Once and for all... why you shouldn't believe the MSM and I want you BIASED MSM defenders --- defend!

[healthmyths]

I bet ya 100% of all the conservative news media, gave their campaign donations to Trump or republicans..... it works both ways, no?

You may be but point is we KNOW the below facts and for that reason 95% of the supposedly professional presented journalism was negative towards Trump.
Which I find really so surprising. Journalists are supposed to be sophisticated. Worldly. Not prone to personal vindictiveness but objective people. YET we supporters of Trump are "deplorables" to the MSM. Where is their objectivity? Their professionalism? I had NO problem with them donating.
That's their right. What I have is a problem with their tremendously obvious bias!
I mean right here...
Woodward: Washington Post Assigns 20 Reporters to Dig Into Trump's Past

Woodward: Washington Post Assigns 20 Reporters to Dig Into Trump's Past

The Washington Post has assigned 20 reporters to look into every aspect of Donald Trump's past as the presumptive GOP nominee seeks to become the next president of the United States, famed Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward said Wednesday.

www.newsmax.com

Why? This was done in 2016!

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

When President Trump said that there were "good people on both sides" of the Civil War memorial removal issue he was talking about the both sides of the debate over it, but the YELLOW PRESS twisted into an endorsement of racism.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Press always does a 180 with coverage of Dem presidents and Rep presidents.
They cover-up, protect, praise and defend Dem Presidents.
They always relentlessly attack the GOP Presidents.
With President Trump they made-up issues and pushed false allegations.

.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Fact 1: The press largely leans left.

Fact 2: Dismissing everything they say as fake news is comically simplistic and ignorant.

Dismissing their news is the ONLY logical response to people who repeatedly prove themselves liars. The Lib media are chronic liars..

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I have always been the type of person to consider the source, myself.

What do they want us to believe ?What words are they using towards that end? Are they appealing to our emotions or our intellect? What are they NOT telling us? How are they framing their coverage? Who benefits if people follow them without questioning?

I don't know if you can actually teach critical thinking skills as much of it is innate, but I think it is possible to at least encourage it. Our school system actually squashes it rather than encouraging it, though, as children are taught to not ask questions but simply accept answers. Compliance is valued over inquiry, and so we have become a nation where fewer and fewer people even ask the question "is this true?"

As the Media becomes more and more an extension of the global elites and sees itself more and more as a tool to shape a compliant society eager to serve this elite, our lack of critical thinking skills is leading us towards dystopia.

What have you seen in our school system to make that statement. I ask because I recently started coaching for my old high school and have been extremely impressed with the intellect and maturity of some of the kids. Some are immature little shits but then again, it is high school. I haven’t noticed the lack of questioning, curiosity and inquisition that you mentioned so I’m curious where you’ve seen it

If you were a thinking person, you would be asking why the hell a public school is rewarding this girl for a political stance.

 

[Care4all]

I bet ya 100% of all the conservative news media, gave their campaign donations to Trump or republicans..... it works both ways, no?

You may be but point is we KNOW the below facts and for that reason 95% of the supposedly professional presented journalism was negative towards Trump.
Which I find really so surprising. Journalists are supposed to be sophisticated. Worldly. Not prone to personal vindictiveness but objective people. YET we supporters of Trump are "deplorables" to the MSM. Where is their objectivity? Their professionalism? I had NO problem with them donating.
That's their right. What I have is a problem with their tremendously obvious bias!
I mean right here...
Woodward: Washington Post Assigns 20 Reporters to Dig Into Trump's Past

Woodward: Washington Post Assigns 20 Reporters to Dig Into Trump's Past

The Washington Post has assigned 20 reporters to look into every aspect of Donald Trump's past as the presumptive GOP nominee seeks to become the next president of the United States, famed Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward said Wednesday.

www.newsmax.com

Why? This was done in 2016!

Because a reality tv talk show host, was saying outrageous and outlandish and unprecedented things during his presidential campaign, like his praise for Putin... while putting the USA down. Trump sought the media's attention, or he would not have been such a shock jock.

The coverage by the media during the campaign, gave him $2 billion in free campaign advertising, is the low end estimate.

Don't get me wrong....I agree with you that his coverage by them was mostly negative....primarily because of his own actions that deserved coverage.....He broke every rule in the book, from the get go.... on nepotism regs, security clearances, massive executive orders, bashing democrats from his inauguration speech onward, firing Comey, telling Lester Holt it was to stop the Russia investigation, firing Flynn, Muslim ban, hiding daily visitor logs to the Whitehouse,...all within his first 60 days...and I missed another hundred.

OF COURSE he got lots of negative coverage from those he called fake news and the enemy of the people for months and months....

More negative coverage doesn't mean it is fake news coverage....

 

[Concerned American]

I bet ya 100% of all the conservative news media, gave their campaign donations to Trump or republicans..... it works both ways, no?

You may be but point is we KNOW the below facts and for that reason 95% of the supposedly professional presented journalism was negative towards Trump.
Which I find really so surprising. Journalists are supposed to be sophisticated. Worldly. Not prone to personal vindictiveness but objective people. YET we supporters of Trump are "deplorables" to the MSM. Where is their objectivity? Their professionalism? I had NO problem with them donating.
That's their right. What I have is a problem with their tremendously obvious bias!
I mean right here...
Woodward: Washington Post Assigns 20 Reporters to Dig Into Trump's Past

Woodward: Washington Post Assigns 20 Reporters to Dig Into Trump's Past

The Washington Post has assigned 20 reporters to look into every aspect of Donald Trump's past as the presumptive GOP nominee seeks to become the next president of the United States, famed Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward said Wednesday.

www.newsmax.com

Why? This was done in 2016!

Because a reality tv talk show host, was saying outrageous and outlandish and unprecedented things during his presidential campaign, like his praise for Putin... while putting the USA down. Trump sought the media's attention, or he would not have been such a shock jock.

The coverage by the media during the campaign, gave him $2 billion in free campaign advertising, is the low end estimate.

Don't get me wrong....I agree with you that his coverage by them was mostly negative....primarily because of his own actions that deserved coverage.....He broke every rule in the book, from the get go.... on nepotism regs, security clearances, massive executive orders, bashing democrats from his inauguration speech onward, firing Comey, telling Lester Holt it was to stop the Russia investigation, firing Flynn, Muslim ban, hiding daily visitor logs to the Whitehouse,...all within his first 60 days...and I missed another hundred.

OF COURSE he got lots of negative coverage from those he called fake news and the enemy of the people for months and months....

More negative coverage doesn't mean it is fake news coverage....

I don't think there are any nepotism regs regarding a presidential cabinet. JFK's AG was RFK. Just sayin'

 

[Care4all]

I bet ya 100% of all the conservative news media, gave their campaign donations to Trump or republicans..... it works both ways, no?

You may be but point is we KNOW the below facts and for that reason 95% of the supposedly professional presented journalism was negative towards Trump.
Which I find really so surprising. Journalists are supposed to be sophisticated. Worldly. Not prone to personal vindictiveness but objective people. YET we supporters of Trump are "deplorables" to the MSM. Where is their objectivity? Their professionalism? I had NO problem with them donating.
That's their right. What I have is a problem with their tremendously obvious bias!
I mean right here...
Woodward: Washington Post Assigns 20 Reporters to Dig Into Trump's Past

Woodward: Washington Post Assigns 20 Reporters to Dig Into Trump's Past

The Washington Post has assigned 20 reporters to look into every aspect of Donald Trump's past as the presumptive GOP nominee seeks to become the next president of the United States, famed Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward said Wednesday.

www.newsmax.com

Why? This was done in 2016!

Because a reality tv talk show host, was saying outrageous and outlandish and unprecedented things during his presidential campaign, like his praise for Putin... while putting the USA down. Trump sought the media's attention, or he would not have been such a shock jock.

The coverage by the media during the campaign, gave him $2 billion in free campaign advertising, is the low end estimate.

Don't get me wrong....I agree with you that his coverage by them was mostly negative....primarily because of his own actions that deserved coverage.....He broke every rule in the book, from the get go.... on nepotism regs, security clearances, massive executive orders, bashing democrats from his inauguration speech onward, firing Comey, telling Lester Holt it was to stop the Russia investigation, firing Flynn, Muslim ban, hiding daily visitor logs to the Whitehouse,...all within his first 60 days...and I missed another hundred.

OF COURSE he got lots of negative coverage from those he called fake news and the enemy of the people for months and months....

More negative coverage doesn't mean it is fake news coverage....

I don't think there are any nepotism regs regarding a presidential cabinet. JFK's AG was RFK. Just sayin'

The law on it, was done right after RFKs stint. His appointment was the very reason it was added, after he left...

 

[Concerned American]

I bet ya 100% of all the conservative news media, gave their campaign donations to Trump or republicans..... it works both ways, no?

You may be but point is we KNOW the below facts and for that reason 95% of the supposedly professional presented journalism was negative towards Trump.
Which I find really so surprising. Journalists are supposed to be sophisticated. Worldly. Not prone to personal vindictiveness but objective people. YET we supporters of Trump are "deplorables" to the MSM. Where is their objectivity? Their professionalism? I had NO problem with them donating.
That's their right. What I have is a problem with their tremendously obvious bias!
I mean right here...
Woodward: Washington Post Assigns 20 Reporters to Dig Into Trump's Past

Woodward: Washington Post Assigns 20 Reporters to Dig Into Trump's Past

The Washington Post has assigned 20 reporters to look into every aspect of Donald Trump's past as the presumptive GOP nominee seeks to become the next president of the United States, famed Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward said Wednesday.

www.newsmax.com

Why? This was done in 2016!

Because a reality tv talk show host, was saying outrageous and outlandish and unprecedented things during his presidential campaign, like his praise for Putin... while putting the USA down. Trump sought the media's attention, or he would not have been such a shock jock.

The coverage by the media during the campaign, gave him $2 billion in free campaign advertising, is the low end estimate.

Don't get me wrong....I agree with you that his coverage by them was mostly negative....primarily because of his own actions that deserved coverage.....He broke every rule in the book, from the get go.... on nepotism regs, security clearances, massive executive orders, bashing democrats from his inauguration speech onward, firing Comey, telling Lester Holt it was to stop the Russia investigation, firing Flynn, Muslim ban, hiding daily visitor logs to the Whitehouse,...all within his first 60 days...and I missed another hundred.

OF COURSE he got lots of negative coverage from those he called fake news and the enemy of the people for months and months....

More negative coverage doesn't mean it is fake news coverage....

I don't think there are any nepotism regs regarding a presidential cabinet. JFK's AG was RFK. Just sayin'

The law on it, was done right after RFKs stint. His appointment was the very reason it was added, after he left...

Apparently, nepotism laws do not apply to presidential cabinets. https://www.justice.gov/opinion/file/930116/download

 

[conserveguy877]

 

[WTH_Progs?]

It's a simple question based on these facts and I'd like some of you ignorant, uninformed people explain why its is wrong. Here are the facts with links, substantiation...NOT MY subjective opinion...but simple facts.
A) Trump received 95% negative press.
"Former Democratic president Carter comes to President Trump's defense following onslaught of negative coverage."
Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study
“I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it,” said Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative press watchdog.

Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study

Negative press coverage of President Trump has worsened. Since 2016, previous studies from analysts at the Media Research Center revealed that press coverage of Mr. Trump on major broadcast networks was 91% negative. It has gotten worse. A new study released Monday found that the coverage is now...

www.washingtontimes.com

B) Proof of WHY MSM biased?
90% donations went to Biden by MSM in 2020. In 2016 96% donations to Hillary.
These are facts... that have directly affected the BIASED MSM reporting.
View attachment 443682

This adds validation to the OP, see last page and before it: Wow, first negative mainstream news I've read on Biden

 

[Slade3200]

I have always been the type of person to consider the source, myself.

What do they want us to believe ?What words are they using towards that end? Are they appealing to our emotions or our intellect? What are they NOT telling us? How are they framing their coverage? Who benefits if people follow them without questioning?

I don't know if you can actually teach critical thinking skills as much of it is innate, but I think it is possible to at least encourage it. Our school system actually squashes it rather than encouraging it, though, as children are taught to not ask questions but simply accept answers. Compliance is valued over inquiry, and so we have become a nation where fewer and fewer people even ask the question "is this true?"

As the Media becomes more and more an extension of the global elites and sees itself more and more as a tool to shape a compliant society eager to serve this elite, our lack of critical thinking skills is leading us towards dystopia.

What have you seen in our school system to make that statement. I ask because I recently started coaching for my old high school and have been extremely impressed with the intellect and maturity of some of the kids. Some are immature little shits but then again, it is high school. I haven’t noticed the lack of questioning, curiosity and inquisition that you mentioned so I’m curious where you’ve seen it

If you were a thinking person, you would be asking why the hell a public school is rewarding this girl for a political stance.

How is social justice a political stance?

 

[candycorn]

p

It's a simple question based on these facts and I'd like some of you ignorant, uninformed people explain why its is wrong. Here are the facts with links, substantiation...NOT MY subjective opinion...but simple facts.
A) Trump received 95% negative press.
"Former Democratic president Carter comes to President Trump's defense following onslaught of negative coverage."
Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study
“I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it,” said Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative press watchdog.

Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study

Negative press coverage of President Trump has worsened. Since 2016, previous studies from analysts at the Media Research Center revealed that press coverage of Mr. Trump on major broadcast networks was 91% negative. It has gotten worse. A new study released Monday found that the coverage is now...

www.washingtontimes.com

B) Proof of WHY MSM biased?
90% donations went to Biden by MSM in 2020. In 2016 96% donations to Hillary.
These are facts... that have directly affected the BIASED MSM reporting.
View attachment 443682

95% negative press?

Perhaps he shouldn't have been a 100% asshole...fired people by tweet...called people 3rd grade names....referred to women as dogs....banned people from coming here based on their religion....plopped kids into cages as a "deterrent" (500+ still remain by the way--not one committed a single fucking crime)....argued that the kids he kidnapped aren't entitled to soap and toothpaste...called the neo-nazi's "very fine people...called Mexicans "rapists"...said Russia didn't interfere in our 2016 election....gladhaned a brutal North Korean dictator...lied tens of thousands of times....totally ignored a pandemic as it raged the countryside for weeks at a time.

Plopped kids in OBAMA'S CAGES. The rest of that BS is out of context as well like everything else that the MSM spewed for the last four years. They also told us he recommended shooting up bleach--NEVER HAPPENED.

The fact that you guys still continue to tell lies (but you probably don't know it) about what the original purpose of those cages were for demonstrates that your news sources are doing you a disservice.

The average blob supporter understands the following:

• Importers pay tariffs. Not Exporters
• Obama built the cages but they were used as a last resort for housing kids for a short period of time. Trump filled them with kids as a deterrent.
• Trump's trade war was a wholesale disaster. Our trade deficit is pretty much where it was when he started it.
• Masks, social distancing, rigorous hand washing all save lives
• The more guns you have in a society, the more gun deaths you'll have in society; and more deaths in general due to the lethality of guns
• Trump supporters are the ones who stormed the capitol; not BLM supporters
• There was no sizable voter fraud and Biden beat Trump badly; mainly due to people voting against Trump.

All of this is understood and if you gave blob supporters truth serum, they would agree to all of the above. The "beach muscles" (as I heard it referred to on a podcast this week) that one has on an internet message board allows them to post nonsense like the counter argument to all of the above because there is no downside to sticking to the absurd counter argument. T

Yes, I've come to the same conclusion with many of them. They know they are being lied to and know they are repeating lies.

100% correct

 

[candycorn]

p

It's a simple question based on these facts and I'd like some of you ignorant, uninformed people explain why its is wrong. Here are the facts with links, substantiation...NOT MY subjective opinion...but simple facts.
A) Trump received 95% negative press.
"Former Democratic president Carter comes to President Trump's defense following onslaught of negative coverage."
Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study
“I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it,” said Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative press watchdog.

Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study

Negative press coverage of President Trump has worsened. Since 2016, previous studies from analysts at the Media Research Center revealed that press coverage of Mr. Trump on major broadcast networks was 91% negative. It has gotten worse. A new study released Monday found that the coverage is now...

www.washingtontimes.com

B) Proof of WHY MSM biased?
90% donations went to Biden by MSM in 2020. In 2016 96% donations to Hillary.
These are facts... that have directly affected the BIASED MSM reporting.
View attachment 443682

95% negative press?

Perhaps he shouldn't have been a 100% asshole...fired people by tweet...called people 3rd grade names....referred to women as dogs....banned people from coming here based on their religion....plopped kids into cages as a "deterrent" (500+ still remain by the way--not one committed a single fucking crime)....argued that the kids he kidnapped aren't entitled to soap and toothpaste...called the neo-nazi's "very fine people...called Mexicans "rapists"...said Russia didn't interfere in our 2016 election....gladhaned a brutal North Korean dictator...lied tens of thousands of times....totally ignored a pandemic as it raged the countryside for weeks at a time.

Plopped kids in OBAMA'S CAGES. The rest of that BS is out of context as well like everything else that the MSM spewed for the last four years. They also told us he recommended shooting up bleach--NEVER HAPPENED.

The fact that you guys still continue to tell lies (but you probably don't know it) about what the original purpose of those cages were for demonstrates that your news sources are doing you a disservice.

The average blob supporter understands the following:

• Importers pay tariffs. Not Exporters
• Obama built the cages but they were used as a last resort for housing kids for a short period of time. Trump filled them with kids as a deterrent.
• Trump's trade war was a wholesale disaster. Our trade deficit is pretty much where it was when he started it.
• Masks, social distancing, rigorous hand washing all save lives
• The more guns you have in a society, the more gun deaths you'll have in society; and more deaths in general due to the lethality of guns
• Trump supporters are the ones who stormed the capitol; not BLM supporters
• There was no sizable voter fraud and Biden beat Trump badly; mainly due to people voting against Trump.

All of this is understood and if you gave blob supporters truth serum, they would agree to all of the above. The "beach muscles" (as I heard it referred to on a podcast this week) that one has on an internet message board allows them to post nonsense like the counter argument to all of the above because there is no downside to sticking to the absurd counter argument.

Where did you get the information under your bullet points?
NOT one URL, fact or link! Don't believe anything you wrote as there is no substantiation!

You really need a link to convince you that masks, social distancing, and rigorous hand washing saves lives?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

How is social justice a political stance?

In every way. Critical race theory is ALL political.

I realize you are just a hack incapable of understanding principles, but you would support a school in, say, South Carolina handing out a "White Knight" award to the best racist, would you?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

It's a simple question based on these facts and I'd like some of you ignorant, uninformed people explain why its is wrong. Here are the facts with links, substantiation...NOT MY subjective opinion...but simple facts.
A) Trump received 95% negative press.
"Former Democratic president Carter comes to President Trump's defense following onslaught of negative coverage."
Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study
“I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it,” said Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative press watchdog.

Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study

Negative press coverage of President Trump has worsened. Since 2016, previous studies from analysts at the Media Research Center revealed that press coverage of Mr. Trump on major broadcast networks was 91% negative. It has gotten worse. A new study released Monday found that the coverage is now...

www.washingtontimes.com

B) Proof of WHY MSM biased?
90% donations went to Biden by MSM in 2020. In 2016 96% donations to Hillary.
These are facts... that have directly affected the BIASED MSM reporting.
View attachment 443682

95% negative press?

Perhaps he shouldn't have been a 100% asshole...fired people by tweet...called people 3rd grade names....referred to women as dogs....banned people from coming here based on their religion....plopped kids into cages as a "deterrent" (500+ still remain by the way--not one committed a single fucking crime)....argued that the kids he kidnapped aren't entitled to soap and toothpaste...called the neo-nazi's "very fine people...called Mexicans "rapists"...said Russia didn't interfere in our 2016 election....gladhaned a brutal North Korean dictator...lied tens of thousands of times....totally ignored a pandemic as it raged the countryside for weeks at a time.

Hahahaaa....all the bullshit you spewed makes the OPs point. Too funny.

 

[candycorn]

It's a simple question based on these facts and I'd like some of you ignorant, uninformed people explain why its is wrong. Here are the facts with links, substantiation...NOT MY subjective opinion...but simple facts.
A) Trump received 95% negative press.
"Former Democratic president Carter comes to President Trump's defense following onslaught of negative coverage."
Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study
“I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it,” said Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative press watchdog.

Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study

Negative press coverage of President Trump has worsened. Since 2016, previous studies from analysts at the Media Research Center revealed that press coverage of Mr. Trump on major broadcast networks was 91% negative. It has gotten worse. A new study released Monday found that the coverage is now...

www.washingtontimes.com

B) Proof of WHY MSM biased?
90% donations went to Biden by MSM in 2020. In 2016 96% donations to Hillary.
These are facts... that have directly affected the BIASED MSM reporting.
View attachment 443682

95% negative press?

Perhaps he shouldn't have been a 100% asshole...fired people by tweet...called people 3rd grade names....referred to women as dogs....banned people from coming here based on their religion....plopped kids into cages as a "deterrent" (500+ still remain by the way--not one committed a single fucking crime)....argued that the kids he kidnapped aren't entitled to soap and toothpaste...called the neo-nazi's "very fine people...called Mexicans "rapists"...said Russia didn't interfere in our 2016 election....gladhaned a brutal North Korean dictator...lied tens of thousands of times....totally ignored a pandemic as it raged the countryside for weeks at a time.

Hahahaaa....all the bullshit you spewed makes the OPs point. Too funny.

Yet you counter none of it. So I guess you're the one distributing bullshit.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

It's a simple question based on these facts and I'd like some of you ignorant, uninformed people explain why its is wrong. Here are the facts with links, substantiation...NOT MY subjective opinion...but simple facts.
A) Trump received 95% negative press.
"Former Democratic president Carter comes to President Trump's defense following onslaught of negative coverage."
Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study
“I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it,” said Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative press watchdog.

Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study

Negative press coverage of President Trump has worsened. Since 2016, previous studies from analysts at the Media Research Center revealed that press coverage of Mr. Trump on major broadcast networks was 91% negative. It has gotten worse. A new study released Monday found that the coverage is now...

www.washingtontimes.com

B) Proof of WHY MSM biased?
90% donations went to Biden by MSM in 2020. In 2016 96% donations to Hillary.
These are facts... that have directly affected the BIASED MSM reporting.
View attachment 443682

95% negative press?

Perhaps he shouldn't have been a 100% asshole...fired people by tweet...called people 3rd grade names....referred to women as dogs....banned people from coming here based on their religion....plopped kids into cages as a "deterrent" (500+ still remain by the way--not one committed a single fucking crime)....argued that the kids he kidnapped aren't entitled to soap and toothpaste...called the neo-nazi's "very fine people...called Mexicans "rapists"...said Russia didn't interfere in our 2016 election....gladhaned a brutal North Korean dictator...lied tens of thousands of times....totally ignored a pandemic as it raged the countryside for weeks at a time.

Hahahaaa....all the bullshit you spewed makes the OPs point. Too funny.

Yet you counter none of it. So I guess you're the one distributing bullshit.

Your bullshit has been countered hundreds of times on this forum and you stick your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalalla.

 

[candycorn]

It's a simple question based on these facts and I'd like some of you ignorant, uninformed people explain why its is wrong. Here are the facts with links, substantiation...NOT MY subjective opinion...but simple facts.
A) Trump received 95% negative press.
"Former Democratic president Carter comes to President Trump's defense following onslaught of negative coverage."
Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study
“I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it,” said Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative press watchdog.

Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study

Negative press coverage of President Trump has worsened. Since 2016, previous studies from analysts at the Media Research Center revealed that press coverage of Mr. Trump on major broadcast networks was 91% negative. It has gotten worse. A new study released Monday found that the coverage is now...

www.washingtontimes.com

B) Proof of WHY MSM biased?
90% donations went to Biden by MSM in 2020. In 2016 96% donations to Hillary.
These are facts... that have directly affected the BIASED MSM reporting.
View attachment 443682

95% negative press?

Perhaps he shouldn't have been a 100% asshole...fired people by tweet...called people 3rd grade names....referred to women as dogs....banned people from coming here based on their religion....plopped kids into cages as a "deterrent" (500+ still remain by the way--not one committed a single fucking crime)....argued that the kids he kidnapped aren't entitled to soap and toothpaste...called the neo-nazi's "very fine people...called Mexicans "rapists"...said Russia didn't interfere in our 2016 election....gladhaned a brutal North Korean dictator...lied tens of thousands of times....totally ignored a pandemic as it raged the countryside for weeks at a time.

Hahahaaa....all the bullshit you spewed makes the OPs point. Too funny.

Yet you counter none of it. So I guess you're the one distributing bullshit.

Your bullshit has been countered hundreds of times on this forum and you stick your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalalla.

Translation: You got nothing.

 

[healthmyths]

It's a simple question based on these facts and I'd like some of you ignorant, uninformed people explain why its is wrong. Here are the facts with links, substantiation...NOT MY subjective opinion...but simple facts.
A) Trump received 95% negative press.
"Former Democratic president Carter comes to President Trump's defense following onslaught of negative coverage."
Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study
“I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it,” said Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative press watchdog.

Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study

Negative press coverage of President Trump has worsened. Since 2016, previous studies from analysts at the Media Research Center revealed that press coverage of Mr. Trump on major broadcast networks was 91% negative. It has gotten worse. A new study released Monday found that the coverage is now...

www.washingtontimes.com

B) Proof of WHY MSM biased?
90% donations went to Biden by MSM in 2020. In 2016 96% donations to Hillary.
These are facts... that have directly affected the BIASED MSM reporting.
View attachment 443682

Yes the media was biased, I don’t think that’s a mystery. Trump declared war on them and relentlessly talked shit which only fueled the fire. Even Fox News a Trump ally had the majority of their coverage considered negative towards trump. It’s because all trump did was lie and lies cause controversy and controversy becomes the story. What point are you trying to make with this thread?

And you know what? YOU I don't believe because YOU are a LIAR. Why? Because YOU can't prove when you stupidly say "ALL TRUMP did was lie"? YOU MEAN every single word he said was a lie?
CAN YOU prove that? Give me some proof please. And I'll disprove it with FACTS!