Bush92
GHBush1992
- May 23, 2014
- 34,808
- 10,703
- 1,400
- Thread starter
- #61
Last paragraph.What about Harvard study?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...
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.
Last edited: