Isn't Trump right about the fake news?

[Garnier Fructis]

You think with your heart too much. I respect that, but your passion fogs your mind. Research has been done on the Main Stream media and their coverage of Trump, I believe it's something like 90%-10% negative to positive. I would find the study for you, I believe it was done by some super right wing conspiracy networks named Harvard Law School, but you wouldn't believe it if you wrote it.

What should the ratio of positive to negative be?

[Omega10]

Here we see a rare the_donald troll outside of his usual territory. Cleary uncomfortable, now that he's no longer surrounded by hive-minded members of his own species, he bleats his best talking points in hopes to intimidate the rival MMO-C posters. They are clearly, unfortunately, unimpressed. Some are even slightly amused.

It's amused for me. I feel sorry for the author of that as he seems to be very unhappy and actually pathetic. And it makes me a bit sad that people like him are able to do so much damage to America.

[Grapemask]

You think with your heart too much. I respect that, but your passion fogs your mind. Research has been done on the Main Stream media and their coverage of Trump, I believe it's something like 90%-10% negative to positive. I would find the study for you, I believe it was done by some super right wing conspiracy networks named Harvard Law School, but you wouldn't believe it if you wrote it.

Simply saying the majority of coverage is negative isn't a sign of bias, as others have pointed out. But I remember that study: even the majority of Trump's coverage on Fox News was reported as negative. If nothing else does, that should tell you that it's not a bias that's the problem. It's a shitty president. His own propaganda machine can't stomach polishing that turd.

[kail]

People criticize or make fun of Trump based on what he tweets or says on live camera. But sure, "fake news" on anything that points out Trump's stupidity.

[beanman12345]

New Trump approval rating 32% record low. That would make it official, the last few of his supporters with an IQ above 70, have abandoned him.

[LaserSharkDFB]

New Trump approval rating 32% record low. That would make it official, the last few of his supporters with an IQ above 70, have abandoned him.

Meh, always go with the aggregate over an outlier, and always provide a link to make sure it's not some hack poll. Fivethirtyeight has him at about 37% approval, which is about where he's been since mid-May.

[beanman12345]

Meh, always go with the aggregate over an outlier, and always provide a link to make sure it's not some hack poll. Fivethirtyeight has him at about 37% approval, which is about where he's been since mid-May.

Here's your link http://www.people-press.org/2017/12/...-2016-election

And I'll always take reliable polling, even if an outlier, than an aggregate that includes data from biased and/or incompetent pollsters.

[Mormolyce]

Here we see a rare the_donald troll outside of his usual territory. Cleary uncomfortable, now that he's no longer surrounded by hive-minded members of his own species, he bleats his best talking points in hopes to intimidate the rival MMO-C posters. They are clearly, unfortunately, unimpressed. Some are even slightly amused.

Can't help but read this in a David Attenborough voice.

[PACOX]

No.

The amount of "fake news" that CNN and WaPo put out are realitvely low compared to other MSM outlets, espcially the ones Trump listens to. CNN is certainly guilty of pushing narratives based on real stories or for being overly dramatic for the sake of ratings. If you call running factual stories that aren't as important as CNN sells them, then yes CNN is guilty of a lot of fake news.

But the criticism is coming from a man who quite often puts out his own fake news or champions sources guilty of putting out false stories which to me makes me roll my eyes at his "fake news" claims when his isn't championing facts his own self. Most of what he calls fake news is merely criticism of his administration.

Never forget the Bowling Green Massacre.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Here's your link http://www.people-press.org/2017/12/...-2016-election

And I'll always take reliable polling, even if an outlier, than an aggregate that includes data from biased and/or incompetent pollsters.

Well, that's why 538 adjusts polls based on the reliability of the pollster. You do you, but cherry picking is a bad habit to get into.

[beanman12345]

Well, that's why 538 adjusts polls based on the reliability of the pollster. You do you, but cherry picking is a bad habit to get into.

lol, if you say so...

edit-FFS 538 includes Rasmussen, the Breitbart of pollsters. Yeah your right, we should really believe data skewed by them, over Pew Research Center.

[Deleted]

When every single word out of Trump's mouth, or from his tiny babyfingers on Twitter is a lie, by default he's lying every time he says "fake news".

[LaserSharkDFB]

lol, if you say so...

edit-FFS 538 includes Rasmussen, the Breitbart of pollsters. Yeah your right, we should really believe data skewed by them, over Pew Research Center.

Yeah, and it gives them a bad rating, changing their 43% approval to a 38%, which is broadly in line with the aggregate. Sorry if I'm rustling your jimmies somehow, but picking one single poll out of dozens and saying 'this is the right one and is how the majority of the country feels' is just dumb. It's dumb when Trump tried to point to his 45% from Morning Consult, and it's dumb when you point to Pew. Pew's good, but they can't poll the entire country accurately. Unbiased aggregates are the best way to get something reasonably accurate.

[Ghostpanther]

Of course.

[beanman12345]

Yeah, and it gives them a bad rating, changing their 43% approval to a 38%, which is broadly in line with the aggregate. Sorry if I'm rustling your jimmies somehow, but picking one single poll out of dozens and saying 'this is the right one and is how the majority of the country feels' is just dumb. It's dumb when Trump tried to point to his 45% from Morning Consult, and it's dumb when you point to Pew. Pew's good, but they can't poll the entire country accurately. Unbiased aggregates are the best way to get something reasonably accurate.

I said 1 poll to make a joke. Thinking what I did is what Trump did is dumb. Ahh yeah but I do see now that they adjusted it. It appears they've been adjusting damn near every poll for months and months and months. Reliabling polling, Unreliable polling, All adjusted. Even the Pew Research Center poll. No wonder the aggragate has stated the same.

[Garnier Fructis]

lol, if you say so...

edit-FFS 538 includes Rasmussen, the Breitbart of pollsters. Yeah your right, we should really believe data skewed by them, over Pew Research Center.

It's like you missed the part where 538 adjusts for that.

[LaserSharkDFB]

I said 1 poll to make a joke. Thinking what I did is what Trump did is dumb. Ahh yeah but I do see now that they adjusted it. It appears they've been adjusting damn near every poll for months and months and months. Reliabling polling, Unreliable polling, All adjusted. Even the Pew Research Center poll. No wonder the aggragate has stated the same.

Oh, I see, it's the 'just joking' defense. Awesome.

And we're getting off topic so this'll be my last post on this, but read this and educate yourself on how it actually works.

President Trump’s first real test on the ballot will come 20 months from now, when Republicans face voters at the midterm elections. But those Republicans have decisions to make today about whether to support Trump’s latest policy proposal or criticize his latest tweet. And their fate will be tied to his: Historically, the president’s approval ratings have been one of the best indicators of how his party will fare in congressional elections.

Therefore, we’ve launched an interactive to track Trump’s job approval and disapproval ratings. Although the topline results are fairly similar to other approval-rating averages such as the ones from Real Clear Politics and Huffington Post Pollster — we currently have Trump’s approval rating at 44 percent and his disapproval rating at 50 percent — our version has a few extra features that add a bit of rigor and make it uniquely FiveThirtyEight-ish:

As with our election forecasts, we use almost all polls but weight them based on their methodological standards and historical accuracy.
We adjust polls for house effects if they consistently show different results from the polling consensus.
And we account for uncertainty, estimating the fairly wide range within which Trump’s approval ratings could vary over the next 100 days. (This is what’s indicated by the green and orange bands on the chart.)

The folks at 538 know what they're doing, and despite what the Trumpists like to say they were pretty fucking accurate on the election (Hillary's popular vote win and all that). Sorry for harping on this, but this is a battle I keep having to fight for some reason.

[beanman12345]

Oh, I see, it's the 'just joking' defense. Awesome.

And we're getting off topic so this'll be my last post on this, but read this and educate yourself on how it actually works.



The folks at 538 know what they're doing, and despite what the Trumpists like to say they were pretty fucking accurate on the election (Hillary's popular vote win and all that). Sorry for harping on this, but this is a battle I keep having to fight for some reason.

Ugh, I'm not using the "just joking" defense. I said my first post was a joke, I clarified in my second post since you didn't get said joke, that I prefer reliable polling. Now. I get you think 538 is all that matters cause it's aggregate. I disagree and think reliable polling is more important. We both think each other foolish for thinking this, but I'll concede to just agree to disagree. Have a wonderful night bro.

[The Penguin]

Here's a good example right here. Recent also. In their haste to report anything, they miss the story completely.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/08/medi...ory/index.html

Plus there's the obvious over the top bias of people like Maddow and Matthews. Hardball should be renamed "HardFail".

- - - Updated - - -

"We have updated our story to include the correct date, and present the proper context for the timing of email."

Here's the key passage. "Proper Context". They intentionally mislead people to believe X was the correct chain of events, fully aware that when the facts came out, that people using basic common logic would realize that X was not the correct assessment, but rather Y was. Because of this CNN was either accidentally, or willfully and intentionally negligent in their reporting.

The remedy as I see it is that CNN ought to have it's Media License revoked and be taken off the air until they can clean up their act.

[Dontrike]

Yes the American media purposely try to frame Trump constantly in a bad light, but luckily they have lost most of their power over the people. Trump is a threat to the rich establishment that control the news and a lot of folks now turn to independent sources instead of watching channel 4 every night. It also inflames the higher ups in news that Trump just goes straight to twitter as it is hard to spin a direct quote accessible to everyone.

You should do stand up comedy, because this is hilarious.

Trump is in a bad light because he's the literal incarnation of incompetent.

Trump is no threat to any rich establishment, considering he's doing the best he can at giving them as much as possible.

"Turn to independent sources"? Every time an independent source comes out against Trump you and your ilk constantly say how we can't believe just an independent source. You're as hypocritical as water is wet.

Twitter is the easiest place to get a direct quote from him, because once it's on the internet it's always there and can be referred back to at all times.

Well you must admit that it is complete bullshit for anyone to claim unemployment is at 5% when it doesn't count people who are not trying to find a job or quit looking after 6 months.

Then why has this administration been doing that very thing this whole time? Also, why do you back up their claims when you know it's bullshit? Are you real?

You think with your heart too much. I respect that, but your passion fogs your mind. Research has been done on the Main Stream media and their coverage of Trump, I believe it's something like 90%-10% negative to positive. I would find the study for you, I believe it was done by some super right wing conspiracy networks named Harvard Law School, but you wouldn't believe it if you wrote it.

It's rather hard to write a positive article when Trump doesn't do anything that's positive.

I remember that and even Fox barely had a majority of positive articles on him. If Fox can't do it then how is anyone else supposed to?