CNN and NBC covered Trump 93% negative

[Felya]

Yes, Trump is that much of a fuck up. Giving examples of how Bush and Obama did, doesn't really help your point. It makes it seem less partisan and more about who Trump is.

We had an election where it was almost unanimous, bipartisan agreement that Hillary and Trump were the worst two candidates in history. Why is it a surprise that the result is the most scrutinized president? Logic, based on bipartisan agreement, the worst candidate to win an election in American history, would result in the most scrutiny in history.

I have yet to hear from an "awoke" independent like the OP or a Trump supporter, how that changed when Trump won. How exactly do you go from the winner between two of the worst candidates in US history, to being surprised that they are the worst president in history?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm curious. What stories did they put out that constitutes 7% positive? This is a small number so it should be possible to list and link them yes? Right now I'm incredulous that there was even 7%.

See Trump taking credit for unemployment dropping by nearly 40% when he became president and the economy finally recovering from the Great Recession as soon as he won. Also, the pay off in Indiana and shutting down US interest in TPP.

[Deleted]

I have yet to hear from an "awoke" independent like the OP or a Trump supporter, how that changed when Trump won. How exactly do you go from the winner between two of the worst candidates in US history, to being surprised that they are the worst president in history?

What, Trump isn't winning since the election day? I thought the Wall was already built, ISIS dead, got the best health service in the world, 0% unemployment and all the factories back to the US?

[Revik]

See Trump taking credit for unemployment dropping by nearly 40% when he became president and the economy finally recovering from the Great Recession as soon as he won. Also, the pay off in Indiana and shutting down US interest in TPP.

That is like 50%. The unemployment is a positive but the Indiana plant and US backing away from TPP were not positive. The Indiana thing was viewed as a state payoff as you mentioned and US backing off TPP was the US being obstinate. So in reality the negative pieces are even HIGHER.

[Felya]

That is like 50%. The unemployment is a positive but the Indiana plant and US backing away from TPP were not positive. The Indiana thing was viewed as a state payoff as you mentioned and US backing off TPP was the US being obstinate. So in reality the negative pieces are even HIGHER.

Yes, but you are forgetting Fox News and Brietbart, where those were reported as positives. Less than 10% is a pretty low bar...

[Deleted]

http://imgur.com/OWNYUF1

Synchronized fake news garbage. Are there really people left that believe that the msm genuinely displays the best interest of its people, instead of simply parroting a narrative of its donors?


[Infracted]

[Zan15]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/by...rticle/2623641

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

I bet this 93% doesn't come close to what is posted here.

to be fair 85% of this bad news is just from his tweets...i mean the dude is doing it to himself....

[burzian]

Hahaha what's the ideal situation for you here, 50% good 50% bad regardless of what the actions and policies are? 100% good? Obama was a much better president than Bush Jr., who was a much better president than Trump has been so far. Seems about right to me.

[Deleted]

http://imgur.com/OWNYUF1

Synchronized fake news garbage. Are there really people left that believe that the msm genuinely displays the best interest of its people, instead of simply parroting a narrative of its donors?

Using the correct word for his inconsistent and unpredictable administration = Major MSM conspiracy.

[Orbitus]

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.

You want to know a comparable study to Fox? Fox just doesn't report on this shit unless they have to. That is why Fox News viewers are less likely to know what the fuck is going on. Or Fox invokes bullshit like the "Deep State" as the problems with the Trump administration, and not Trump being the problem himself.

- - - Updated - - -

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

That you failed to defend your boy with a story that you thought was going to prove bias, but it just proves that you are defending Trump, AGAIN?

[Edge-]

http://imgur.com/OWNYUF1

Synchronized fake news garbage. Are there really people left that believe that the msm genuinely displays the best interest of its people, instead of simply parroting a narrative of its donors?

So synchronized that those articles all came out at different times, and use both erratic as a descriptor themselves (because it's very appropriate) or are reporting on someone else (like his biographer) calling him erratic.

I'm surprised that there aren't a bunch of red circles and arrows pointing to stuff and a bunch of arbitrary yellow highlighting. Get that and you've got the meaningless conspiracy trifecta.

[Orbitus]

Fox looked pretty neutral to me. That is why people from the left don't like them.

No, Fox isn't neutral. They are outright IGNORING stories. That is why they are ignored by people that know what they are doing.

[Edge-]

No, Fox isn't neutral. They are outright IGNORING stories. That is why they are ignored by people that know what they are doing.

They couldn't find a single Republican to go on-air to talk about the existence of the Comey memo, so they decided the only responsible thing to do as journalists was to largely ignore it. The Clinton Foundation doing nothing newsworthy was clearly far more important to cover.

[Sky High]

No, Fox isn't neutral. They are outright IGNORING stories. That is why they are ignored by people that know what they are doing.

Fox might have been lukewarm at some point but Bill Orily has always been on Trumps side. And now that he's president they are on thier knees slobbering Trumps knob as best they can. Anyone who says Fox is nutrual is lying, full stop. Stop you liars, you're not even good at it.

[Orbitus]

They couldn't find a single Republican to go on-air to talk about the existence of the Comey memo, so they decided the only responsible thing to do as journalists was to largely ignore it. The Clinton Foundation doing nothing newsworthy was clearly far more important to cover.

Of course. They are just like Trump supporters here and other places when Trump does something stupid like he did today. They deflect away from the real story to something that hasn't been news in forever.

[cubby]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/by...rticle/2623641

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

I bet this 93% doesn't come close to what is posted here.

Did it EVER occur to you that the coverage percentage is based on the quality of the President, and that 93% of what he's done has actually been negative - or that his entire administration to date has been a shit show? Can you name anything he's done right?

And his comment about "no politician . . ." has been widely panned, by everyone, as being one of the most ridiculous statements ever made by a "leader".

[Skroe]

CNN is the best network for covering natural disasters. It's basically how Anderson Cooper made his name.

Trump is an unnatural disaster, which is close enough.

So whats your point?

[Xyonai]

As has been said many times, but I feel bares reiterating in the hopes that it gets the point across: There is a difference between 'Negative Press' and 'Press that happens to be negative'. Like, reporting on the failed Health Care bill(s), the struck down EOs, Comey's Firing and just about everything involving the Russia investigation are just stories that happen to shine negatively upon the president, but are still actual things that happened (and are happening).

It's not like every bad story about him up until this point has been at the same level as '2ScoopsGate', and the only reason Fox's coverage is more evenly skewed is because they've been outright ignoring bigger stories that come through, though there's only so much they can ignore; As seen with the backlash that happened when they decided that another hot take on the Clinton Foundation was a more pressing story than the firing of an FBI director during an ongoing investigation into the guy who fired him.

[Revik]

Yes, but you are forgetting Fox News and Brietbart, where those were reported as positives. Less than 10% is a pretty low bar...

The study was specific to CNN and CBS. Fox News and Briebart were not counted in this study.

10% is a pretty low bar but the reason I bring it up is that I don't remember seeing a positive piece on Trump from either of those organizations.

[Xeones]

Literally the only "positive" thing Trump has done that can I can think of off the top of my head is pulling out of the TPP.

Where is he supposed to get positive coverage when basically everything he does is negative? Even when people try to give him good coverage, like that one speech he did before congress, he almost immediately blows it all away with a stupid tweet accusing Obama of having him wiretapped.

The man is a buffoon at the head of a party trying to be Saturday morning cartoon villains. 93% negative sounds quite generous.

[Zeth Hawkins]

He grabs pussies without permission, he bellows racist propaganda, he is hypocritical on every issue, he lies freely, he possesses zero knowledge, and he's an utter failure at everything he tries.

I find myself disagreeing with the entirety of this statement, excluding the comment of Mr. President's ability to lie.

It is a hard position to argue that one can become the President of the United States without being smart and successful.