Harvard Study Reveals HUGE Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gargamel

I don't recall ever making that point or even insinuating it.

Do you agree that an anonymous source should be backed up with facts? Did you not say that Trump's followers blindly listened without vetting the information? It seems to me you are fine with anonymous sources not being vetted but require Trump followers to vett information that they read. Am I misunderstanding what you have said?

I think I understand the breakdown here. You are making an assumption that these sources aren't vetted just because they are anonymous. Furthermore, there are times when Trump comes out and confirms a leak after the fact, which gives credence to the credibility of these leakers. I've yet to see a Trump supporter change their mind on a leak even when Trump confirms it. They usually attempt to spin it so he is saying something else.

I am not assuming that the sources are not vetted. I do not see any corroborating evidence other than the anonymous source. If in fact these sources where vetted there should be evidence that backs up the narrative.

Well that's because the sources are protecting themselves. Trump has declared that he is looking to prosecute the leakers. So they have to protect their skin.

I don't need to see the name of the anonymous source. However, I would like to see evidence that can uphold the narrative. As Ricky D said, without evidence it is hearsay.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheScale

I'm not giving CNN (seriously stop pretending like that story was written by all the press, it only appeared on CNN) a free pass. That's why I used the term "slow news day". I'm explaining why CNN wrote a ridiculous story because they didn't have anything better to write about. I'm not defending it or agreeing with it. I'm just stating why it happened.

but wouldnt running such a story kinda back up the whole premise of this thread. that they are generally biased in the negative towards trump and any opportunity that presents itself will be used to promote that negativity

a reply to: Gargamel

And I can't produce evidence to anything unless you supply what you want for evidence. Being vague and declaring victory like you two are doing is just telling me you aren't open to change your opinion.

a reply to: TheScale

The premise of the thread is that the media is the same as state run media in a dictatorship because it is always negative of the sitting President (of course that statement alone is pure hypocrisy).

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: TheScale

It's called GIMP not "Gump"

One has to wonder how good you were with the program when you are unsure of its name.

I have spent years in Photoshop and know all about layering and compiling and I saw no evidence of that in the scan. What I did see evidence of was the automatic character recognition placing white outlines around the text which is normal - but people erroneously thought it was proof of it being faked.

like i said ive used it for maybe 12 hours. it was years ago. i didnt say the story was legitimate just that there was some smoke there even by your own admission. fyi i meant gimp just hit the wrong key. it is right next 2 "I"

What "smoke"? There was no smoke at all - except erroneous claims that the white outlines somehow constituted proof of it being faked when in fact anyone with any knowledge on the subject knows that automatic character recognition during scanning produces that effect.

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Christosterone

Here's a novel thought:

If Trump stopped doing stupid, dangerous and objectionable things then perhaps the media wouldn't need to report it?

All I'm seeing is Trump supporters constantly crying that Trump isn't getting away with doing whatever he pleases.

All we see are leftists making up lies and pushing it as fact over MSM channels to dumb down their supporters. Not our fault you pushed a vile corrupt candidate that lost to Donald Trump out of all people. Plus I don't see it as whining at all. I see it as we all just want some real news for a change. Its just to bad the leftists won't accept that they lost and they can try again in 4 years. Instead its lets bring this whole country down so we can stop Trump from pushing conservative policy and taking away from the nanny state.

So, you won't be happy until the US has insanely pro-government news, like say, North Korea?
Interesting point of view.

Could you please point out where I said all I want is pro government news?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How bout evidence to any of the stories attacking trump over anonymous source reports...Any of those...

Hint: You wont find any because if you did you'd be doing better than any of the investigators currently looking for said evidence...And trump would be heading off to impeachment hearings.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheScale

The premise of the thread is that the media is the same as state run media in a dictatorship because it is always negative of the sitting President (of course that statement alone is pure hypocrisy).

. imo it shows me the same thing i thought in the last administration. the majority of the media is liberal leaning about 5 out of 6 of the main owners. so it kinda backs it up that when one of their own are in office they support him, when its the opposition in the office they do everything in their power to oppose him. the fox numbers (the one conservative network) show that they are generally lenient while one of their own is in office while the other networks that are liberal go the other way. which just kinda proves we shouldnt really take much of what either side says srsly without knowing that bias exists and will be portrayed in what they report.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How bout evidence to any of the stories attacking trump over anonymous source reports...Any of those...

How about you be specific?

a reply to: TheScale

I'm not debating the study. I'm sure it is correct and well researched. I'm just disputing the OP's ridiculous idea that the media is the same as the media in a dictatorship because it is mean to Trump. I don't feel like the study supports that conclusion. Yes the media is biased and yes left leaning news sources are more negative towards Trump than right leaning ones, but Trump's negative press is mostly of his own making (even Fox News is over 50% negative reporting) and the minority party can't be the heads of a state run media outlet...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That was specific...I even left it open ended so you can pick which report based on anonymous sources to prove with the evidence that backs up the report and source. Just pick any report that sourced anonymous sources that is also attacking/negative of trump and show me where the evidence is that corroborates what that source told the reporter.

I think you are being difficult about it because you know you can't. Literally if you could you better get on the phone with a senator on the investigation or the FBI cause you'll have done more than they could so far.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The media isn't just mean to trump they're libelous towards him...

a reply to: RickyD

No. It was just as vague as your first statement. I want you to name one story where a leaker said something. Then I will go look for supporting evidence of that claim. I'm not going to evidence dump for every leak that has plagued the Trump admin. I don't like you enough to do that.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The media isn't just mean to trump they're libelous towards him...

1st Amendment says otherwise. Plus there are no federal libel laws. Try again.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So if they vetted the sources then they found some evidence to back up the sources stories right? So where is that evidence?

That depends on which story you are looking for evidence for.

Also I didn't immediately catch this, but is that not you admitting there are stories sourcing anonymous sources without any evidence that have been used to attack trump?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Does not change the meaning of libel and how it applies here...So what's your point?

a reply to: RickyD

No. It's me expecting you to list a story or a group of stories I can go research and see if there is evidence for. I am not making any claims on provided evidence for any stories one way or the other until you give me that list. The longer you continue to be vague, the longer it tells me that you aren't looking to deny ignorance on this subject, only be as partisan and obtuse as possible.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I didn't ask for every story I said just pick one...That's not hard to understand and if you can dump so much evidence to back up said sources surely you could just pick one and show me that to prove how I'm wrong here right?

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Does not change the meaning of libel and how it applies here...So what's your point?

It's still a lie because the media tells the truth more often then not about Trump. Usually when it is wrong it is because they jumped the gun on a story without all the facts first. But when that happens they print a retraction. So no, that isn't libel. That is unless you don't understand how libel works.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well I and im sure most people reading this will assume you can't which will suffice for me.