Can the MSM be punished for their "election tampering"?

a reply to: DJW001

So "P" is just likelihood to vote. And the liberal elitist media had labelled republicans and libertarians a bunch of "stupid" "racist" "bigots".

Got anymore non-news for us to consider?

No the courts already ruled that Fox News is entertainment and not news so they can lie all they want.

a reply to: damwel

Huh?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Over 90% of the coverage of Trump was negative.

You've got some sort of research study that proves this, I assume?

originally posted by: damwel
No the courts already ruled that Fox News is entertainment and not news so they can lie all they want.

Did you get that fake info from Jezebel or something? Theres reason democrats are the party of the poor and it's not because you guys are savvy or wise. Back of the bus you go.

www.snopes.com...

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Over 90% of the coverage of Trump was negative.

You've got some sort of research study that proves this, I assume?

We all know it's true Greggers. We don't have to wait for some loser communications grad students to tell us what we in fact all witnessed. That majority of trump coverage save fox was negative.

On topic I hope CNN is punished harshly and would be excastic if isis or anyone else blew up these building while they were all inside of it.

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Over 90% of the coverage of Trump was negative.

You've got some sort of research study that proves this, I assume?

We all know it's true Greggers. We don't have to wait for some loser communications grad students to tell us what we in fact all witnessed. That majority of trump coverage save fox was negative.

Every time I turned on CNN (one of the most commonly cited BIASED networks) there was a free for all debate between pro-Hillary and pro-Trump people.

Seems to me if Trump looked bad, it was because Trump *was* bad. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The networks are mostly interested in ratings.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Over 90% of the coverage of Trump was negative.

You've got some sort of research study that proves this, I assume?

Correct:

Documenting 12 weeks of Trump bashing
How the press failed the voters

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Over 90% of the coverage of Trump was negative.

You've got some sort of research study that proves this, I assume?

We all know it's true Greggers. We don't have to wait for some loser communications grad students to tell us what we in fact all witnessed. That majority of trump coverage save fox was negative.

Every time I turned on CNN (one of the most commonly cited BIASED networks) there was a free for all debate between pro-Hillary and pro-Trump people.

Seems to me if Trump looked bad, it was because Trump *was* bad. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The networks are mostly interested in ratings.

If it was a one v one debate the the moderator host was often biased against trump. If it was a panel the non partisan experts like Gloria Berger (huge loser) were biased against trump. A lot had to do with trumps brash attitude that they thought was more imoortant than jobs or Syria but biased nonetheless. All good though as Trump lived by the sword.

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Over 90% of the coverage of Trump was negative.

You've got some sort of research study that proves this, I assume?

We all know it's true Greggers. We don't have to wait for some loser communications grad students to tell us what we in fact all witnessed. That majority of trump coverage save fox was negative.

Every time I turned on CNN (one of the most commonly cited BIASED networks) there was a free for all debate between pro-Hillary and pro-Trump people.

Seems to me if Trump looked bad, it was because Trump *was* bad. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The networks are mostly interested in ratings.

If it was a one v one debate the the moderator host was often biased against trump. If it was a panel the non partisan experts like Gloria Berger (huge loser) were biased against trump. A lot had to do with trumps brash attitude that they thought was more imoortant than jobs or Syria but biased nonetheless. All good though as Trump lived by the sword.

Either way it wasn't news. Nothing any of these networks do can be characterized as news. It's all entertainment.

And Trump's sin was that he was entertaining, in the same way Archie Bunker was entertaining. Well, that's not his only sin, but it's why he got the coverage he got.

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Over 90% of the coverage of Trump was negative.

You've got some sort of research study that proves this, I assume?

We all know it's true Greggers. We don't have to wait for some loser communications grad students to tell us what we in fact all witnessed. That majority of trump coverage save fox was negative.

Every time I turned on CNN (one of the most commonly cited BIASED networks) there was a free for all debate between pro-Hillary and pro-Trump people.

Seems to me if Trump looked bad, it was because Trump *was* bad. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The networks are mostly interested in ratings.

If it was a one v one debate the the moderator host was often biased against trump. If it was a panel the non partisan experts like Gloria Berger (huge loser) were biased against trump. A lot had to do with trumps brash attitude that they thought was more imoortant than jobs or Syria but biased nonetheless. All good though as Trump lived by the sword.

Plus, in a panel discussion, there were also people biased against Clinton.
Because arguments are good for ratings.

Now it could be that the pro-Trump panelists spent more time defending Trump than attacking Clinton. I'm not really sure, but it would make sense -- and that phenomena goes on still today. Just look at the way Trump's confidants have to spend time covering up his Twitter blunders, even today.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Correct:

Documenting 12 weeks of Trump bashing
How the press failed the voters

Very useful. Thanks!

These two put together really help tell the tale:

Okay now factor the amount of coverage:


Which basically means there was round the clock Trump hitpieces being pumped out by the Establishment Propaganda Fronts, the same people going to lecture everyone about "influencing" elections.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Over 90% of the coverage of Trump was negative.

You've got some sort of research study that proves this, I assume?

We all know it's true Greggers. We don't have to wait for some loser communications grad students to tell us what we in fact all witnessed. That majority of trump coverage save fox was negative.

Every time I turned on CNN (one of the most commonly cited BIASED networks) there was a free for all debate between pro-Hillary and pro-Trump people.

Seems to me if Trump looked bad, it was because Trump *was* bad. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The networks are mostly interested in ratings.

If it was a one v one debate the the moderator host was often biased against trump. If it was a panel the non partisan experts like Gloria Berger (huge loser) were biased against trump. A lot had to do with trumps brash attitude that they thought was more imoortant than jobs or Syria but biased nonetheless. All good though as Trump lived by the sword.

Now it could be that the pro-Trump panelists spent more time defending Trump than attacking Clinton. I'm not really sure, but it would make sense -- and that phenomena goes on still today. Just look at the way Trump's confidants have to spend time covering up his Twitter blunders, even today.

This was a lot of it, spurred by a biased media that thought cat grabbing was more important than pay to play.

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Over 90% of the coverage of Trump was negative.

You've got some sort of research study that proves this, I assume?

We all know it's true Greggers. We don't have to wait for some loser communications grad students to tell us what we in fact all witnessed. That majority of trump coverage save fox was negative.

Every time I turned on CNN (one of the most commonly cited BIASED networks) there was a free for all debate between pro-Hillary and pro-Trump people.

Seems to me if Trump looked bad, it was because Trump *was* bad. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The networks are mostly interested in ratings.

If it was a one v one debate the the moderator host was often biased against trump. If it was a panel the non partisan experts like Gloria Berger (huge loser) were biased against trump. A lot had to do with trumps brash attitude that they thought was more imoortant than jobs or Syria but biased nonetheless. All good though as Trump lived by the sword.

Now it could be that the pro-Trump panelists spent more time defending Trump than attacking Clinton. I'm not really sure, but it would make sense -- and that phenomena goes on still today. Just look at the way Trump's confidants have to spend time covering up his Twitter blunders, even today.

This was a lot of it, spurred by a biased media that thought cat grabbing was more important than pay to play.

I gotta be honest. I don't think any of the cable networks in particular care about what's important. They care about headlines and ratings. And cat grabbing certainly is more titillating than pay to play.

The other thing to keep in mind is that "pay to play" (which was one of a handful of legitimate discoveries lurking in the hacked emails) were HARDER to cover because they required actual investigative reporting. Cat grabbing didn't require anything except rolling the video clip and acting aghast.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Over 90% of the coverage of Trump was negative.

You've got some sort of research study that proves this, I assume?

We all know it's true Greggers. We don't have to wait for some loser communications grad students to tell us what we in fact all witnessed. That majority of trump coverage save fox was negative.

Every time I turned on CNN (one of the most commonly cited BIASED networks) there was a free for all debate between pro-Hillary and pro-Trump people.

Seems to me if Trump looked bad, it was because Trump *was* bad. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The networks are mostly interested in ratings.

If it was a one v one debate the the moderator host was often biased against trump. If it was a panel the non partisan experts like Gloria Berger (huge loser) were biased against trump. A lot had to do with trumps brash attitude that they thought was more imoortant than jobs or Syria but biased nonetheless. All good though as Trump lived by the sword.

Now it could be that the pro-Trump panelists spent more time defending Trump than attacking Clinton. I'm not really sure, but it would make sense -- and that phenomena goes on still today. Just look at the way Trump's confidants have to spend time covering up his Twitter blunders, even today.

This was a lot of it, spurred by a biased media that thought cat grabbing was more important than pay to play.

I gotta be honest. I don't think any of the cable networks in particular care about what's important. They care about headlines and ratings. And cat grabbing certainly is more titillating than pay to play.

The other thing to keep in mind is that "pay to play" (which was one of a handful of legitimate discoveries lurking in the hacked emails) were HARDER to cover because they required actual investigative reporting. Cat grabbing didn't require anything except rolling the video clip and acting aghast.

I agree. I think we forget really how stupid and disinterested the populace and electorate are and how it consumes news but msm doesn't.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Over 90% of the coverage of Trump was negative.

You've got some sort of research study that proves this, I assume?

We all know it's true Greggers. We don't have to wait for some loser communications grad students to tell us what we in fact all witnessed. That majority of trump coverage save fox was negative.

Every time I turned on CNN (one of the most commonly cited BIASED networks) there was a free for all debate between pro-Hillary and pro-Trump people.

Seems to me if Trump looked bad, it was because Trump *was* bad. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The networks are mostly interested in ratings.

If it was a one v one debate the the moderator host was often biased against trump. If it was a panel the non partisan experts like Gloria Berger (huge loser) were biased against trump. A lot had to do with trumps brash attitude that they thought was more imoortant than jobs or Syria but biased nonetheless. All good though as Trump lived by the sword.

Now it could be that the pro-Trump panelists spent more time defending Trump than attacking Clinton. I'm not really sure, but it would make sense -- and that phenomena goes on still today. Just look at the way Trump's confidants have to spend time covering up his Twitter blunders, even today.

This was a lot of it, spurred by a biased media that thought cat grabbing was more important than pay to play.

I gotta be honest. I don't think any of the cable networks in particular care about what's important. They care about headlines and ratings. And cat grabbing certainly is more titillating than pay to play.

The other thing to keep in mind is that "pay to play" (which was one of a handful of legitimate discoveries lurking in the hacked emails) were HARDER to cover because they required actual investigative reporting. Cat grabbing didn't require anything except rolling the video clip and acting aghast.

This is a great example of why you are worthy of respect. You don't glance over facts to push your agenda.
Great post.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoeNutter

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Over 90% of the coverage of Trump was negative.

You've got some sort of research study that proves this, I assume?

We all know it's true Greggers. We don't have to wait for some loser communications grad students to tell us what we in fact all witnessed. That majority of trump coverage save fox was negative.

Every time I turned on CNN (one of the most commonly cited BIASED networks) there was a free for all debate between pro-Hillary and pro-Trump people.

Seems to me if Trump looked bad, it was because Trump *was* bad. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The networks are mostly interested in ratings.

If it was a one v one debate the the moderator host was often biased against trump. If it was a panel the non partisan experts like Gloria Berger (huge loser) were biased against trump. A lot had to do with trumps brash attitude that they thought was more imoortant than jobs or Syria but biased nonetheless. All good though as Trump lived by the sword.

Now it could be that the pro-Trump panelists spent more time defending Trump than attacking Clinton. I'm not really sure, but it would make sense -- and that phenomena goes on still today. Just look at the way Trump's confidants have to spend time covering up his Twitter blunders, even today.

This was a lot of it, spurred by a biased media that thought cat grabbing was more important than pay to play.

I gotta be honest. I don't think any of the cable networks in particular care about what's important. They care about headlines and ratings. And cat grabbing certainly is more titillating than pay to play.

The other thing to keep in mind is that "pay to play" (which was one of a handful of legitimate discoveries lurking in the hacked emails) were HARDER to cover because they required actual investigative reporting. Cat grabbing didn't require anything except rolling the video clip and acting aghast.

This is a great example of why you are worthy of respect. You don't glance over facts to push your agenda.
Great post.

Thank you, kind sir.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

So "P" is just likelihood to vote. And the liberal elitist media had labelled republicans and libertarians a bunch of "stupid" "racist" "bigots".

So you didn't read the part of creating a "safe space" for bigots?

a reply to: DJW001

You just can help yourself can you?

YES, they used the PC term "safe space", in reference to courting votes whom the MSM have labelled "stupid" "bigots" (which is everyone whom is anti-PC according to PC narratives).