Harvard Study Shows Liberals are Lemmings

[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. ******* 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.

I happen to enjoy chats with pogo.

 

[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. ******* 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.

I happen to enjoy chats with pogo.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001R11C62/?tag=usmb-20
The media is liberal and the bias shows in its coverage.

 

[Thinker101]

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?

It's supposed to be about news, not opinion.

 

[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. ******* 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.

I happen to enjoy chats with pogo.

If they are not lemmings than why do they use MSM reports as evidence of misdeeds by Trump administration? They lost and election...and when I say "they" I mean Hillary supporters, MSM reporters and editors, as well as campus professoriate.

 

[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?

It's supposed to be about news, not opinion.

What is? The study looked at the tone of news stories. A story about the mess with Trump and Obamacare repeal for example, is going to be a negative story. Not because of bias, but because of the nature of the facts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I happen to enjoy chats with pogo.

If they are not lemmings than why do they use MSM reports as evidence of misdeeds by Trump administration? They lost and election...and when I say "they" I mean Hillary supporters, MSM reporters and editors, as well as campus professoriate.

So stories about Mike Flynn are supposed to be what? Spun in a happy way? Made to look like good news for Trump?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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. ******* 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?

Most of these people didn't even read the study. They are simply repeating the spin that the rightwing propaganda media put on the study,

which itself (the spin) is ridiculously biased.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I happen to enjoy chats with pogo.

If they are not lemmings than why do they use MSM reports as evidence of misdeeds by Trump administration? They lost and election...and when I say "they" I mean Hillary supporters, MSM reporters and editors, as well as campus professoriate.

So stories about Mike Flynn are supposed to be what? Spun in a happy way? Made to look like good news for Trump?

They are supposed to be about facts.

Almost all of them are opinion.