CDZ An idea regarding the American media

[Crepitus]

Msnbc leans pretty far left. Cnn commentary does but they are fairly careful to distinguish commentary from news (which fox does not). The big three abc nbc cbs are pretty even keeled.

I realize it doesn't look that way from the perspective of most tRump supporters but that isn't their bias, its yours.

Here is an excerpt from a study that examined TV news reporting on Trump v Biden during 2020. As always with any study, there is the possibility that the author is biased. But these numbers are consistent with other analysis I have read on Liberal bias in TV news.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

.............I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it.

A new MRC analysis of all evening news coverage of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in June and July found these networks chose to aim most of their attention and nearly all of their negative coverage on Trump, so Biden escaped any scrutiny of his left-wing policy positions, past job performance or character.


From June 1 through July 31, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts focused 512 minutes of airtime on the President, or nine times more than the 58 minutes allotted to Biden. (This excludes coverage of the Trump administration in general when not associated with the President himself.) This is an even wider gap than the spring, when Trump received seven times more coverage than Biden (523 minutes vs. 75 minutes).


The extra airtime devoted to Trump consisted almost entirely of anchors and reporters criticizing the President. During these two months, our analysts documented 668 evaluative statements about the President, 95 percent of which (634) were negative, vs. a mere five percent (34) that were positive. Using the same methodology (fully described at the end of this article), we found very few evaluative statements about Joe Biden — just a dozen, two-thirds of which (67%) were positive.


Do the math, and viewers heard 150 TIMES more negative comments about Trump than Biden. That’s not news reporting — that’s a negative advertising campaign in action.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No link, which undermines your credibility somewhat, but the simple fact is tRump did a shitload of negative things and Joe Biden wasn't holding any public office to be criticizes about.

Next.

Quid Pro had almost 50 years in office compared to 4 for TRUMP!. If you're correct, the fact that the talking heads couldn't find anything worth talking about in almost 50 years of a track record means the guy didn't do anything. That alone should have garnered some attention.

That's not true.

 

[hadit]

Msnbc leans pretty far left. Cnn commentary does but they are fairly careful to distinguish commentary from news (which fox does not). The big three abc nbc cbs are pretty even keeled.

I realize it doesn't look that way from the perspective of most tRump supporters but that isn't their bias, its yours.

Here is an excerpt from a study that examined TV news reporting on Trump v Biden during 2020. As always with any study, there is the possibility that the author is biased. But these numbers are consistent with other analysis I have read on Liberal bias in TV news.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

.............I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it.

A new MRC analysis of all evening news coverage of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in June and July found these networks chose to aim most of their attention and nearly all of their negative coverage on Trump, so Biden escaped any scrutiny of his left-wing policy positions, past job performance or character.


From June 1 through July 31, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts focused 512 minutes of airtime on the President, or nine times more than the 58 minutes allotted to Biden. (This excludes coverage of the Trump administration in general when not associated with the President himself.) This is an even wider gap than the spring, when Trump received seven times more coverage than Biden (523 minutes vs. 75 minutes).


The extra airtime devoted to Trump consisted almost entirely of anchors and reporters criticizing the President. During these two months, our analysts documented 668 evaluative statements about the President, 95 percent of which (634) were negative, vs. a mere five percent (34) that were positive. Using the same methodology (fully described at the end of this article), we found very few evaluative statements about Joe Biden — just a dozen, two-thirds of which (67%) were positive.


Do the math, and viewers heard 150 TIMES more negative comments about Trump than Biden. That’s not news reporting — that’s a negative advertising campaign in action.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No link, which undermines your credibility somewhat, but the simple fact is tRump did a shitload of negative things and Joe Biden wasn't holding any public office to be criticizes about.

Next.

Quid Pro had almost 50 years in office compared to 4 for TRUMP!. If you're correct, the fact that the talking heads couldn't find anything worth talking about in almost 50 years of a track record means the guy didn't do anything. That alone should have garnered some attention.

That's not true.

One of only two candidates was going to be president. You would think that the track records of both would have come under some scrutiny, and Quid Pro's 50 years in office surely should have given them plenty of things to go over, yet all they could talk about was bashing TRUMP!?

 

[Crepitus]

Msnbc leans pretty far left. Cnn commentary does but they are fairly careful to distinguish commentary from news (which fox does not). The big three abc nbc cbs are pretty even keeled.

I realize it doesn't look that way from the perspective of most tRump supporters but that isn't their bias, its yours.

Here is an excerpt from a study that examined TV news reporting on Trump v Biden during 2020. As always with any study, there is the possibility that the author is biased. But these numbers are consistent with other analysis I have read on Liberal bias in TV news.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

.............I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it.

A new MRC analysis of all evening news coverage of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in June and July found these networks chose to aim most of their attention and nearly all of their negative coverage on Trump, so Biden escaped any scrutiny of his left-wing policy positions, past job performance or character.


From June 1 through July 31, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts focused 512 minutes of airtime on the President, or nine times more than the 58 minutes allotted to Biden. (This excludes coverage of the Trump administration in general when not associated with the President himself.) This is an even wider gap than the spring, when Trump received seven times more coverage than Biden (523 minutes vs. 75 minutes).


The extra airtime devoted to Trump consisted almost entirely of anchors and reporters criticizing the President. During these two months, our analysts documented 668 evaluative statements about the President, 95 percent of which (634) were negative, vs. a mere five percent (34) that were positive. Using the same methodology (fully described at the end of this article), we found very few evaluative statements about Joe Biden — just a dozen, two-thirds of which (67%) were positive.


Do the math, and viewers heard 150 TIMES more negative comments about Trump than Biden. That’s not news reporting — that’s a negative advertising campaign in action.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No link, which undermines your credibility somewhat, but the simple fact is tRump did a shitload of negative things and Joe Biden wasn't holding any public office to be criticizes about.

Next.

Quid Pro had almost 50 years in office compared to 4 for TRUMP!. If you're correct, the fact that the talking heads couldn't find anything worth talking about in almost 50 years of a track record means the guy didn't do anything. That alone should have garnered some attention.

That's not true.

One of only two candidates was going to be president. You would think that the track records of both would have come under some scrutiny, and Quid Pro's 50 years in office surely should have given them plenty of things to go over, yet all they could talk about was bashing TRUMP!?

So, do you have some specific ideas on what they should have brought up?

 

[hadit]

Msnbc leans pretty far left. Cnn commentary does but they are fairly careful to distinguish commentary from news (which fox does not). The big three abc nbc cbs are pretty even keeled.

I realize it doesn't look that way from the perspective of most tRump supporters but that isn't their bias, its yours.

Here is an excerpt from a study that examined TV news reporting on Trump v Biden during 2020. As always with any study, there is the possibility that the author is biased. But these numbers are consistent with other analysis I have read on Liberal bias in TV news.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

.............I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it.

A new MRC analysis of all evening news coverage of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in June and July found these networks chose to aim most of their attention and nearly all of their negative coverage on Trump, so Biden escaped any scrutiny of his left-wing policy positions, past job performance or character.


From June 1 through July 31, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts focused 512 minutes of airtime on the President, or nine times more than the 58 minutes allotted to Biden. (This excludes coverage of the Trump administration in general when not associated with the President himself.) This is an even wider gap than the spring, when Trump received seven times more coverage than Biden (523 minutes vs. 75 minutes).


The extra airtime devoted to Trump consisted almost entirely of anchors and reporters criticizing the President. During these two months, our analysts documented 668 evaluative statements about the President, 95 percent of which (634) were negative, vs. a mere five percent (34) that were positive. Using the same methodology (fully described at the end of this article), we found very few evaluative statements about Joe Biden — just a dozen, two-thirds of which (67%) were positive.


Do the math, and viewers heard 150 TIMES more negative comments about Trump than Biden. That’s not news reporting — that’s a negative advertising campaign in action.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No link, which undermines your credibility somewhat, but the simple fact is tRump did a shitload of negative things and Joe Biden wasn't holding any public office to be criticizes about.

Next.

Quid Pro had almost 50 years in office compared to 4 for TRUMP!. If you're correct, the fact that the talking heads couldn't find anything worth talking about in almost 50 years of a track record means the guy didn't do anything. That alone should have garnered some attention.

That's not true.

One of only two candidates was going to be president. You would think that the track records of both would have come under some scrutiny, and Quid Pro's 50 years in office surely should have given them plenty of things to go over, yet all they could talk about was bashing TRUMP!?

So, do you have some specific ideas on what they should have brought up?

Sure. Both TRUMP! and Quid Pro had were either president or VP and thus very involved in all aspects of government, so both have a paper trail. Why not a comparison of both men's positions and accomplishments on foreign policy, the federal budget, immigration? Instead, the national press went all in on personality. I guess that's why they had a lot to say about TRUMP! and nothing about Quid Pro. The guy is colorless.

 

[Crepitus]

Msnbc leans pretty far left. Cnn commentary does but they are fairly careful to distinguish commentary from news (which fox does not). The big three abc nbc cbs are pretty even keeled.

I realize it doesn't look that way from the perspective of most tRump supporters but that isn't their bias, its yours.

Here is an excerpt from a study that examined TV news reporting on Trump v Biden during 2020. As always with any study, there is the possibility that the author is biased. But these numbers are consistent with other analysis I have read on Liberal bias in TV news.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

.............I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it.

A new MRC analysis of all evening news coverage of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in June and July found these networks chose to aim most of their attention and nearly all of their negative coverage on Trump, so Biden escaped any scrutiny of his left-wing policy positions, past job performance or character.


From June 1 through July 31, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts focused 512 minutes of airtime on the President, or nine times more than the 58 minutes allotted to Biden. (This excludes coverage of the Trump administration in general when not associated with the President himself.) This is an even wider gap than the spring, when Trump received seven times more coverage than Biden (523 minutes vs. 75 minutes).


The extra airtime devoted to Trump consisted almost entirely of anchors and reporters criticizing the President. During these two months, our analysts documented 668 evaluative statements about the President, 95 percent of which (634) were negative, vs. a mere five percent (34) that were positive. Using the same methodology (fully described at the end of this article), we found very few evaluative statements about Joe Biden — just a dozen, two-thirds of which (67%) were positive.


Do the math, and viewers heard 150 TIMES more negative comments about Trump than Biden. That’s not news reporting — that’s a negative advertising campaign in action.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No link, which undermines your credibility somewhat, but the simple fact is tRump did a shitload of negative things and Joe Biden wasn't holding any public office to be criticizes about.

Next.

Quid Pro had almost 50 years in office compared to 4 for TRUMP!. If you're correct, the fact that the talking heads couldn't find anything worth talking about in almost 50 years of a track record means the guy didn't do anything. That alone should have garnered some attention.

That's not true.

One of only two candidates was going to be president. You would think that the track records of both would have come under some scrutiny, and Quid Pro's 50 years in office surely should have given them plenty of things to go over, yet all they could talk about was bashing TRUMP!?

So, do you have some specific ideas on what they should have brought up?

Sure. Both TRUMP! and Quid Pro had were either president or VP and thus very involved in all aspects of government, so both have a paper trail. Why not a comparison of both men's positions and accomplishments on foreign policy, the federal budget, immigration? Instead, the national press went all in on personality. I guess that's why they had a lot to say about TRUMP! and nothing about Quid Pro. The guy is colorless.

Maybe your media sources didn't, but the ones I listen to did. NPR and BBC both had in-depth analysis of the policy differences between the candidates. And it wasn't easy for them either. tRump's policies are pretty hard to nail down.

 

[Mac-7]

And it wasn't easy for them either. tRump's policies are pretty hard to nail down.

Trump policies were very clear - America first

which why the anti American NPR had so much trouble accepting them

 

[sartre play]

,
We are lead largely by a bunch of self serving political figures who make decisions based on self interest. PARTY OVER COUNTRY.

 

[Mac1958]

We are lead largely by a bunch of self serving political figures who make decisions based on self interest. PARTY OVER COUNTRY.

... enabled by their bases.

 

[hadit]

Msnbc leans pretty far left. Cnn commentary does but they are fairly careful to distinguish commentary from news (which fox does not). The big three abc nbc cbs are pretty even keeled.

I realize it doesn't look that way from the perspective of most tRump supporters but that isn't their bias, its yours.

Here is an excerpt from a study that examined TV news reporting on Trump v Biden during 2020. As always with any study, there is the possibility that the author is biased. But these numbers are consistent with other analysis I have read on Liberal bias in TV news.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

.............I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it.

A new MRC analysis of all evening news coverage of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in June and July found these networks chose to aim most of their attention and nearly all of their negative coverage on Trump, so Biden escaped any scrutiny of his left-wing policy positions, past job performance or character.


From June 1 through July 31, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts focused 512 minutes of airtime on the President, or nine times more than the 58 minutes allotted to Biden. (This excludes coverage of the Trump administration in general when not associated with the President himself.) This is an even wider gap than the spring, when Trump received seven times more coverage than Biden (523 minutes vs. 75 minutes).


The extra airtime devoted to Trump consisted almost entirely of anchors and reporters criticizing the President. During these two months, our analysts documented 668 evaluative statements about the President, 95 percent of which (634) were negative, vs. a mere five percent (34) that were positive. Using the same methodology (fully described at the end of this article), we found very few evaluative statements about Joe Biden — just a dozen, two-thirds of which (67%) were positive.


Do the math, and viewers heard 150 TIMES more negative comments about Trump than Biden. That’s not news reporting — that’s a negative advertising campaign in action.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No link, which undermines your credibility somewhat, but the simple fact is tRump did a shitload of negative things and Joe Biden wasn't holding any public office to be criticizes about.

Next.

Quid Pro had almost 50 years in office compared to 4 for TRUMP!. If you're correct, the fact that the talking heads couldn't find anything worth talking about in almost 50 years of a track record means the guy didn't do anything. That alone should have garnered some attention.

That's not true.

One of only two candidates was going to be president. You would think that the track records of both would have come under some scrutiny, and Quid Pro's 50 years in office surely should have given them plenty of things to go over, yet all they could talk about was bashing TRUMP!?

So, do you have some specific ideas on what they should have brought up?

Sure. Both TRUMP! and Quid Pro had were either president or VP and thus very involved in all aspects of government, so both have a paper trail. Why not a comparison of both men's positions and accomplishments on foreign policy, the federal budget, immigration? Instead, the national press went all in on personality. I guess that's why they had a lot to say about TRUMP! and nothing about Quid Pro. The guy is colorless.

Maybe your media sources didn't, but the ones I listen to did. NPR and BBC both had in-depth analysis of the policy differences between the candidates. And it wasn't easy for them either. tRump's policies are pretty hard to nail down.

I would expect those sources to do that. I'm talking about the major media that reaches the majority of voters.

 

[Crepitus]

Trump policies were very clear - America first

Until a saudi prince needed something, or Vladimir Putin wanted some troops moved or...

 

[Crepitus]

Msnbc leans pretty far left. Cnn commentary does but they are fairly careful to distinguish commentary from news (which fox does not). The big three abc nbc cbs are pretty even keeled.

I realize it doesn't look that way from the perspective of most tRump supporters but that isn't their bias, its yours.

Here is an excerpt from a study that examined TV news reporting on Trump v Biden during 2020. As always with any study, there is the possibility that the author is biased. But these numbers are consistent with other analysis I have read on Liberal bias in TV news.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

.............I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it.

A new MRC analysis of all evening news coverage of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in June and July found these networks chose to aim most of their attention and nearly all of their negative coverage on Trump, so Biden escaped any scrutiny of his left-wing policy positions, past job performance or character.


From June 1 through July 31, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts focused 512 minutes of airtime on the President, or nine times more than the 58 minutes allotted to Biden. (This excludes coverage of the Trump administration in general when not associated with the President himself.) This is an even wider gap than the spring, when Trump received seven times more coverage than Biden (523 minutes vs. 75 minutes).


The extra airtime devoted to Trump consisted almost entirely of anchors and reporters criticizing the President. During these two months, our analysts documented 668 evaluative statements about the President, 95 percent of which (634) were negative, vs. a mere five percent (34) that were positive. Using the same methodology (fully described at the end of this article), we found very few evaluative statements about Joe Biden — just a dozen, two-thirds of which (67%) were positive.


Do the math, and viewers heard 150 TIMES more negative comments about Trump than Biden. That’s not news reporting — that’s a negative advertising campaign in action.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No link, which undermines your credibility somewhat, but the simple fact is tRump did a shitload of negative things and Joe Biden wasn't holding any public office to be criticizes about.

Next.

Quid Pro had almost 50 years in office compared to 4 for TRUMP!. If you're correct, the fact that the talking heads couldn't find anything worth talking about in almost 50 years of a track record means the guy didn't do anything. That alone should have garnered some attention.

That's not true.

One of only two candidates was going to be president. You would think that the track records of both would have come under some scrutiny, and Quid Pro's 50 years in office surely should have given them plenty of things to go over, yet all they could talk about was bashing TRUMP!?

So, do you have some specific ideas on what they should have brought up?

Sure. Both TRUMP! and Quid Pro had were either president or VP and thus very involved in all aspects of government, so both have a paper trail. Why not a comparison of both men's positions and accomplishments on foreign policy, the federal budget, immigration? Instead, the national press went all in on personality. I guess that's why they had a lot to say about TRUMP! and nothing about Quid Pro. The guy is colorless.

Maybe your media sources didn't, but the ones I listen to did. NPR and BBC both had in-depth analysis of the policy differences between the candidates. And it wasn't easy for them either. tRump's policies are pretty hard to nail down.

I would expect those sources to do that. I'm talking about the major media that reaches the majority of voters.

That is where I get my news, so I really couldn't speak for abc, cbs, and nbc.

 

[hadit]

Msnbc leans pretty far left. Cnn commentary does but they are fairly careful to distinguish commentary from news (which fox does not). The big three abc nbc cbs are pretty even keeled.

I realize it doesn't look that way from the perspective of most tRump supporters but that isn't their bias, its yours.

Here is an excerpt from a study that examined TV news reporting on Trump v Biden during 2020. As always with any study, there is the possibility that the author is biased. But these numbers are consistent with other analysis I have read on Liberal bias in TV news.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

.............I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it.

A new MRC analysis of all evening news coverage of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in June and July found these networks chose to aim most of their attention and nearly all of their negative coverage on Trump, so Biden escaped any scrutiny of his left-wing policy positions, past job performance or character.


From June 1 through July 31, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts focused 512 minutes of airtime on the President, or nine times more than the 58 minutes allotted to Biden. (This excludes coverage of the Trump administration in general when not associated with the President himself.) This is an even wider gap than the spring, when Trump received seven times more coverage than Biden (523 minutes vs. 75 minutes).


The extra airtime devoted to Trump consisted almost entirely of anchors and reporters criticizing the President. During these two months, our analysts documented 668 evaluative statements about the President, 95 percent of which (634) were negative, vs. a mere five percent (34) that were positive. Using the same methodology (fully described at the end of this article), we found very few evaluative statements about Joe Biden — just a dozen, two-thirds of which (67%) were positive.


Do the math, and viewers heard 150 TIMES more negative comments about Trump than Biden. That’s not news reporting — that’s a negative advertising campaign in action.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No link, which undermines your credibility somewhat, but the simple fact is tRump did a shitload of negative things and Joe Biden wasn't holding any public office to be criticizes about.

Next.

Quid Pro had almost 50 years in office compared to 4 for TRUMP!. If you're correct, the fact that the talking heads couldn't find anything worth talking about in almost 50 years of a track record means the guy didn't do anything. That alone should have garnered some attention.

That's not true.

One of only two candidates was going to be president. You would think that the track records of both would have come under some scrutiny, and Quid Pro's 50 years in office surely should have given them plenty of things to go over, yet all they could talk about was bashing TRUMP!?

So, do you have some specific ideas on what they should have brought up?

Sure. Both TRUMP! and Quid Pro had were either president or VP and thus very involved in all aspects of government, so both have a paper trail. Why not a comparison of both men's positions and accomplishments on foreign policy, the federal budget, immigration? Instead, the national press went all in on personality. I guess that's why they had a lot to say about TRUMP! and nothing about Quid Pro. The guy is colorless.

Maybe your media sources didn't, but the ones I listen to did. NPR and BBC both had in-depth analysis of the policy differences between the candidates. And it wasn't easy for them either. tRump's policies are pretty hard to nail down.

I would expect those sources to do that. I'm talking about the major media that reaches the majority of voters.

That is where I get my news, so I really couldn't speak for abc, cbs, and nbc.

That was the media the OP was addressing, the one that seeks sensationalism over substance.

 

[Pogo]

The media is filled with hacks. This proposed stalin like idea of setting up a regulatory body controlled by the federal govt will be run by hacks.
Media controlled by a corrupt duopoly. What could POSSIBLY go wrong

Media isn't controlled by a corrupt duopoly (which I would amplify is a redundancy) but by commercialism. As post 2 said, a Corporatocracy. As long as MONEY defines "what the news is", that "news" is going to be stretched, often beyond credulity. That's the root issue here --- that "what the news is" is directly defined as "what will $ell". So that's what could possibly go wrong, and did.

 

[hadit]

Msnbc leans pretty far left. Cnn commentary does but they are fairly careful to distinguish commentary from news (which fox does not). The big three abc nbc cbs are pretty even keeled.

I realize it doesn't look that way from the perspective of most tRump supporters but that isn't their bias, its yours.

Here is an excerpt from a study that examined TV news reporting on Trump v Biden during 2020. As always with any study, there is the possibility that the author is biased. But these numbers are consistent with other analysis I have read on Liberal bias in TV news.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

.............I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it.

A new MRC analysis of all evening news coverage of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in June and July found these networks chose to aim most of their attention and nearly all of their negative coverage on Trump, so Biden escaped any scrutiny of his left-wing policy positions, past job performance or character.


From June 1 through July 31, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts focused 512 minutes of airtime on the President, or nine times more than the 58 minutes allotted to Biden. (This excludes coverage of the Trump administration in general when not associated with the President himself.) This is an even wider gap than the spring, when Trump received seven times more coverage than Biden (523 minutes vs. 75 minutes).


The extra airtime devoted to Trump consisted almost entirely of anchors and reporters criticizing the President. During these two months, our analysts documented 668 evaluative statements about the President, 95 percent of which (634) were negative, vs. a mere five percent (34) that were positive. Using the same methodology (fully described at the end of this article), we found very few evaluative statements about Joe Biden — just a dozen, two-thirds of which (67%) were positive.


Do the math, and viewers heard 150 TIMES more negative comments about Trump than Biden. That’s not news reporting — that’s a negative advertising campaign in action.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No link, which undermines your credibility somewhat, but the simple fact is tRump did a shitload of negative things and Joe Biden wasn't holding any public office to be criticizes about.

Next.

Quid Pro had almost 50 years in office compared to 4 for TRUMP!. If you're correct, the fact that the talking heads couldn't find anything worth talking about in almost 50 years of a track record means the guy didn't do anything. That alone should have garnered some attention.

That's not true.

So what did he accomplish that they should have been talking about instead of carping about TRUMP!? Not so much, and that should have gotten some attention. Why was he hanging around in Washington for 50 years with so little being accomplished?

 

[TNHarley]

The media is filled with hacks. This proposed stalin like idea of setting up a regulatory body controlled by the federal govt will be run by hacks.
Media controlled by a corrupt duopoly. What could POSSIBLY go wrong

Media isn't controlled by a corrupt duopoly (which I would amplify is a redundancy) but by commercialism. As post 2 said, a Corporatocracy. As long as MONEY defines "what the news is", that "news" is going to be stretched, often beyond credulity. That's the root issue here --- that "what the news is" is directly defined as "what will $ell". So that's what could possibly go wrong, and did.

Would be controlled

 

[Pogo]

And it wasn't easy for them either. tRump's policies are pretty hard to nail down.

Trump policies were very clear - America first

which why the anti American NPR had so much trouble accepting them

There's no question Rump's attitude was always clear. It was ME ME ME and did I mention, ME?

What is in question is how the fuck that 25% of the electorate that voted him in, couldn't see the obvious.
Or more correctly, could see it but chose not to.

 

[HenryBHough]

I dont buy that paper but I am pretty sure they stopped the tits pix a few years back. Of course that doesnt invalidate your point about the standards of the UK press.

Is shoplifting not a crime in Wales?

 

[Mac-7]

What is in question is how the fuck that 25% of the electorate that voted him in, couldn't see the obvious.

25%. ?

you mean 25% of all the people who were eligible to vote

so how many did biden get?

Officially maybe about 27%

and many of those were dead people or elderly nursing home shut-ins who some lib just used their name and voted for them

In fact biden could be around 23%, we’ll just never know

 

[Pogo]

What is in question is how the fuck that 25% of the electorate that voted him in, couldn't see the obvious.

25%. ?

you mean 25% of all the people who were eligible to vote

so how many did biden get?

Officially maybe about 27%

and many of those were dead people or elderly nursing home shut-ins who some lib just used their name and voted for them

In fact biden [sic] could be around 23%, we’ll just never know

No I mean what I posted --- 25% of the electorate.

Wanna see the math?

in 2016, the election in question, only 55% of the electorate bothered to vote at all. The other 45% looked at the choices, and/or the sham that the Electoral College makes out of it, and said "Fuck it".

It should be noted that a 55% turnout is not at all unusual for this country, because of the two factors noted above. It IS unusual for countries in general that run elections. Our turnout rate is humiliatingly poor. So the 2016 turnout was no different from most POTUS elections.

Of that 55% who bothered to vote, 46% of them voted for Rump. Hard as it is to beliieve Rump got any more than one vote (his own), that's what the numbers tell us. And we accept the numbers for we have no reason not to.

46% of 55% is 25%. That's how many of eligible voters pulled the chain with Rump's name on it. That's the proportion of eligible voters who looked at Rump and DIDN'T FUCKING GET IT.

Four years later the results of that failing were so obvious that the electorate turned out in Bigly Bigly numbers to ensure that wouldn't happen again, highest turnout since the 19th century IIRC.

Of coarse, Rump sychophants also turned out to compensate. The manager at my job was one of them -- we had a conversation on the first day of early voting about "I hope you're going to vote, it's important". I heartily agreed and assured her I was on my way there directly. We were in full agreement. Only later did it come out that she meant is was important to vote for Rump. Weird. Anyway that's an example of both sides turning out.

And that's why everybody got so many more votes than any election in the past.
Pass it on.

 

[Mac-7]

Wanna see the math?

I got all that, as I pointed out in my post.

and by your reasoning biden is on the low 20s also