It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Liberal Media vs. President Trump--89% negative

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm


The mass shooter was an NRA member. Aaaahhhh!
The news today doesn't waste a good catastrophe to push agendas.




posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm



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.


Whether the facts are negative or positive is up to the reader to decide, not for the journalist to report.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: seasonal

Who watches ABC, NBC, or CBS news? Seriously, who?


Ages 60 and up.

Or people that're too lazy to change the channel after their shows.

Actually FOX has the most old people watching their channel.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

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.



Exactly!
Or they leave out a description when the perp is black.

News has an agenda.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Unsurprisingly, MRC is one of the Mercer family's favorite organizations. Trump's biggest benefactor — a man who invested heavily in his very own psyops contractor — has donated more than $13.5 million to MRC in recent years. You can guarantee they never have a bad thing to say about Breitbart News who got at least $10 million from Mercer in seed capital.

More to the point — dad 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).



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




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?


What nonsense. Is it the job of journalists to determine what is or isn't a bad idea, or to report the facts?



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


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.


The temporary travel ban is going to be reinstated and upheld now that Justice Gorsuch has been confirmed.

The wiretap scandal (like how you included the quotation marks) was not bull#. Susan Rice, Evelyn Farkus, and Loretta Lynch have all been implicated in this scandal. Rice outed herself, amazingly, and then tried to back track it.

It shouldn't seem all that unbelievable to conceive that Obama and people within his administration were using their powers as appointed officials to target somebody for political gain.

Where have we heard that before? Ugh, Lois Lerner? What's happening to her? Oh yes, she's getting charged.

The effort to replace Obamacare is an interesting one. It sure did fail, Republicans had 8 years to draft a better version of it and they simply ignored the opportunity. Some believe Paul Ryan is intentionally obstructing this bill from passing. And it wouldn't surprise me if many establishment senators from both sides are on the take from Big Insurance lobbying.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Have you read his proposals?

His economic and tax policies are outrageous.

Big deficit cuts? Nope moving money back to the military industrial complex from welfare. Fat to fat.

His tax cuts rely on a perfect budget, wall street to be perfecrt, and still aquire national debt.

His immigration policy is old fashion and foolish.

These illegals immigrants pay over 11 billion in property taxes a year. Uhhh huge issue that some round ups aren't going to cure...that's a lot of people spending a lot of money.

No ideas just zealot talk.
edit on 19-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Doesn't fox have the most of any people watching it's channel?



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

How is that?


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).



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

By comparison, what percentage of conservative media's coverage is/was negative about Hillary Clinton and Pres Obama?



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
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.


edit on 4/19/2017 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

That maybe true, I am not defending the R media team or the L media team.

I would like the truth, but that is not an option when the hand that feeds the media needs to be bitten and can't be.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   

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.


LOL Nice verbal gymnastics. I can also say that the left wing's coverage was directly proportional to the amount of covering up that the right wing media did on them. See how that works?



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

The reason I asked is because statistics like that are pointless unless viewed in context.

For example, what if the stats for right wing coverage of Hillary Clinton showed 94% negative coverage? That would show that the "liberal media" actually had a higher percentage of positive coverage of the opposing candidate than the right wing media did. That info would completely turn your OP's point around.

And we all know the Hannity's, Limbaugh's, conservative talk radio, Fox News, Breitbarts, Drudge Reports, etc showed virtually nothing positive about Hillary Clinton or President Obama when he was president. And for any rare time that they did, there was sure to be a massive amount of negativity to make up for it. I'd guess that right wing media's coverage of them is far more negative than the 89% mentioned in the OP.

ETA: Or are we supposed to ignore the years of Benghazi coverage & the constant email scandal coverage? And that doesn't even touch on the Podesta stuff, the Anthony Weiner stuff, and the "pizza place" allegations that were directly trying to link the Democrats to that crap. I'd be amazed if right wing media only had 89% negative coverage of Hillary.
edit on 19-4-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
You mean it isn't 99.991%????

They're slipping!




posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I understand what you are saying, ABC, NBC and CBS are mainstays. While Fox is now or has elbowed it way in is a new comer, relatively speaking. I find it neither surprising nor odd that the study came out with this result.
And if the other R wing media outlets treated Clinton poorly has no bearing on this story, saying see they do it too is not really anything other than a slight of hand.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Whenever I'm home in time, I watch the ABC or NBC or CBS Evening News at 5:30pm (Central). Today was ABC. Like CNN, they hate America and the entire Trump administration, along with his proposals.

Hard to believe ABC was able to squeeze so much hate and negativism into a 20 minute newscast. (10 min of commercials) The news division directors, editors, and anchor David Muir, must collaborate for hours every day on how to compress as much negativism as possible into every newscast.

The unfortunate thing is that the upcoming lower tax-rates will benefit the imbeciles who own and work at CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYTimes, LATImes. I hope Trump's team figures out a way to punish the liberal MSM, instead of rewarding them.

Donald Trump's son said during an interview today that the liberal MSM will pay eventually. Not sure what he meant by that, but I hope it's more than with mere embarrassment, after Trump's policies really start working for all Americans.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I'm not saying it as a "slight of hand". I flat out said:


statistics like that are pointless unless viewed in context.

Without something to compare it to, it loses all meaning.

And you can't really call Fox a "newcomer" when it bragged that it's been the nation's top news channel for 14 years in a row (HERE). That point holds even less weight since you're talking about the current coverage of Trump's presidency, which has absolutely nothing to do with MSM from 50, 25., or even 10 years ago



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join