Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Would you say 50/50 positive/negative is fair media coverage
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 37
| visibility 783

Would you say 50/50 positive/negative is fair media coverage


Apr 19, 2019, 8:57 AM

or not? Stop calling Fox an echo chamber, Trump shill or saying Fox is in the tank for Trump. Those are lies, brash and blatant. Mind you, this is a Harvard Kennedy school report not a Fox 'Get in touch with reality,' opinion piece.




https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/


2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Would you say 50/50 positive/negative is fair media coverage


Apr 19, 2019, 9:04 AM

Pretty much proves what we already know. Fox is just in the tank for Trump. All of the other news sources in the US and abroad know that Trump isn't fit for office.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

That's what you got out of the chart?


Apr 19, 2019, 9:09 AM

You ignored the analysis by not reading the article and didn't appreciate all the work that went into that chart. All it proves is that media coverage of Trump wasn't fair and balanced. If you'll read the article you'll notice a professional unbiased assessment of news entities and their unbalanced reporting.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: That's what you got out of the chart?


Apr 19, 2019, 9:14 AM

It shows that most of the media report negatively about Trump most of the time. Yep as tbey should. It shows that Fox is in the tank for Trump.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So giving both sides of a story is in the tank?


Apr 19, 2019, 9:58 AM

Dood, where's your reason and logic?

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Yes, cause Trump is EVIL, therefore if you aren't


Apr 19, 2019, 10:13 AM

trying to impeach him as a news org, then you aren't doing your job as a fake news organization.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg2005_majors_champ.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-xtiger.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Although I agree that you can’t take a chart like that and just say


Apr 19, 2019, 12:59 PM [ in reply to Re: That's what you got out of the chart? ]

“Well, Fox News is fair...50/50”, I also think it’s completely disingenuous to say that they are in the tank for Trump because other news agencies are constantly bashing him. To me, that is more damning to the ones bashing him. Again, I offer in support of this position the fact that right now, life is pretty good for most Americans. Trump gets the beatings he deserves for being a garbage human being, but the job market, economic growth and avoidance of questionable overseas entanglements alone should get Trump more positive accolades. But they don’t...because most media outlets (in my opinion) are incapable of being unbiased regarding the current POTUS.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

null


My analysis from reviewing Fox coverage of Trump is...


Apr 19, 2019, 1:34 PM

that they positives on their news broadcast, Smith, Cavuto and Bier is that the positive stories are nearly always on those topics you noted. The Harvard study didn't include the opinion shows like Hannity, Ingraham and Carlson. At times I can't sit though a Hannity or Carlson program for the personality of Carlson and the domination of the air time by Hannity. Both have progressive liberal guest but they talk so much you can't figure out what the guest is saying.

I'm not a Fox shill. I just think it's dumb to think the media which spent two years saying Trump committed treason is the only trusted source of news. I also didn't like the way they convicted that kid from Covington Catholic of being a trouble making racist. Even in light of the truth they continue to push a lie.

I'm delighted that the kid has filed suit against some of them who were the worst at smearing his name. I hope he gets the rest of those lying spin doctors before it's over.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Would you say 50/50 positive/negative is fair media coverage


Apr 19, 2019, 10:21 AM [ in reply to Re: Would you say 50/50 positive/negative is fair media coverage ]

Fox might be pro-Trump but there are 4 or 5 other channels functioning as the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party in this country. Two of these channels employ ex-CIA and NSA intel officers. This country is purposely being divided, and not just along political ideology, you must also include Race, Religious beliefs, Economic, etc. This is how countries are rotted from the inside out.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Give Smith a try. He's on Fox at 3PM then...


Apr 19, 2019, 1:37 PM

check our Baier at 6. Baier doesn't spin much and Smith hates Trump.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

this would be like doing 50/50 fair and balanced coverage


Apr 19, 2019, 9:08 AM

on the existence of bigfoot. Sure, nice to see you lend weight to both sides, but it is still utterly nonsensical to even attempt to do so.

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Read the report, dummy.


Apr 19, 2019, 9:14 AM

Sean is an opinion person not a new broadcaster. The study dealt only with reporting not opinions.

If you want to compare opinions you're always going to get spin. You might want to check and see which pure opinion shows were correct about collusion for the last two years too. That alone should help you separate the wheat from the chaff. The MSM was blowing smoke up your asz for two years and you don't seem at all offended. If you had a good fart now you'd set off a five alarm fire.

Admit it, that's funny.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Read the report, dummy.


Apr 19, 2019, 10:01 AM

he is trumps state sponsored propagandist, normally we see this in banana republics.

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Trump is buying air time on Hannity?


Apr 19, 2019, 1:38 PM

You just throw chit against the wall to see what sticks.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Trump is buying air time on Hannity?


Apr 20, 2019, 11:16 AM

You are obviously overwhelmed, take as much time as you need in your safe space.

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

How do they measure tone?


Apr 19, 2019, 2:22 PM [ in reply to Read the report, dummy. ]

and further, I'm not arguing this is the same thing, I'm more doing a reductio ad absurdum sort of thing. but...

If 50% of the coverage of Pearl Harbor had a positive tone, would that have been evidence of fairness or reality?

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-fordprefect.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I don't think of it as much tone as spitting the air time...


Apr 19, 2019, 2:58 PM

between new stories which are positive and negative toward a subject. It seems the MSM gives no air time to unemployment being at a historical low, markets doing well and other economic factors without proclamations that Obama should get credit for the progress.

Trump's economic attack on Russia by increasing oil productions thereby exercising control over the cost of oil is counter to Russian profits. Selling arms to Ukraine to defend off Russia is another example of his confounding Putin. He also should be getting credit for taking land ISIS called a caliphate.

Neither of these positives to American interest are discussed in proper perspective by the main stream media. CNN's viewership fell to half a million after Barr's announcement that Trump didn't conspire with Russia in order to help him win the election.

Maybe you guys are right. Maybe the arms sale, oil production increase, total trouncing of ISIS and domestic economic factors are not attributable to Trump. Maybe he has no interest in the betterment of America.

The MSM doesn't address those issues in positive light. Maybe I'm an ignorant hillbilly who thinks all those things are positive when they are really bad for all of us.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Not Necessarily - is 50:50 in OJs not guilty verdict fair?***


Apr 19, 2019, 9:11 AM



badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Evidently, half the jury believed that DNA was...


Apr 19, 2019, 9:16 AM

a rap video star.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Would you say 50/50 positive/negative is fair media coverage


Apr 19, 2019, 10:06 AM

I love the argument that "everyone else is wrong and I am right!" Yep, the whole world sucks and Fox is right. It can't possibly be that they are biased and refuse to see what the rest of the world sees.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

wait, these other news orgs were the wrong one's, no?


Apr 19, 2019, 10:15 AM

They all did the 24/7 , Trump should be hung for Treason, Russian collusion thing for 2+ years.

That was FALSE!!! Let me repeat, those were blatant LIES and FALSE.
There was ZERO Russian collusion.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg2005_majors_champ.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-xtiger.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: wait, these other news orgs were the wrong one's, no?


Apr 19, 2019, 11:07 AM

Oh, come on. Stop being so hyperbolic. Claiming they "all did" 24/7 is pure BS. Every station reported on the investigation. Every station brought in their panel of opinion people to talk about it. That is what happened for two years.

There was more than sufficient evidence to investigate and we should all be glad they did.

You say they found ZERO Russian collusion but that is not what the report says. It says they could not establish conspiracy with Russia but made no determination on collusion. It goes on to point out that at the very least there was an attempt to collude. That is nowhere near "FALSE" or "blatant LIES and FALSE" as you claim.

It also doesn't clear him from obstruction but provides the evidence needed to pursue it if congress chooses to do so. I doubt they would as Dems don’t have the numbers needed. For the moment they have the most to gain by leaving him in place and using his unpopularity against him in the next election. Maybe his numbers will recovery enough to give him a second term but I doubt it.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You should read the report instead of letting your...


Apr 19, 2019, 1:20 PM

knees jerk like a msturbating blue jay.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Would you say 50/50 positive/negative is fair media coverage


Apr 19, 2019, 10:13 AM

It’s not a matter of pos/neg. Its about truth versus propaganda, and almost all Cable news is propaganda including FOX.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Graphic is spot on


Apr 19, 2019, 12:15 PM

-Nikoli

2005_ncaa_champ.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I've been wrong two times, but this isn't one of them.


New is not positive or negative.


Apr 19, 2019, 12:44 PM

News is what is.

Opinions are positive or negative.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I don't recall a time when news was delivered without...


Apr 19, 2019, 1:22 PM

political spin and I've tried to keep current for well over 45 years.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Yes.***


Apr 20, 2019, 6:33 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

My admittedly obscure point...


Apr 20, 2019, 6:54 AM [ in reply to I don't recall a time when news was delivered without... ]

Is that news shouldn't be "positive" or "negative" or "fair" or "unfair". It is whatever is fact.

The opinion shows can be fair or unfair, depending on how you define that. I don't think an automatic definition of "fair" is equal parts positive and negative. For example, "fair" coverage of the 9/11 attacks is probably mostly negative. "Fair" coverage of Clemson's national championship is probably mostly positive.

I don't think any of these outlets are in the business of being "fair," anyway. They want to make money.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Would you say 50/50 positive/negative is fair media coverage


Apr 19, 2019, 1:35 PM

No. I can't imagine thinking a positive/negative ratio is the standard for fairness. The standard is reporting the truth.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Tribal equivocation...***


Apr 19, 2019, 2:12 PM



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


It also says that Pubs accounted for 80% of what was said


Apr 19, 2019, 3:44 PM

From the study: “Republican voices accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency, compared to only 6 percent for Democrats and 3 percent for those involved in anti-Trump protests,”

unless I'm reading this wrong (which is possible), but isn't this basically saying that the negative coverage was coming from republican voices?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I find it hard to believe that what MSNBC reports is


Apr 19, 2019, 3:49 PM

contributed by republicans.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No idea, just quoting from the study***


Apr 19, 2019, 4:47 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

MSNBC is not in this study.***


Apr 20, 2019, 6:42 AM [ in reply to I find it hard to believe that what MSNBC reports is ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Pretty sure it means that 80% of the time, the news was


Apr 20, 2019, 6:37 AM [ in reply to It also says that Pubs accounted for 80% of what was said ]

about what a Republican said, and I'm sure most of that is the President. In other words, 80% of the time, they're showing what he said, and talking about what he said, as opposed to something coming from a Democrat.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

This is the graphic that explains it:


Apr 20, 2019, 6:46 AM

I wonder how many people actually read this thing...it's all in there. ;)



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

One important thing you don't note is that the study only


Apr 20, 2019, 6:41 AM

covers one show on Fox, called "Special Report". I don't know anything about that show or who hosts it. But the study is not about the totality of Fox News programming. (Same goes for the other networks...it's just about one show.)

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 37
| visibility 783
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic