Harvard Study Reveals HUGE Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Yes. That was one story out of hundreds of stories. They aren't all about ice cream and harping on the one really shows how disingenuous you are being.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Christosterone

What exactly is there to say positively about Donald Trump that would swing these numbers the other way in the first place?

How about this? - he isn't Hillary.
The scumbag Leftist MSM wanted their scumbag Queen to have her coronation, they basically banked their reputations on her winning and now they are the laughing stock of biased reporting.
Half of them were reporting 2 days before the election that Hillary had a 70% or better chance of winning
They will try to do everything they can to try to swing the minds of the people against him, no matter what he does that is good.
Hell...if Trump cured cancer, these slobs would still bitch about him.

a reply to: underpass61

What about the Obama presidency to this point has anything to do with Trump's? Nothing? Well, not exactly *nothing* because a month after taking office, the Tea Party was kicked off by a member of the media and then extensively supported by Fox News and other right-wing outlets.

The attacks on Obama at this point were what? That he was a secret Muslim here to impose sharia law? Leading an "apology tour?"

If Obama had convened a meeting of leaders from predominately Muslims nations, the Right would have lost its collective s#. I can see the headline for the top story on Drudge now:

"Obama Forms New Muslim League To Replace UN"

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Christosterone

What exactly is there to say positively about Donald Trump that would swing these numbers the other way in the first place?

How about this? - he isn't Hillary.
The scumbag Leftist MSM wanted their scumbag Queen to have her coronation, they basically banked their reputations on her winning and now they are the laughing stock of biased reporting.
Half of them were reporting 2 days before the election that Hillary had a 70% or better chance of winning
They will try to do everything they can to try to swing the minds of the people against him, no matter what he does that is good.
Hell...if Trump cured cancer, these slobs would still bitch about him.

Not-Hillary.
Trumps legacy. You guys must be so proud.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
I see it as we all just want some real news for a change.

Real news like what? Show us examples of what the media SHOULD be reporting on about Trump.

They only want to see crap like this :

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not even denying or speaking about anything other than your blaten hypocritical comments based off your double standard. Nice try to deflect that though.

ETa: in case you're confused which you seem to be... Anonymous sources are not evidence at all...Just speculation and usually outright manufactured BS.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Christosterone

What exactly is there to say positively about Donald Trump that would swing these numbers the other way in the first place?

How about this? - he isn't Hillary.

So we are supposed to read 4 years of articles saying that Trump isn't Hillary? That sounds uninformative and petty to me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you fail to see the point I'm making, which is they are absolutely biased and have no integrity whatsoever, those 2 scoops should prove it. Well..

I don't know, how about reporting how there has been a surge in immigrant arrest?

Or even how illegal immigrants crossing the border have dropped even without the wall?

But 2 scoops.

It has nothing to do with the 2 scoops story itself if you actually see the point I'm trying to make.

a reply to: [post=22249358]Christosterone[/p
Well if there is nothing positive to report on then of course it's all negative. This isn't rocket science. Do positive things, stop with the fear mongering, and finger pointing and maybe the coverage would change. Until then this is how it is and should be.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not even denying or speaking about anything other than your blaten hypocritical comments based off your double standard. Nice try to deflect that though.

So you admit to taking the topic off topic to attack me then? Gotcha.

a reply to: RazorV66

Perhaps if Trump actually did something good - like anything really - then the media would report positively on that.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

No. I don't see the point you are poorly trying to make. All I see is you just regurgitating tired conservative talking points like they should mean something in a critical debate.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

Except this isn't a conspiracy and is real wether you want to believe in it or not.

Doesn't need to be a complicated theory when it really is this simple. We aren't saying you can't scrutinized him, but almost 100 percent of the time?

Yes. A shady real estate developer who is famous for lying and twisting the truth to get what he wants deserves to be scrutinized 100% of the time if he is elected president of the United States. No matter what political party he claims at the moment.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So let me clarify my point again as clear as possible so you can refute it again.

If a news network like CNN, is in fact not biased, and it is all Trump's fault, why would they report 2 scoops of ice cream?

Because Trump is a spoiled narcissistic baby?

Or because CNN just hates Trump?

when trump over and over called the media the "enemy of the American people" in public speeches,...what did trumps supporters think would happen?.....did they think that the media would back up trump and agree that they are?....hello?....any brain matter out there?

a reply to: underwerks

Thank you for admitting that you would rather have bias journalism based on a man's history.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If a news network like CNN, is in fact not biased, and it is all Trump's fault, why would they report 2 scoops of ice cream?

Ever heard of the term "slow news day" before? But no it's gotta be the most melodramatic bs you can think of instead. Lol. Like I said earlier, you are just proving yourself to be disingenuous.

a reply to: Christosterone

I want to see the comparison between the two campaigns. It's ironic, both candidates are corrupt as hell but the one who might get indicted seemed to have far more favorable press.


Trump sucks. Did the media start the war and/or did Trump know it was coming so he flipped it to his advantage. Bad press is better than none, especially when half the country specifically wants the other candidate to lose.


Too much corruption and collusion and we are no were near ready to take this country back... smh : /

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And making excuses for CNN calling it a slow news day isn't being disingenuous?

Get real.

My main point is the news is without a doubt biased towards Trump. This is an undeniable fact and anyone deflecting this needs to reflect in front of a mirror.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

Thank you for admitting that you would rather have bias journalism based on a man's history.

So, wanting a shady businessman to be held accountable for his words and actions once they are in government is a bias?

This is a whole new level of Republithink.