sakinago
Gold Member
- Sep 13, 2012
- 5,320
- 1,632
- 280
I happen to enjoy chats with pogo.Watch out Sakinago...Pogo will write how he "defeated you." Lol.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.