CNN and NBC covered Trump 93% negative

[Deleted]

Yes, this is going as predicted. Exactly as predicted.

So what is your point then?

That Trumpenstein is a great president in reality, and all those press dudes just discredit him?

So much for conspiracy theories.

[Allybeboba]

What does this have to do with 100 days all of a sudden? Your orange baboon told you that 100 days meant nothing, why didn't you listen to him?

Orange baboon? What does an orange baboon have to do with anything?

Perhaps you should read the OP.

[Acidbaron]

There has to be something positive before people can report on something positive.

I know some people would like there to be only positive news, but it's called news an informative program not "the daily feel good show". He's been in one scandal after the other, seeking out the negative press attention whenever he can and playing the victim role afterwards.

[Allybeboba]

So what is your point then?

That Trumpenstein is a great president in reality, and all those press dudes just discredit him?

So much for conspiracy theories.

Trumpenstein... isn't that a country in Eastern Europe?

[Noxx79]

Yes, this is going as predicted. Exactly as predicted.

Yup, you have no grasp on reality and are acting with your personal vendetta against the MSM, you are misusing facts. You are spinning.

YOU ARE ACTING LIKE YOUR DELUSIONS ABOUT THE MSM

[Dangg]

They shouldn't be that one sided though should they? 93%...

There are no two different perspectives if he does stuff like calling out countries/people over twitter.
The POTUS ffs. How low do you set the bar for praise?

[Heladys]

Orange baboon? What does an orange baboon have to do with anything?

Perhaps you should read the OP.

Do you speak english? Secondly, do you understand references? I think getting a straight answer on this is key to any chance of useful exchange in future.

[Allybeboba]

Yup, you have no grasp on reality and are acting with your personal vendetta against the MSM, you are misusing facts. You are spinning.

YOU ARE ACTING LIKE YOUR DELUSIONS ABOUT THE MSM

How am I misusing facts?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you speak english? Secondly, do you understand references? I think getting a straight answer on this is key to any chance of useful exchange in future.

Yes, I speak English.
You never answered the question. What does an orange baboon have to do with this?

[tyrlaan]

According to a Harvard study, CNN and NBC coverage of Trump's first 100 days has been 93% negative. While during the same time period Obama received only 41% negative coverage and Bush 57%.

This is a measure of how terrible his Presidency is compared to Obama and Bush.

If you are trying to make a point that this is unfair treatment (which is clearly what you're trying to do), you need to come up with objective data that shows he's done a lot more than 7% actual positive stuff. Note I say objective data, not deflections or omissions by Fox News or being okay with something because, to you, it's "just locker room talk" or "a success even though it got shut down by the court".

This is one of the reasons he said "No politician has been treated so worse in history".

I'm sure it is one of the reasons. It's still hyperbole to such a high degree that we need a new word to accurately describe it. I'm sure JFK, for example, might take exception with this claim.

Please don't try to defend this claim of his. Please.

[lazypeon100]

As expected.
All coming to the aid of CNN and NBC.

Maybe it has less to do with CNN and NBC and more to do with the fact that Trump hasn't accomplished anything positive yet and has verifiably lied or contradicted himself multiple timee? That's not even getting into the whole Trump-Russia affair that his administration has been plagued by.

[tyrlaan]

I forgot to add, a quote from the article you linked:

"Accusations of bias aside, it's simply a fact that a number of negative things happened in Trump's opening 100 days."

[Allybeboba]

No shock, but people are interested in the truth, they are interested in what fits their agenda. Would be interesting to see a comparable study with Fox.

People will have to find one for comparison. I am sure there is one out there. I just happened to see this one on someone's desk.

[Edge-]

So would coverage of Flynn refusing to provide the subpoena'd documents and pleading the 5th be considered biased, negative news coverage then? I mean, it's not good for the administration, so clearly it's gotta be from biased MSM who have it out for Trump.

Right?

[Allybeboba]

Maybe it has less to do with CNN and NBC and more to do with the fact that Trump hasn't accomplished anything positive yet and has verifiably lied or contradicted himself multiple timee? That's not even getting into the whole Trump-Russia affair that his administration has been plagued by.

What did Obama/Bush/Clinton/Reagan/Carter get done in their first 100 days?

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe it has less to do with CNN and NBC and more to do with the fact that Trump hasn't accomplished anything positive yet and has verifiably lied or contradicted himself multiple timee? That's not even getting into the whole Trump-Russia affair that his administration has been plagued by.

Negative coverage feeds upon itself. Each one wanting to out do the other.

[Gestopft]

Even Fox leaned negative in that study. That alone should tell you something, but there is this strange denial among Trump supporters and "Independents" that he could actually deserve so much negative coverage.

I also wonder how they determined negativity: when they reported on his "wire tapping" tweets, and pointed out that the accusations hadn't been corroborated- was that negative? How much was negative events versus negative coverage?

[WintersLegion]

What did Obama/Bush/Clinton/Reagan/Carter get done in their first 100 days?

- - - Updated - - -

Obama stated that he should not be judged by his first hundred days: "The first hundred days is going to be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference."[6]

Obama's accomplishments During the first 100 days included signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 relaxing the statute of limitations for equal-pay lawsuits;[7] signing into law the expanded State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), which the White House said provided benefits to 4 million additional working families; winning approval of a congressional budget resolution that put Congress on record as dedicated to dealing with major health care reform legislation in 2009; implementing new ethics guidelines designed to significantly curtail the influence of lobbyists on the executive branch; breaking from the Bush administration on a number of policy fronts, except for Iraq, in which he followed through on Bush's Iraq withdrawal of U.S. troops;[8] supporting the UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity; and lifting the 7½-year ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.[9] He also ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, in Cuba, though it remains open, as well as lifted some travel and money restrictions to the island.[8]

At the end of the first 100 days 65% of Americans approved of how Obama was doing and 29% disapproved.[10] According to Gallup's First quarter survey in April, President Obama received a 63% approval rating. Gallup began tracking presidential approval ratings of the first quarters since Eisenhower in 1953. President Kennedy received the highest in April 1961 with a 74% rating. Obama's 63% is the fourth highest and the highest since President Carter with a 69%. President Reagan's first quarter had 60% approval in 1981, President George H.W. Bush with 57% in 1989, President Clinton with 55% in 1993, and President George W. Bush with 58% in 2001.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_...27s_presidency

[tyrlaan]

What did Obama/Bush/Clinton/Reagan/Carter get done in their first 100 days?

Bro, do you even Google?

Negative coverage feeds upon itself. Each one wanting to out do the other.

I get that this can be tough to see at times because bias is rampant in the world, but it's not the job of the news media to make sure there is a balance, it's their job to report news. If the news is inherently negative, then that's what it's going to be. And when the news is a literal on-air quote from the President, for example, it's a little disingenuous to take issue with how it gets reported.

[Belize]

As expected.
All coming to the aid of CNN and NBC.

And as expected, you're being a true Independent.

[Allybeboba]

Here is an article that compares the last four Presidents and their first 100 days.
Note, for whatever reason Trump had a 45% approval rating on day one and had a 41% on day 100. He lost four percentage points. He isn't the first to lose approval ratings after 100 days.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...-fewer-words-1


Anyway you look at it, the unprecedented negative coverage of the PotUS from the CNN and NBC is unprecedented.

[Draco-Onis]

Here is an article that compares the last four Presidents and their first 100 days.
Note, for whatever reason Trump had a 45% approval rating on day one and had a 41% on day 100. He lost four percentage points. He isn't the first to lose approval ratings after 100 days.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...full-cabinet-3


Anyway you look at it, the unprecedented negative coverage of the PotUS from the CNN and NBC is unprecedented.

No you forgot this part



Even Fox News and Wall Street Journal were in the same boat FOX FREAKING NEWS.