It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Well, I think positive and negative reporting should in a way be apparent based on the story. A mass shooting or serial rapist story I don't think would have too many positive ways of being told after all.
Or in the case of the Obamacare replacement thing, basically nobody from either side or the populace at large had anything good to say about that. The only pro people for that were the few trying to sell it and even they turned on each other and blamed each other for what a mess it was. That also I don't know how else but negative you could really report that one.
originally posted by: buster2010
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: mOjOm
The mass shooter was an NRA member. Aaaahhhh!
The news today doesn't waste a good catastrophe to push agendas.
Kind of like how the right wing always brings a persons religion into play when a person commits a crime.
More to the point — [bad] ideas and lies shouldn't get positive coverage, should they? And how can you report positively about an epic failure?
The temporary travel ban was stupid and a complete political shenanigan, the Obama "wiretap" claims were bulls#, the effort to replace ObamaCare was a failure, etc.
What's next? If he takes a dump on a desk in a room full of elementary school children, will MRC complain that the coverage was 98% negative (I'm sure Breitbart and a few others will find a way to blame illegal immigrants, Muslims or black people).
originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: enlightenedservant
Their negative coverage of HRC/Obama was directly proportional to the amount of covering up the rest of the MSM was doing for the left.
statistics like that are pointless unless viewed in context.