- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,110
- 47,261
- 2,180
Only brainwashed snowflake morons believe factcheck.org is impartial. In reality it's just another fake news outlet..
You may want to look up the term journalism. Though I am sure you will not get it. Much easier to just believe what you are told. And what you WANT to believe. Dipshit.
Nope, all you have to do is read this so-called journalism yourself. 91% negative reporting on the POTUS in an economy like we have? Nah, no bias reporting there. Of course if Hillary were President and had half of Trump's accomplishments, it would be more like 75% positive reporting.
That is the problem. You say what you want to believe and what you are told to believe. And you are told that the "mainstream Media" produces "fake news". So, lets see a piece of fake news, me boy, from some mainstream media outlet.
Or would you rather just keep saying what you are told to believe, and what to say?
No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!
Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative
So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.
Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.
Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.
So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.