| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
"Swchandler the king of ZERO INFORMATION."
Information? No mat-ty, it's about having an opinion. I will say that I'm not off-the-top in my comments like many here. Still though, I can be outside the right wing comfort zone that you subscribe to. No Fox News for me.
Let's see how everything pans out. Sometimes, I don't think folks are patient enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mat-ty
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| swchandler wrote: | "Swchandler the king of ZERO INFORMATION."
Information? No mat-ty, it's about having an opinion. I will say that I'm not off-the-top in my comments like many here. Still though, I can be outside the right wing comfort zone that you subscribe to. No Fox News for me.
Let's see how everything pans out. Sometimes, I don't think folks are patient enough. |
If you simply ignore news that does not align with your beliefs you will never learn a thing. I find most liberals to be like you, they only read or listen to far left opinions and are clueless about many ongoing investigations, allegations , and scandals. Are they all true? No, but many are.
On the other hand I find conservatives to be far more up to date on current events, scandals and more.
Read this Harvard study, It shows Fox news is by far the most fair and balanced.
I watch cnn, msnbc all the time. Very few if any Conservative voices on those shows. Fox ALWAYS has hardcore liberals on the shows with opposing views(sometimes they even make sense)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative/article/2623641 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hysterical.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mat-ty, the highlight of the Washington Examiner article you posted.
"The Harvard study had plenty of criticism for Trump. "Never in the nation's history," the authors wrote, "has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy."
It's no great wonder that most credible news coverage of Donald Trump is negative, and I seriously doubt that will change with a man so manifestly unfit for the presidency in the office.
As things now stand, Fox News is one of the only sources that panders to folks like you looking for some degree of positive news in the desert and wasteland that is Donald Trump. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| swchandler wrote: |
As things now stand, Fox News is one of the only sources that panders to folks like you looking for some degree of positive news in the desert and wasteland that is Donald Trump. |
While the all rest pander to the left with their fears and paranoia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mat-ty, the self professed beacon of knowledge states:
“If you simply ignore news that does not align with your beliefs you will never learn a thing. I find most liberals to be like you, they only read or listen to far left opinions and are clueless about many ongoing investigations, allegations, and scandals. Are they all true? No, but many are.
On the other hand I find conservatives to be far more up to date on current events, scandals and more.
Read this Harvard study, (emphasis added) It shows Fox news is by far the most fair and balanced.”
Clearly Mr. Know-It-All did not read the study...he read an article citing the study.
What the study actually said 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. News reporting turned sour during the Vietnam and Watergate era and has stayed that way. 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. Once upon a time, the “honeymoon” period for a newly inaugurated president included favorable press coverage. That era is now decades in the past. Today’s presidents can expect rough treatment at the hands of the press, and Donald Trump is no exception...
Fox was the only news outlet in our study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall—the split was 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive. But Fox’s coverage varied widely by topic, ranging from highly negative to highly positive. As was true at the other outlets, Fox’s reporters found few good things to say about the public and judicial response to Trump’s executive orders banning Muslim immigrants or the collapse of the House of Representatives’ first attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare. Fox’s reporting on Trump’s appointees and Russian involvement in the election was also negative in tone.
On the other hand, trade and terrorism were news categories where Fox’s coverage was starkly different from that of the other outlets. Whereas their coverage in these areas tipped strongly in the negative direction, Fox’s coverage tipped strongly positive.
Trump’s suitability for the presidency was also a topic where Fox News was at odds with what the other outlets were reporting. Fox was the only U.S. outlet where news reports that spoke directly to Trump’s fitness for office were positive on balance. The ratio on Fox was 2-to-1 favorable. The other outlets averaged 6-to-1 unfavorable, with the range varying from 24-to-1 unfavorable to 4-to-1 unfavorable.”
Mat-ty claims the study supports his conclusion that Fox News is the most fair and balanced reporting agency. This is not true for all content areas. In addition, Mat-ty’s conclusion is misplaced as the study stated:
“Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? That question cannot be answered definitively in the absence of an agreed-upon version of “reality” against which to compare Trump’s coverage. Any such assessment would also have to weigh the news media’s preference for the negative, a tendency in place long before Trump became president. Given that tendency, the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. 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.”
Isn’t ironic that Mat-ty states: “If you simply ignore news that does not align with your beliefs you will never learn a thing”, when he is guilty of committing that very sin when he cherry picks one item from a study to support his position? Once again, Mat-ty demonstrates that the subtleties and the nuances of the circumstances are well beyond his comprehensive abilities. I suspect now Mat-ty will respond with some school yard name calling worthy of his cognitive abilities. Perhaps he will surprise me with a reasoned rebuttal after actually reading the study. I’m not holding my breath.
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mat-ty
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vientomas wrote: | Mat-ty, the self professed beacon of knowledge states:
“If you simply ignore news that does not align with your beliefs you will never learn a thing. I find most liberals to be like you, they only read or listen to far left opinions and are clueless about many ongoing investigations, allegations, and scandals. Are they all true? No, but many are.
On the other hand I find conservatives to be far more up to date on current events, scandals and more.
Read this Harvard study, (emphasis added) It shows Fox news is by far the most fair and balanced.”
Clearly Mr. Know-It-All did not read the study...he read an article citing the study.
What the study actually said 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. News reporting turned sour during the Vietnam and Watergate era and has stayed that way. 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. Once upon a time, the “honeymoon” period for a newly inaugurated president included favorable press coverage. That era is now decades in the past. Today’s presidents can expect rough treatment at the hands of the press, and Donald Trump is no exception...
Fox was the only news outlet in our study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall—the split was 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive. But Fox’s coverage varied widely by topic, ranging from highly negative to highly positive. As was true at the other outlets, Fox’s reporters found few good things to say about the public and judicial response to Trump’s executive orders banning Muslim immigrants or the collapse of the House of Representatives’ first attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare. Fox’s reporting on Trump’s appointees and Russian involvement in the election was also negative in tone.
On the other hand, trade and terrorism were news categories where Fox’s coverage was starkly different from that of the other outlets. Whereas their coverage in these areas tipped strongly in the negative direction, Fox’s coverage tipped strongly positive.
Trump’s suitability for the presidency was also a topic where Fox News was at odds with what the other outlets were reporting. Fox was the only U.S. outlet where news reports that spoke directly to Trump’s fitness for office were positive on balance. The ratio on Fox was 2-to-1 favorable. The other outlets averaged 6-to-1 unfavorable, with the range varying from 24-to-1 unfavorable to 4-to-1 unfavorable.”
Mat-ty claims the study supports his conclusion that Fox News is the most fair and balanced reporting agency. This is not true for all content areas. In addition, Mat-ty’s conclusion is misplaced as the study stated:
“Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? That question cannot be answered definitively in the absence of an agreed-upon version of “reality” against which to compare Trump’s coverage. Any such assessment would also have to weigh the news media’s preference for the negative, a tendency in place long before Trump became president. Given that tendency, the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. 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.”
Isn’t ironic that Mat-ty states: “If you simply ignore news that does not align with your beliefs you will never learn a thing”, when he is guilty of committing that very sin when he cherry picks one item from a study to support his position? Once again, Mat-ty demonstrates that the subtleties and the nuances of the circumstances are well beyond his comprehensive abilities. I suspect now Mat-ty will respond with some school yard name calling worthy of his cognitive abilities. Perhaps he will surprise me with a reasoned rebuttal after actually reading the study. I’m not holding my breath.
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ |
Look no further than yesterday news cycle to see the lies the left is willing to push on clowns like you.
Denying the media has been historically unfair to Trump would make you as ignorant as Swchandler or just a flat out asshole.
And please spare me the school yard talk non-sense, you are one of the biggest name callers on here, second only to drooling Mac. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mat-ty
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| swchandler wrote: | mat-ty, the highlight of the Washington Examiner article you posted.
"The Harvard study had plenty of criticism for Trump. "Never in the nation's history," the authors wrote, "has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy."
It's no great wonder that most credible news coverage of Donald Trump is negative, and I seriously doubt that will change with a man so manifestly unfit for the presidency in the office.
As things now stand, Fox News is one of the only sources that panders to folks like you looking for some degree of positive news in the desert and wasteland that is Donald Trump. |
The authors notes are an opinion not fact, or in Macs world fact
You also manage to take most qoutes out of context and conveniently leaving out the end of the paragraph
That said, the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC
ANYWHERE NEAR A NEUTRAL PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In other words a HIT PIECE, 24/7 from lefty haters posing as journalist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mat-ty, would you prefer that the US Constitution didn't provide for a free press? Sounds like you might, especially since you harbor an awful lot of deep-seated ill will and ugliness for a free press in the country, to include all those folks that don't see things your way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
