Harvard Study Shows Liberals are Lemmings

[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?

Have someone read the last paragraph to you.

Last paragraph.
"The lesson of the 2016 election has been taken to heart by many journalists. Since Trump’s inauguration, the press has been paying more attention to Main Street. But judging from the extent to which Trump’s voice has dominated coverage of his presidency, the balance is still off. More voices need to be aired. Trump might be good for ratings but he’s not the only voice worth hearing. Never have journalists fixated on a single newsmaker for as long as they have on Trump. If he sees journalists as his main opponents, one reason is that between Trump and themselves there’s not much air time for everyone else. Journalists need to resist even the smallest temptation to see themselves as opponents of government. It’s the competition between the party in power and the opposing party, and not between government and the press, that’s at the core of the democratic process[35] When spokespersons for the opposing party get a mere 6 percent of the airtime, something’s amiss."
So liberal media is "fixated" on Trump. Fixated on destroying him. FOX had 50-50 coverage. Best rating of all news agencies.

 

[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.

"The lesson of the 2016 election has been taken to heart by many journalists. Since Trump’s inauguration, the press has been paying more attention to Main Street. But judging from the extent to which Trump’s voice has dominated coverage of his presidency, the balance is still off. More voices need to be aired. Trump might be good for ratings but he’s not the only voice worth hearing. Never have journalists fixated on a single newsmaker for as long as they have on Trump. If he sees journalists as his main opponents, one reason is that between Trump and themselves there’s not much air time for everyone else. Journalists need to resist even the smallest temptation to see themselves as opponents of government. It’s the competition between the party in power and the opposing party, and not between government and the press, that’s at the core of the democratic process[35] When spokespersons for the opposing party get a mere 6 percent of the airtime, something’s amiss."
So liberal media is "fixated" on Trump. Fixated on destroying him. FOX had 50-50 coverage. Best rating of all news agencies.

Why would you have 50 - 50 coverage of the news about a President who is doing so badly?

 

[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?

Have someone read the last paragraph to you.

"The lesson of the 2016 election has been taken to heart by many journalists. Since Trump’s inauguration, the press has been paying more attention to Main Street. But judging from the extent to which Trump’s voice has dominated coverage of his presidency, the balance is still off. More voices need to be aired. Trump might be good for ratings but he’s not the only voice worth hearing. Never have journalists fixated on a single newsmaker for as long as they have on Trump. If he sees journalists as his main opponents, one reason is that between Trump and themselves there’s not much air time for everyone else. Journalists need to resist even the smallest temptation to see themselves as opponents of government. It’s the competition between the party in power and the opposing party, and not between government and the press, that’s at the core of the democratic process[35] When spokespersons for the opposing party get a mere 6 percent of the airtime, something’s amiss."
So liberal media is "fixated" on Trump. Fixated on destroying him. FOX had 50-50 coverage. Best rating of all news agencies.

Why would you have 50 - 50 coverage of the news about a President who is doing so badly?

Because he is not. You live in a bubble.

 

[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".

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

Oh no Chuckles --- YOU lost. As soon as I got here and called out your bullshit title.

What about Harvard study?

What about it?
You mean the way it says absolutely nothing about "Liberals and lemmings" which makes your title here a crock of contrived turd?

 

[busybee01]

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

I would say the same thing about Trump supporters. They accept everything their Fuhrer tells them no matter how ridiculous it is. I see intelligent people making stupid statements defending Trump no matter how vile it is. Seth Rich is the perfect example of how cruel Trump supporters are.

 

[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.

Oh no Chuckles --- YOU lost. As soon as I got here and called out your bullshit title.

What about Harvard study?

What about it?
You mean the way it says absolutely nothing about "Liberals and lemmings" which makes your title here a crock of contrived turd?

Live in your dream world. So you post on this site looking for winners and losers? Your the biggest loser I see.

 

[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

I would say the same thing about Trump supporters. They accept everything their Fuhrer tells them no matter how ridiculous it is. I see intelligent people making stupid statements defending Trump no matter how vile it is. Seth Rich is the perfect example of how cruel Trump supporters are.

What does that have to do with MSM attack machine?

 

[Bush92]

Donal Trump speaks upon arrival in Israel. MSNBC goes with it for 5 minutes...then cuts to attack mode. CNN lasted for 10...then went into attack mode.

 

[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

I would say the same thing about Trump supporters. They accept everything their Fuhrer tells them no matter how ridiculous it is. I see intelligent people making stupid statements defending Trump no matter how vile it is. Seth Rich is the perfect example of how cruel Trump supporters are.

Sorry...American public disagrees with you.
Six in 10 in US See Partisan Bias in News Media

 

[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.

Oh no Chuckles --- YOU lost. As soon as I got here and called out your bullshit title.

What about Harvard study?

What about it?
You mean the way it says absolutely nothing about "Liberals and lemmings" which makes your title here a crock of contrived turd?

Sorry, American voters can see through the liberal bullshit media. So remove your pacifier snowflake and chew on this...
Six in 10 in US See Partisan Bias in News Media

 

[Mac1958]

The regressives are perfectly fine with the media coverage to date because they agree with it.

That's the power of ideology - otherwise perfectly intelligent people whose thought processes are distorted. Their ideology has robbed them of the fundamental ability to distinguish between fact and opinion.

It is their opinion that Trump is _______ _________ ________ (fill in negative adjectives there), and therefore the 95/5 coverage is perfectly valid.

Ideology is incredibly powerful. You can see the same behaviors on both ends.
.

 

[Bush92]

The regressives are perfectly fine with the media coverage to date because they agree with it.

That's the power of ideology - otherwise perfectly intelligent people whose thought processes are distorted. Their ideology has robbed them of the fundamental ability to distinguish between fact and opinion.

It is their opinion that Trump is _______ _________ ________ (fill in negative adjectives there), and therefore the 95/5 coverage is perfectly valid.

Ideology is incredibly powerful. You can see the same behaviors on both ends.
.

But it is fanaticism on the left. Not just a portion of the left...but the whole damn left. There are no longer that many moderates in the Democratic Party.

 

[Mac1958]

The regressives are perfectly fine with the media coverage to date because they agree with it.

That's the power of ideology - otherwise perfectly intelligent people whose thought processes are distorted. Their ideology has robbed them of the fundamental ability to distinguish between fact and opinion.

It is their opinion that Trump is _______ _________ ________ (fill in negative adjectives there), and therefore the 95/5 coverage is perfectly valid.

Ideology is incredibly powerful. You can see the same behaviors on both ends.
.

But it is fanaticism on the left. Not just a portion of the left...but the whole damn left. There are no longer that many moderates in the Democratic Party.

There are still traditional liberals out there, people who are brave enough to take on the regressives.

Go to YouTube and check out people like Dave Rubin, Stephen Fry, Maajid Nawaz, and one of my personal heroes, Sam Harris. Nawaz coined the term "Regressive Left".
.

.

 

[sakinago]

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

Byron York/Washington Examiner

The article doesn't say a god damn thing about "Liberals". Doesn't even mention the word. At all.

You lied. Not that that's news.

What's more, the study it links to --- actually does mention the word "Liberal". Once. Here it is:

>> Presidents are more than the main focus of U.S. reporters. Presidents are also their main target. Although journalists are accused of having a liberal bias, their real bias is a preference for the negative.[22] News reporting turned sour during the Vietnam and Watergate era and has stayed that way.[23] Journalists’ incentives, everything from getting their stories on the air to acquiring a reputation as a hard-hitting reporter, encourage journalists to focus on what’s wrong with politicians rather than what’s right.[24] <<​

Really, and Obamas coverage from the media was around 92% negative?

 

[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

Byron York/Washington Examiner

The article doesn't say a god damn thing about "Liberals". Doesn't even mention the word. At all.

You lied. Not that that's news.

What's more, the study it links to --- actually does mention the word "Liberal". Once. Here it is:

>> Presidents are more than the main focus of U.S. reporters. Presidents are also their main target. Although journalists are accused of having a liberal bias, their real bias is a preference for the negative.[22] News reporting turned sour during the Vietnam and Watergate era and has stayed that way.[23] Journalists’ incentives, everything from getting their stories on the air to acquiring a reputation as a hard-hitting reporter, encourage journalists to focus on what’s wrong with politicians rather than what’s right.[24] <<​

Really, and Obamas coverage from the media was around 92% negative?

Who knows, and who cares.

Whether a story (or number of stories) is "positive" or "negative" is irrelevant to anything, unless one is an obsequious sheep who disavows any critical thinking skills and caves to whatever he's told without question. Me, the first thing I ask is "is this credible?" and the second is, "is this corroborated?" and the third is "what's the context?". *NEVER* do I delegate the decision on whether the story holds water to the article itself. Which way some source may try to spin it, could not possibly be more meaningless. I decide that for myself. Apparently not everyone takes that step, and more's the pity, but that's also why I spend the majority of my time here picking apart bullshit stories by asking those very questions that the thread creator should have thought of himself before posting it.

That's what I did here, calling out a lying-hack poster who invented "Liberals and lemmings" out of an article that never invokes or in the slightest even implies, either one.

But yes, I have no doubt if somebody took a survey of all news about O'bama, or about Rump, or about the middle east, or about cars, or about trains, or about planes, or about ice cream cones, etc etc etc --- the vast majority would be negative. Because, as the OP's own article points out --- negativity sells. And there's nothing new about that revelation. "If it bleeds it leads". And if it's an mundane piece of no-news news that rocks nobody's world, they will find some question, some contrast, some tension to introduce drama into it, because without it, you can't sell news. And when your news structure is commercial --- that's what you have to put up with. Which is why it's so critical to be skeptical and read beyond the headlines.

 

[sakinago]

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

Byron York/Washington Examiner

The article doesn't say a god damn thing about "Liberals". Doesn't even mention the word. At all.

You lied. Not that that's news.

What's more, the study it links to --- actually does mention the word "Liberal". Once. Here it is:

>> Presidents are more than the main focus of U.S. reporters. Presidents are also their main target. Although journalists are accused of having a liberal bias, their real bias is a preference for the negative.[22] News reporting turned sour during the Vietnam and Watergate era and has stayed that way.[23] Journalists’ incentives, everything from getting their stories on the air to acquiring a reputation as a hard-hitting reporter, encourage journalists to focus on what’s wrong with politicians rather than what’s right.[24] <<​

Really, and Obamas coverage from the media was around 92% negative?

Who knows, and who cares.

Whether a story (or number of stories) is "positive" or "negative" is irrelevant to anything, unless one is an obsequious sheep who disavows any critical thinking skills and caves to whatever he's told without question. Me, the first thing I ask is "is this credible?" and the second is, "is this corroborated?" and the third is "what's the context?". *NEVER* do I delegate the decision on whether the story holds water to the article itself. Which way some source may try to spin it, could not possibly be more meaningless. I decide that for myself. Apparently not everyone takes that step, and more's the pity, but that's also why I spend the majority of my time here picking apart bullshit stories by asking those very questions that the thread creator should have thought of himself before posting it.

That's what I did here, calling out a lying-hack poster who invented "Liberals and lemmings" out of an article that never invokes or in the slightest even implies, either one.

But yes, I have no doubt if somebody took a survey of all news about O'bama, or about Rump, or about the middle east, or about cars, or about trains, or about planes, or about ice cream cones, etc etc etc --- the vast majority would be negative. Because, as the OP's own article points out --- negativity sells. And there's nothing new about that revelation. "If it bleeds it leads". And if it's an mundane piece of no-news news that rocks nobody's world, they will find some question, some contrast, some tension to introduce drama into it, because without it, you can't sell news. And when your news structure is commercial --- that's what you have to put up with. Which is why it's so critical to be skeptical and read beyond the headlines.

I took notice as well to the very misleading title, compared to the article. However I highly doubt that obama received anywhere near 60% negative coverage. I'm guessing it was closer to around 60-70% positive/neutral coverage. I mean the administration admittedly used the IRS to stop money flow to thousands of right wing groups, destroyed the evidence, and no one got in trouble for it. Compare that to Nixon who merely had a list of 100 names of political enemies he wished to use the IRS against. How does that happen?? That scandal effected thousands and thousands of people.

Why it matters is because google has found that if they post negative stories as the first few hits, they can change 85% of people's perception from positive to negative. You may claim to not be a sheep...but those are pretty damning numbers. Especially in day and age, where people just read headlines, and skim articles, and perception can be easily swayed, just by showing people negative headlines. The media has lost viewership, sure, but they still do control the conversation and perception. Trump certainly DOES NOT help himself, and the media in many ways has control of trump, since he cares about it so much

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

Would you rather have Hillary?

 

[ptbw forever]

The regressives are perfectly fine with the media coverage to date because they agree with it.

That's the power of ideology - otherwise perfectly intelligent people whose thought processes are distorted. Their ideology has robbed them of the fundamental ability to distinguish between fact and opinion.

It is their opinion that Trump is _______ _________ ________ (fill in negative adjectives there), and therefore the 95/5 coverage is perfectly valid.

Ideology is incredibly powerful. You can see the same behaviors on both ends.
.

But it is fanaticism on the left. Not just a portion of the left...but the whole damn left. There are no longer that many moderates in the Democratic Party.

There are still traditional liberals out there, people who are brave enough to take on the regressives.

Go to YouTube and check out people like Dave Rubin, Stephen Fry, Maajid Nawaz, and one of my personal heroes, Sam Harris. Nawaz coined the term "Regressive Left".
.

.

They are in the extreme minority.

 

[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

Byron York/Washington Examiner

The article doesn't say a god damn thing about "Liberals". Doesn't even mention the word. At all.

You lied. Not that that's news.

What's more, the study it links to --- actually does mention the word "Liberal". Once. Here it is:

>> Presidents are more than the main focus of U.S. reporters. Presidents are also their main target. Although journalists are accused of having a liberal bias, their real bias is a preference for the negative.[22] News reporting turned sour during the Vietnam and Watergate era and has stayed that way.[23] Journalists’ incentives, everything from getting their stories on the air to acquiring a reputation as a hard-hitting reporter, encourage journalists to focus on what’s wrong with politicians rather than what’s right.[24] <<​

Really, and Obamas coverage from the media was around 92% negative?

Who knows, and who cares.

Whether a story (or number of stories) is "positive" or "negative" is irrelevant to anything, unless one is an obsequious sheep who disavows any critical thinking skills and caves to whatever he's told without question. Me, the first thing I ask is "is this credible?" and the second is, "is this corroborated?" and the third is "what's the context?". *NEVER* do I delegate the decision on whether the story holds water to the article itself. Which way some source may try to spin it, could not possibly be more meaningless. I decide that for myself. Apparently not everyone takes that step, and more's the pity, but that's also why I spend the majority of my time here picking apart bullshit stories by asking those very questions that the thread creator should have thought of himself before posting it.

That's what I did here, calling out a lying-hack poster who invented "Liberals and lemmings" out of an article that never invokes or in the slightest even implies, either one.

But yes, I have no doubt if somebody took a survey of all news about O'bama, or about Rump, or about the middle east, or about cars, or about trains, or about planes, or about ice cream cones, etc etc etc --- the vast majority would be negative. Because, as the OP's own article points out --- negativity sells. And there's nothing new about that revelation. "If it bleeds it leads". And if it's an mundane piece of no-news news that rocks nobody's world, they will find some question, some contrast, some tension to introduce drama into it, because without it, you can't sell news. And when your news structure is commercial --- that's what you have to put up with. Which is why it's so critical to be skeptical and read beyond the headlines.

Watch out Sakinago...Pogo will write how he "defeated you." Lol.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

That study is a reflection of just how bad Trump is, not how biased the media is. When 93% of the things you're doing are negative, you don't deserve more than 7% positive coverage.

And WTF does this have to do with liberals?