Harvard Study Reveals HUGE Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

a reply to: RickyD

So you don't know of any examples? You are just using this leak angle as a talking point. And you brought this point up. I expect you to defend it. I'm not going to go out and do your work for you.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Where are all those retractions printed...I haven't seen any and one would think they'd be posted about here if so...Considering the climate here.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Where are all those retractions printed...I haven't seen any and one would think they'd be posted about here if so...Considering the climate here.

Usually at the top of the article after it happens. They are pretty easy to see when they happen if you actually bothered to look. Though some news outlets like Fox News put them at the bottom of the article. Still easy to find as long as you read the whole article though.

Yea its a huge conspiracy, trump says dumb # and the media reports it, man trump and is tards love to play the victim.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Kryties

My goal? I'm Australian, I'm just looking in from an outside perspective and watching the carnage. Fail again.

Well then I'm glad you're enjoying your seat in the peanut gallery

Not so much enjoying it as sitting back aghast at the calamity unfolding over there - one as foreseeable, yet apparently unavoidable, as a train crash in slow motion.

And back to the OP, this slo-mo train wreck is being played out by the MSM. Personally, I'm aghast at the level of hysteria in everything they report. He's been getting the full-court press by the Mainstream Media like no other President in history. You can call out conservatives for obstructing Obama all you want but even when that was happening it wasn't the mainstream press doing it. In fact they were vocally condemning it.
Trump hasn't trampled on my rights or anybody else's. He can do no worse nor inflict any more damage than any other President we've ever had. He's one guy, and contrary to what they want you to believe he doesn't have that much power.
His gaffes and arrogant remarks won't change the fabric of this country and if he doesn't perform well he'll be out in four years, it's as simple as that.
Same as it ever was.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How about any of these??

Got evidence?

originally posted by: underwerks


When the media starts covering up the constant failures of Trump and starts talking roses and sunshine about this admin, that's when you should worry.

Like they did with Obama and Hillary?

That will never happen, and is the point of the OP.

Liao known as Liberal Media Bias.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Christosterone

I was just thinking, at what time does the bias become so one sided partisan before it crosses the line into political advertising? Maybe the FEC should look into this?

Normally they would try and keep things in balance so that it is 50/50 pro and against. They don't mention the past but just state the current problem and proposed solutions. They leave the investigation of the chain of command and events leading to the failure of a bank or corporation to the investigative journalists and documentaries.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How about any of these??

Got evidence?

Ok. This is what I was asking for in the first place. Let's see what we got:
For one this refutation is misleading:

"May 10, the Washington Post's Philip Rucker, Ashley Parker, Sari Horwitz, and Robert Costa claimed: '[Deputy Attorney General Rod J.] Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerging from the White House on Tuesday evening cast him as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey ... said the person close to the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter."

The next day Rosenstein said, "I'm not quitting."

Just because Rosenstein said he isn't quitting a day later doesn't mean that he didn't threaten to leave the previous day. He could have been bluffing.

But let's do the real easy one:

This week, two stories came out based on leaks by anonymous sources. The first concerned President Trump's supposed disclosure of inappropriate information during a meeting with the Russian foreign minister. On Tuesday, National Security Director General H.R. McMaster said in response, "The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time, at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known...It didn't happen."

www.cnbc.com...

The second such story concerned a memo Comey had written, but the reporter(s) had not seen. The memo, read by an anonymous source, was about Comey's meetings with President Trump.

It should also be noted that these two stories prompted the appointment of the Special Counsel and that the investigation is now a criminal investigation.
Rosenstein Briefing to Senate Suggests Russia Probe Now Criminal, Republican Senator Says

Whether the leaks are completely true or not remains to be seen, but there is plenty of smoke there to give them credence.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Yea its a huge conspiracy, trump says dumb # and the media reports it, man trump and is tards love to play the victim.

Wrong again.

The entire MSM climate is based off feeling the victim of a Trump presidency and throwing hysterical tantrums in response while fabricating one fake news piece after another.

you know, the GOP obstructing Obama, was because they ran on the platform that they would do just that,and the Dems lost big time numbers in both the house and senate. So those guys were doing what (at least in the regard to that one thing anyways) they said they would do.

That would indicate to me,that regardless of what the MSM was spewing, the actual people were pretty much sick of the crap that was going on and did something about it....or at least attempted to. Which is pretty much why Trump got elected, people did not want the Clintonistas to win, well most people except for Kalifornia and New York.

If you watch any mainstream news, read any mainstream papers etc, and you do not realise that it is without a doubt, blatantly biased against Trump then maybe you have had a lobotomy or are in extreme denial. Or possbily you just dont care because he isnt your guy and its fine for people to abuse their position to force their opinion on others and call it facts. In which case, maybe you NEED a lobotomy so as to not further dumb down the gene pool.

Like him or not, you should be just as worried about what is going on. precedent has been set, wait till your guy gets elected next time.

At this point Trump could cure all disease, invent free energy and pay off everyone's mortgages and the mainstream media would be reporting how he singlehandedly put hundreds of thousands of people out of work in the banking,pharmceutical and energy industries and how this will lead to rampant happiness and joy. They will go on down the line saying how the medical industry will be decimated because people wont have stress related illnesses anymore, criminals will retire whcih will cause police forces to be reduced blah blah. Not a word about how little johnny can now recover from his small cell lung cancer and go see the Yankees play the red Sox on his birthday with his dad that now has a lot more time onhis hands since he doesnt have to work 3 jobs to pay for the meds and a place to live.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How about any of these??

Got evidence?

Ok. This is what I was asking for in the first place. Let's see what we got:
For one this refutation is misleading:

"May 10, the Washington Post's Philip Rucker, Ashley Parker, Sari Horwitz, and Robert Costa claimed: '[Deputy Attorney General Rod J.] Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerging from the White House on Tuesday evening cast him as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey ... said the person close to the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter."

The next day Rosenstein said, "I'm not quitting."

Just because Rosenstein said he isn't quitting a day later doesn't mean that he didn't threaten to leave the previous day. He could have been bluffing.

So where is the evidence corroborating this being true...all i saw was you speculating it could have been.

But let's do the real easy one:

This week, two stories came out based on leaks by anonymous sources. The first concerned President Trump's supposed disclosure of inappropriate information during a meeting with the Russian foreign minister. On Tuesday, National Security Director General H.R. McMaster said in response, "The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time, at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known...It didn't happen."

www.cnbc.com...

from your article..."McMaster maintained that Trump did not do anything that would compromise national security, He also said that the president was not briefed on the intelligence source and that Trump did not reveal the sources or collection methods. The Post and other versions of the report did not claim that Trump had revealed sources." ....again we have no evidence he shared methods or sources only intel.

The second such story concerned a memo Comey had written, but the reporter(s) had not seen. The memo, read by an anonymous source, was about Comey's meetings with President Trump.

It should also be noted that these two stories prompted the appointment of the Special Counsel and that the investigation is now a criminal investigation.
Rosenstein Briefing to Senate Suggests Russia Probe Now Criminal, Republican Senator Says

Whether the leaks are completely true or not remains to be seen, but there is plenty of smoke there to give them credence.

Again where is the evidence?

So close...You failed 3 times in a row... GG see ya next time!

a reply to: RickyD

I can't prove they were true until it comes out saying they were true. I CAN give you supporting documentation and events that show the leaks are likely true. Though I can't think for you. If you want to flatly deny because the Trump admin denies the leaks are true then there is nothing I can post to change your mind. You only trust one source anyways.

What ISN'T true is that these leaks are all fake news.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Until there is any evidence what credibility do these reports have beyond speculation? Sure seems like the perfect way to make up something to hurt someone you disliked without any repercussions to me. You were very critical of anything that came out about Hillary like this yet you take it on good faith now. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

How can you say they're not fake if there is no evidence to prove them true?

a reply to: RickyD

Ok. It's time you stopped assuming things about me. You don't know me at all. First correction: I have not labeled Trump guilty of anything. Second correction: The only reason I support these leaks is because they create questions that need answers which can be done through an investigation. Third correction: I am willing to accept whatever outcome the investigation concludes because I am withholding judgement on guilt.

You seem to have confused my critical thinking skills for some #ty conservative whining about the evils of Obama.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What you are saying doesn't match up with what you have said...It's plain as day for anyone to see. I asked you to actually prove your point and you failed and started making excuses and getting upset cause I called you out. At this point I'm done as anyone who reads this far will see what I have seen of you...I played this out because it needed to be shown as you're one of those who I constantly see misrepresenting things here to suit your agenda...And I rarely see it called out in any manner that shows what your doing for what it is. Now I have and it's all here for anyone to see...Have a good one!

a reply to: RickyD

Fine. I wasn't expecting to change your mind anyways. You've demonstrated animosity towards me from word 1 and I see no reason to care what you think about me.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Christosterone

Can liberals see nothing good in Trumps actions?

For example?

The reason the media reports are negative is because almost everything Trump actually "does" is contrary, controversial, dangerous, objectionable and morally questionable.

The purpose of the "press" isn't to be cheerleaders for Trump.

So you are saying change is negative..contrary dangerous and everything else.

Weak scared individuals who have serious problems will not be heard much longer...but feel free to continue the bleating.

Sorry but left leaners have no more reason than anyone else...you are NOT on the path to salvation..evolution or whatever else.

You are now a religion to be scoffed at and tossed aside along WITH the religions..since you offer NOTHING but fear and wanting god knows what.

Pendulum swing alone dictates your movement will crumble...it is now well underway.

Fox News' 52% negative articles on Trump? Should I be worried?

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Yea its a huge conspiracy, trump says dumb # and the media reports it, man trump and is tards love to play the victim.

Wrong again.

The entire MSM climate is based off feeling the victim of a Trump presidency and throwing hysterical tantrums in response while fabricating one fake news piece after another.

Trump says dumb # and you guys make up excuses, pretty simple really.

A witch hunt lol, what is this the 17th century.