jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (28 posts)

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

  1. colorfulone profile image89
    colorfuloneposted 4 days ago

    A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

    Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

    They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

    Harvard Study:  https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard … edia-bias/

    I already knew it, but this pretty much says President Trump is right again.  The constant unfavorable bias negative crap has an influence on people's thinking.  Very negative thinking for many!

    Literally, there is a information war on for your mind.  Remember when Hillary Clinton was talking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, she was talking about an "information war" with Russia and China.  Yeppers!   US propaganda media is a joke in Russia and China now, or for anyone that is awake.

    "For those of you who are using this same media in your "hate Trump" message... grow up, grow a functional "something" above your brain stem. This is not Donald Trump run amok, this is the media and the Dems attempting a coup d'etat.  No matter what you think of Donald Trump, you cannot side with this."  ~ unknown

    1. promisem profile image93
      promisemposted 4 days ago in reply to this

      Please stop the propaganda from right-wing blogs. You have completely misrepresented the study, and I am being kind.

      According to the analysis, both candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump “received coverage that was overwhelmingly negative in tone and extremely light on policy.”

      Trump was covered slightly more negatively than Clinton over the course of the general election, with coverage being 77 percent negative to 23 percent positive compared to Clinton coverage running 64 percent negative to 36 percent positive coverage.

      But over the course of the entire campaign, Clinton was covered more negatively than Trump, with 62 percent negative and 38 percent positive coverage compared to Trump's coverage, which was 56 percent negative and 44 percent positive.

      Here is the link to the actual study and not another Breitbart wannabee:

      https://shorensteincenter.org/news-cove … =hootsuite

      1. colorfulone profile image89
        colorfuloneposted 4 days ago in reply to this

        So, it only took you 6 minutes to read the long version and the shortened version.  Please,  I'm being abundantly nice.  Try reading instead.  Its an interesting study if you take time to read and think.   -  Never mind!

        1. promisem profile image93
          promisemposted 4 days ago in reply to this

          The link is a quick read made up of mostly charts and graphs. What part of my post is wrong?

          1. colorfulone profile image89
            colorfuloneposted 4 days ago in reply to this

            The link to the study is right at the top of the blog. Did you read it, or the study?  Of course not!

            I wasn't going to post the whole study, its long, most people can read for them self and come to their own conclusion.  Its a very good study, you could take some time to read it.  I suppose that is what the blogger hoped readers would do, certainly I did too.

            1. promisem profile image93
              promisemposted 4 days ago in reply to this

              So now you are trying to redirect the conversation away from your original post about this huge Harvard study about the massive anti-Trump media bias.

              You also are trying to redirect the conversation away from your link to an article with the headline, "Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias".

              I posted the actual results of the study, a link to it and not a wildly inaccurate view of it.

              1. colorfulone profile image89
                colorfuloneposted 4 days ago in reply to this

                Are you joking?  I'm not trying to redirect anything, I think you are. 

                My redirect here:  One of my favorite lines from a movie...."Are you on drugs, or do you need to be?"

                1. promisem profile image93
                  promisemposted 4 days ago in reply to this

                  Did you post a link to the Harvard study or a right-wing blog with a secret owner? It's a simple question.

        2. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 4 days ago in reply to this

          Hello Colorfulone, I hope promisem won't mind if I step in on your response to him, but I did read both articles in full, and this seems like a great opportunity for a meaty response, (my favorite kind), to highlight the purposeful manipulate efforts of some  authors.

          From your Heatstreet article, this claim was made:

          "They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:"

          I would bet that most casual readers would take that just as you presented it.  "I already knew it, but this pretty much says President Trump is right again. " (as in his claims of Main Stream Media fake news?)

          But, but... that 98% figure for some outlets was actually 98% for one outlet; A German public-broadcasting outlet - ARD, in Germany! How many American voters do you think got their information, or were swayed by a German broadcasting outlet in Germany?

          A more accurate, (and more honest), summary point would have been the one promisem provided, from the Shorestein report;

          "Trump’s coverage during the general election was more negative than Clinton’s, running 77 percent, (not 98%), negative to 23 percent positive. But over the full course of the election, it was Clinton, not Trump, who was more often the target of negative coverage ...

          ... Overall, the coverage of her candidacy was 62 percent negative to 38 percent positive, while his coverage was 56 percent negative to 44 percent positive.


          Your comment about the corrosive effects of a constant negative bias is correct, and well worth a conversation of its own, but to lead with a weaponized article that tries to hide the fact that over the full campaign it was Hillary that was more negatively demonized than Trump, stole that point's credibility.

          That's quite a bit different from your OP's inferences. As promisem pointed out.

          GA

          1. colorfulone profile image89
            colorfuloneposted 4 days ago in reply to this

            Thanks GA!

            The tone as President Trump has pointed out is what I was referring to. 

            My apology for any misunderstanding.

            1. promisem profile image93
              promisemposted 4 days ago in reply to this

              I don't sense anything about tone in your headline: "Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias"

              When the study found that Clinton actually had more negative coverage than Trump.

          2. promisem profile image93
            promisemposted 4 days ago in reply to this

            GA, I always welcome your thoughts, even when we strongly disagree with each other. You force me to think harder.  smile

      2. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 4 days ago in reply to this

        I say, during the election,.we had two candidates who were the least fit to be candidates for that office. Their campaigns were mostly negative. I'm not surprised news outlets followed suit.

        1. promisem profile image93
          promisemposted 4 days ago in reply to this

          I agree.

        2. ahorseback profile image42
          ahorsebackposted 4 days ago in reply to this

          Except , you had one coronated candidate propped up by a completely biased media ,  a horribly overwritten  cover - up of mass corruption from the Clinton  Family foundation and  perhaps the most corrupted DNC ever  blowing Sanders completely out of the water  illegally .

          Against a candidate who beat out seventeen others legitimately .
          Big difference........ actually .

      3. crankalicious profile image86
        crankaliciousposted 4 days ago in reply to this

        Very similar to religion. An entire study was read, but only the stuff the reader wanted to believe is followed. Much like Christianity and other religions. People just follow the stuff they like and ignore all the rest.

        1. colorfulone profile image89
          colorfuloneposted 4 days ago in reply to this

          I suppose the liberal presstitutes in the corporate run media could be compared to a religious cult.  They are paid and told what they can or cannot report on, and if they dare cross the line they are thrown out of the fold (which would be a good thing). 

          Weird way of thinking about it, but I suppose you are on to something there.  In more ways than one. 

          Its kind of funny that one of my favorite journalists use to work for CNN.  The man has integrity, very intelligent and thinks for himself, so he had to go.  Doesn't get paid the big money now, but he still has his integrity intact and much respect.

          1. crankalicious profile image86
            crankaliciousposted 4 days ago in reply to this

            I think there's more of an analogy to modern religion. Most people who claim to be Christians haven't even read the Bible. They hear about the parts that seem interesting, but aren't aware of the many other parts. They talk about their own piety, but aren't really following the Bible as it was written. Then they claim some kind of superiority based on their faulty understanding of what constitutes being a good Christian.

            And I really shouldn't single out Christianity as it applies to Judaism, Islam, and others.

            1. promisem profile image93
              promisemposted 4 days ago in reply to this

              I agree about your point on fake Christians. In fact, I have quite an active post about it on Answers right now.

              Many people who still support Trump don't believe the FBI, CIA, NSA, British intelligence and a growing number of Republican members of Congress. I believe they fall into that same category.

        2. promisem profile image93
          promisemposted 4 days ago in reply to this

          Just for clarification, are you replying to her or me?

          1. crankalicious profile image86
            crankaliciousposted 4 days ago in reply to this

            Mostly her, but that's okay. You take your average religious person and tell them what's in their holy book and they'll say something like "oh, I don't believe in that stuff, only the stuff I like".

            1. promisem profile image93
              promisemposted 4 days ago in reply to this

              I agree. That said, we all have biases that color our perceptions, especially in religion and politics, myself included.

  2. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 4 days ago

    Let me understand this.

    Trump does uninformed, irresponsible things.
    The media covers it. 
    It sounds like a negative story.
    And the media is responsible for that - why?

    1. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 4 days ago in reply to this

      Do you think Trump was not getting informed intelligence briefings?
      Hopefully that has been stopped with Comey gone and other heads of intel replaced that were trying to sabotage him.

      I remember Harry Reid publicly saying that intelligence should give Trump disinformation in briefings.  Maybe that's why he left, he had to after saying something like that.  What an idiot.

      1. promisem profile image93
        promisemposted 4 days ago in reply to this

        If he is, he's not listening to them.

  3. ahorseback profile image42
    ahorsebackposted 3 days ago

    What a shock ;

    I am actually amazed that for  one , it takes a harvard study for some people to come to the realization that the Russian wing of the US  news media is totally compromised ,  two ,  I never attended college and I could read into that bias years ago when  a totally inexperienced King Obama was coronated into the senate  and the media immediately chose him for the next president , when  GW Bush was being demonized  for telling the truth , Bill Clinton was being  canonized for constantly lying ,  even up to the point when Hilary's glass ceiling was collapsing  over the heads of the news  desks all across America ,

    Majority media bias  ? NOOooooo, hey didn't all of the media minions attend college too ?  I never realized that the first requirement for  work in  the news media  was to be able to create fiction .You ?

    1. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 3 days ago in reply to this

      Why is the media barely covering them? (the Wikileaks)
      5.       Because almost 100% of mainstream media sources, as well as several prominent publishing news sources are implicated in the leaks in colluding with the Clinton campaign. These "news" sources (as you will find in the leaks below) have conspired to get Hillary elected, by only reporting anti-Trump smear pieces, manufacturing or exaggerating scandals, and hiding anything damaging to Hillary. Most are even donating big money to the Clinton campaign in order to keep the globalist status-quo. These revelations are the stories journalists dream of, but CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, Huffington Post, AP, and several more are all implicated in the leaks. This is why the media has been so one sided this election season, and why only 6% of people trust the mainstream media. Trump hasn't helped with some past comments, but as CNN said here, the media is doing everything they can to help Hillary and give her a free ride.

      Obama lied: he knew about Hillary’s secret server and wrote to her using a pseudonym, cover-up happened (intent to destroy evidence)
      “Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it in the news… we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov”
      “How is that not classified?” Huma Abedin to FBI when shown email between Clinton & Obama using his pseudonym. Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”

      Wikileaks has tons of most damaging original leaked emails that prove media collusion with Clinton.
      http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

      I expect the President to pull the plug on the media and the bad guys. 

      David Horowitz's site Discover The Networks
      http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/grou … grpid=7626

  4. ahorseback profile image42
    ahorsebackposted 3 days ago

    The newspaper media is a dying entity , they are desperate ,  the TV and net media is full of curtain  climbing  college grads  looking for sensationalism  to advance their names , the talking head anchors ?  Must be the money ?

    And they tell us its all about free speech .   I am all for evicting the WH press core  now ,  what good is "free speech" if it's mostly  phony and obstructionist speech ?

    I once felt that Wiki- leaks [Assange for one  ]should be charged with treason ,   Now I'm wondering  --------IF they stay ideologically balanced --   shouldn't they remain "in print " ,  Wiki-certainly  is interesting reading .

 
working