," the Harvard report says. "The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever."

You see?

Just what we've been trying to tell you nutcases...

What about Harvard study?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Credit where credit is due...this article at Forbes (the definitely not liberal Forbes) brilliantly demolishes the RWnut charge that negative stories about Trump prove bias:
Trump's Getting Killed In The Media, But Not Because Of Bias

"If your favorite football team gets destroyed by another team, and the local newspaper writes a story about the game, is the resulting news story--which paints an ugly picture of your team's performance--an example of the newspaper's bias against your beloved team?

Of course not."


"But breathtakingly negative media coverage doesn't equate to "a shocking level of media bias." Remember, the study looked at tone. Here's how the researchers defined it:

Tone is judged from the perspective of the actor. Negative stories include stories where the actor is criticized directly. An example is a headline story where Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump when the Labor Department’s April economic report showed that fewer jobs were created than had been predicted. Schumer was quoted as saying, in part: “Eleven weeks into his administration, we have seen nothing from President Trump on infrastructure, on trade, or on any other serious job-creating initiative.” Negative stories also consist of stories where an event, trend, or development reflects unfavorably on the actor. Examples are the stories that appeared under the headlines “President Trump’s approval rating hits a new low”and “GOP withdraws embattled health care bill, handing major setback to Trump, Ryan.”

Is it bias to report that the president's approval ratings are historically low, or that Trump's efforts to enact his policies have been delayed and overwhelmed by constant questions about Russia, the firing of FBI Director James Comey and other self-inflicted wounds?"

"The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising," the Harvard report says. "The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever."

You see?

Just what we've been trying to tell you nutcases...

What about Harvard study?

Have someone read the last paragraph to you.