TV Stations Are Working For Hillary

[protectionist]

Much has been made of all the free media Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has received, but a watchdog report out Monday finds that much of the coverage has been negative and that ABC, CBS and NBC have covered his controversies more than Hillary Clinton's by a 4-to-1 margin.

The Media Research Center analysis of 1,099 presidential election stories from January 1 to June 7 found that Trump did indeed dominate coverage, getting nearly half of the total airtime. The networks spent 1,068 minutes on Trump out of a total of 2,137 minutes overall on the race. But when all that time is spent on bashing you,then the more time you are getting, the worse it is for you, and the better it is for your opponent (in this case, Hillary Clinton)

So just as Hillary cheated her way to the Democratic nomination, she is also now has an unfair campaign going against Donald Trump, which looks more like a week to week Hillary campaign booster than a free and fair election.

Report: ABC, CBS, NBC cover Trump 'scandals' 4-1 over Clinton's

 

[S.J.]

I hope this isn't a surprise to you.

 

[The Great Goose]

They've failed. No one likes Shrillary except the kind of people the colleges permit to finish journalist courses.

 

[xband]

Hillary said in Ohio that Trump will bring the next great recession if elected. I want to pay off the national debt and think Trump wants to do the same before the mother of all great depressions.

 

[Dale Smith]

Hillary said in Ohio that Trump will bring the next great recession if elected. I want to pay off the national debt and think Trump wants to do the same before the mother of all great depressions.

We need to tell the Fed banking oligarchs to go fuck themselves and tell them that we are going to audit them and confiscate their ill gotten wealth and put it into a trust. We can then return to an honest monetary system with no usury attached to every piece of currency created. I could cure the ills of this country in less than 6 months if I had the chance....there are millions like me that could do the same thing...it's not that fucking hard at all and it's not rocket science.

 

[mamooth]

The media reported more favorably on Mother Teresa than it did on Charles Manson. Clearly, that indicates media bias.

The point? Trump is far more corrupt and dishonest, so of course he gets more negative stories. It would be flagrant media bias to pretend that both candidates were equally bad.

 

[protectionist]

The media reported more favorably on Mother Teresa than it did on Charles Manson. Clearly, that indicates media bias.

The point? Trump is far more corrupt and dishonest, so of course he gets more negative stories. It would be flagrant media bias to pretend that both candidates were equally bad.

NO, that doesn't indicate media bias. What you said would just be a fair report, although I.m still not sure if they ever really proved Manson to be guilty.

In any case, Hillary is the villain as anyone looking at this objectively clearly knows, but that still isn't the point here. m The point is that the media is SUBjective for Hillary and against Trump, and people should not watch them.

Yes. it certainly would be flagrant media bias to pretend that both candidates were equally bad, when we have the corrupt, OWNED Hillary insider vs the outsider Trump, who is not being bought by the special interests, as Hillary is.

 

[HenryBHough]

What kind of mind can equate Mrs. Rodham-Clinton/Lewinsky with Mother Teresa?

Is there NO medication for that?

 

[saveliberty]

NBC last night reports on Trump with protestors in the background. Incredibly staged reporting.

 

[mamooth]

What kind of mind can equate Mrs. Rodham-Clinton/Lewinsky with Mother Teresa?

Not me, of course.

Why did you think I did? Are you really as dumb as you appear, or is your whole stupid routine just an act?

Specifically for the benefit of halfwits such as you, I directly stated the point of the analogy, which is that when people _are_ different, it's shockingly dishonest to pretend they aren't different.

Are you just upset because the media won't act in a pathologically dishonest fashion? Yes, that's probably it. After all, if the media is honest, what hope does your corrupt cult of authoritarian shitbags have?

 

[mamooth]

Back in the real world, the media has been attacking Clinton viciously, while giving overwhelmingly positive coverage to Trump.

Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle - Shorenstein Center
---
For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.

The Shorenstein Center study is based on an analysis of thousands of news statements by CBS, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. The study’s data were provided by Media Tenor, a firm that specializes in the content analysis of news coverage.
---

Imagine how big Clinton's lead would be if our entire crazy conservative mainstream media wasn't constantly attacking her. In contrast, the mainstream media has been playing very nice with Trump.

So what's with the MRC story? Basically, they took a huge Trump advantage, the fact that he was getting much more media coverage, and pretended it was a disadvantage, even though most of the stories were positive. MRC is paid to get Republicans elected, so that's the kind of propaganda they engage in.