The Media Bias

[SHOCKvalue]

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/canc...17-1202422996/

Thanks for correcting the 'facts' put out by these people who buy into 'fake news' and yet tell everyone else THEIR news is fake.

Whenever you become philosophically blind, you eat this stuff up and leave yourself open to be conned. Not only true of the left, but also the right as well.

You know that intellectual dishonesty some of us speak of? This is a perfect example. While saying LMS ratings "waned" is factually correct, much in the way losing a penny is a "financial loss", it is not intellectually honest.

https://deadline.com/2017/05/last-man-standing-canceled-by-abc-after-6-seasons-1202089263/

ABC has opted not to renew the longtime Friday 8 PM anchor for Season 7 despite the fact that the blue-collar sitcom was ABC’s second most watched comedy this season with 8.1 million viewers in Live +7, only behind flagship Modern Family (8,7 million). It was the third most watched ABC scripted series overall behind Grey’s Anatomy and Modern Family.

In its sixth and final season, Last Man Standing averaged a very respectable for any night and especially Friday, 1.2 Live+same day rating in adults 18-49 and 6.4 million viewers, regularly winning its 8-8:30 PM time slot. While most returning shows were down year-to-year 20-30%, LMS was virtually flat, off just by 5% in total viewers and adults 18-49 (L+SD).

[ShockingButTrue]

[SB Shock]

Harvard just completed a study of media bias on trump. Their conclusions

1. President Trump dominated media coverage in the outlets and programs analyzed, with Trump being the topic of 41 percent of all news stories—three times the amount of coverage received by previous presidents.

2. Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=ab6d830a9d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085

[wufan]

Harvard just completed a study of media bias on trump. Their conclusions

1. President Trump dominated media coverage in the outlets and programs analyzed, with Trump being the topic of 41 percent of all news stories—three times the amount of coverage received by previous presidents.

2. Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-c...0a9d-189799085

That study begs the question: is Trump the cause of the bias, or is the bias targeting Trump?

[ShockerPrez]

Ted Cruz, or any Republican would still be overall vastly negative, but Trump raises their insane level up a notch or 5. I also believe the media is suffering from sexual frustration after their 8 year orgasm over Obama ended. They are quite cranky.

[SB Shock]

That study begs the question: is Trump the cause of the bias, or is the bias targeting Trump?

Well I think initially the bias targeted Trump (it started the day after the election), and now through Trump own self-infliction he is now aiding and abetting the bias.

[ShockingButTrue]

That study begs the question: is Trump the cause of the bias, or is the bias targeting Trump?

Targeted

[Play Angry]

Trump benefited more from the media's never-ending sploogefest of attention during the Republican primary than any candidate in the modern era. No other candidate could get any oxygen and the outlets on the left and right loved it because Trump's ridiculous headlines escalated traffic and profits. I suspect they also believed he was the weakest and most damaging candidate in the field for conservatives.

The center-left and left wing outlets then pirouetted quickly once the general election got underway and have been pretty consistent since. Some center-right outlets like the Wall Street Journal were initially critical but have been brought to heel, while others like the Economist remain skeptical. The right has now been split between The Weekly Standard crowd of more traditional conservatism (and often critical of Trump) versus the nationalist branding of Breitbart (with it's unquestioned devotion to all things Trump regardless of whether the act is conservative or liberal). The National Review is caught awkwardly in between.

Trump undoubtedly does himself no favors in terms of treatment with his bi-weekly carnival acts. There is an element of strategy to the madness IMO, though, as he knows that retards on both sides of the aisle have sewn distrust in all things media for decades to the point that half of America will view any enemy of the media through a hero's lens regardless of alignment.

[ShockingButTrue]

Trump benefited more from the media's never-ending sploogefest of attention during the Republican primary than any candidate in the modern era. No other candidate could get any oxygen and the outlets on the left and right loved it because Trump's ridiculous headlines escalated traffic and profits. I suspect they also believed he was the weakest and most damaging candidate in the field for conservatives.

The center-left and left wing outlets then pirouetted quickly once the general election got underway and have been pretty consistent since. Some center-right outlets like the Wall Street Journal were initially critical but have been brought to heel, while others like the Economist remain skeptical. The right has now been split between The Weekly Standard crowd of more traditional conservatism (and often critical of Trump) versus the nationalist branding of Breitbart (with it's unquestioned devotion to all things Trump regardless of whether the act is conservative or liberal). The National Review is caught awkwardly in between.

Trump undoubtedly does himself no favors in terms of treatment with his bi-weekly carnival acts. There is an element of strategy to the madness IMO, though, as he knows that retards on both sides of the aisle have sewn distrust in all things media for decades to the point that half of America will view any enemy of the media through a hero's lens regardless of alignment.

Maybe one of those anonymous sexual assault police reports, that no one has found yet, will show up here pretty soon, but I doubt it.

Let's get Maxine on it! Or, better yet, Comey... oh, wait... :stupid:

[Play Angry]

Exhibit A for Breitbart blind loyalty.

[ShockingButTrue]

Trump benefited more from the media's never-ending sploogefest of attention during the Republican primary than any candidate in the modern era. No other candidate could get any oxygen and the outlets on the left and right loved it because Trump's ridiculous headlines escalated traffic and profits. I suspect they also believed he was the weakest and most damaging candidate in the field for conservatives.

The center-left and left wing outlets then pirouetted quickly once the general election got underway and have been pretty consistent since. Some center-right outlets like the Wall Street Journal were initially critical but have been brought to heel, while others like the Economist remain skeptical. The right has now been split between The Weekly Standard crowd of more traditional conservatism (and often critical of Trump) versus the nationalist branding of Breitbart (with it's unquestioned devotion to all things Trump regardless of whether the act is conservative or liberal). The National Review is caught awkwardly in between.

Trump undoubtedly does himself no favors in terms of treatment with his bi-weekly carnival acts. There is an element of strategy to the madness IMO, though, as he knows that retards on both sides of the aisle have sewn distrust in all things media for decades to the point that half of America will view any enemy of the media through a hero's lens regardless of alignment.

[ShockingButTrue]

Exhibit A for Breitbart blind loyalty.

Your poor wife... If you're married.

[Play Angry]

Thanks Milo, she certainly is a saint.

[shocka khan]

Christopher Ruddy was on the panel with George Stephanopoulos today. Based on his performance, I'd say the right is just as willfully ignorant in overlooking Trump's obvious issues as the left is in focusing in on them.

He kept harping that the 'media was picking on Trump' and gave him a free pass when the discussion came around to Trump's WH meeting with the Russians where he bragged about firing Comey.

Neither Keith Ellison nor George would let him off the hook. Their argument (which I agree with) is why did Trump not confront the Russians over interference in our election. And why is it OK to talk trash about Comey (He's a nut job and I'm relieved now that I fired him) and NOT confront them over their election interference.

If this is typical for right-wing news media, there are a whole bunch of people on the right whining about the mainstream media being biased when they are being willfully ignorant as regards Trump's actions - which don't make sense to the average American.

Why, indeed, didn't he confront the Russians regards their interference as opposed to trashing Comey. And for Ruddy to defend him? Doesn't pass the optics test.

[pinstripers]

You think the Russians interfered in our election?