monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I could be wrong and if so, my apologies, but I seem to recall that you have, in the past, disputed allegations of a liberal bias in the MSM, but here is it, right in front of you and you seem to want to ignore it.

I made a post a few pages back referring to a comprehensive study undertaken by scholars at Harvard which concluded that, in some cases at least, 98% of the articles and references in the MSM to Trump were negative.

No comment from any cheese-eater; it was completely ignored. But that's not really necessary, anyway. I figure I know what any comment by a cheese-eater would boil down to, to wit:

"Of course it's 98% negative, because 100% of everything about him and his policies IS negative. The MSM is just bending over backwards to try to "spin" 2% as somehow "positive."

2 Replies

@giujohn,

I'm just saying it's a possibility, which is currently being assessed by very competent people, more competent than you and me on such topics. Calm down.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

it was completely ignored.

That's a lie. I explained to you that Trump antagonized the media, and you agreed. He gets exactly what he bargained for. You guys are being conned.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

That's a lie. I explained to you that Trump antagonized the media, and you agreed. He gets exactly what he bargained for. You guys are being conned.

I don't recall you saying a single word about the study, Ollie. If you're trying to say you made every feeble attempt you could think of to justify mistreatment by the media, then, OK, I agree with that. But I never heard you acknowledge any bias.

Your response was simply along the lines of: "Trump is responsible for, and deserves, any and all retaliation he might receive from the media. They probably loved him until he gratuitously attacked them for no reason at all. Presidents should defer to, and graciously accept, any treatment the press decides to afford them. That's what "being a President" is all about."

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

This truth needs to be supported.

But first the truth must be told.

King wasn't a "political opponent". AG Robert Kennedy ordered the wiretapping of King because it was alleged that one of his top advisors was a high ranking member of the Communist Party of the USA. At the time, this was considered a serious security risk. It's hardly equivalent to Nixon covering up an illegal break in off the opposition party's headquarters by operatives from his re-election campaign committee.

Tell us more. What '60s-era political maneuvers by Democrats did you have in mind? Do you agree with oralloy's characterization of the impeachment process as "persecution"? Do you think Nixon was innocent of all charges, or do you think the president should be above the law?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I explained to you that Trump antagonized the media, and you agreed. He gets exactly what he bargained for. You guys are being conned.

Yeah, I agree. He "antagonized" them so much that their approach may have shifted from "we are resolutely determined to cast everything he does in a negative light" to "OK that does it. Now we're fanatically and ferociously devoted to destroying that ************! How dare he criticize the media."

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

I made a post a few pages back referring to a comprehensive study undertaken by scholars at Harvard which concluded that, in some cases at least, 98% of the articles and references in the MSM to Trump were negative.

In some cases? Like maybe in those cases when Trump actually did something worthy of criticism? How are you supposed to treat an incident like his address to the CIA agents early on in his term? How are you supposed to cover something that embarrassing in a positive manner? How are you supposed to deal with the repeated demonstrations of obvious incompetence? Your statement, as it stands, is worthless. And trying to make it seem intelligent because the study was "undertaken by scholars at Harvard" is pathetic.

Quote:

No comment from any cheese-eater; it was completely ignored.

Probably no one even saw it since nearly everybody you refer to as a "cheese-eater" has you on ignore.

1 Reply

@hightor,

I chuckle at how you sling out these highly-emotional non sequiturs.

The Kennedys put the hounds, so to speak, on MLK. The Democrats aren't above spying and selling us out. Democrat presidents have been just as shady as Republicans.

There are no black and white hats, and it's silly to act otherwise. We're playing at gladiator games while the deep state puppet masters get richer off of us.

Don't fall in line for them so easily.

I'd like to drop a cage over all of them.

Why the **** do we pay what we do for healthcare in this country?

Democrats and Republicans. Cut those slave strings.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

In some cases? Like maybe in those cases when Trump actually did something worthy of criticism? How are you supposed to treat an incident like his address to the CIA agents early on in his term? How are you supposed to cover something that embarrassing in a positive manner? How are you supposed to deal with the repeated demonstrations of obvious incompetence? Your statement, as it stands, is worthless.

No, in "some" cases, as in the case of certain commie-ass outlets, like MSNBC. Overall (including Fox and several European rags) the characterizations were 80+% negative.

Your "response" is exactly what I expected (and predicted) from a hardcore cheese-eater. Thanks for confirming my prediction.

Edit: I guess I should have included your attempt to disparage the Harvard study itself in the part I quoted. Slandering the source of the information has always been the first "go-to" response employed by cheese-eaters:

Quote:

And trying to make it seem intelligent because the study was "undertaken by scholars at Harvard" is pathetic.

Of course the study was not "intelligent." It isn't liked by cheese-eaters. That proves how stupid it is.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Actually you are wrong, I don't really get involved too much in news/bias debates. Trump made headlines during his campaign, he makes headlines as President. I suppose what works enough to get him enough electoral college votes (barely) in those swing states, don't work for him as President too well. He can't spend his time as President screaming out "lock her up."

It seems to me, while there are some people from campaign team and transition team who had questionable financial/chummy dealings with Russia, Trump makes everything worse trying to make it go away than if he would just be quiet and let the process play out.

0 Replies

Elizabeth Warren Slams ‘Bizarre’ Glass-Steagall Statements From Trump’s Treasury Secretary

Huffington Post Link

Short video worth watching. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testified before the Senate Banking Committee. He cannot keep a straight face. He appears to know that his statements are asinine (classic Orwellian crappola). He has to work really hard not to break out in laughter himself as he tries to explain his "support" for a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act.

1 Reply

Quote:

I'd love to see the link to the Harvard study.

No kidding.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Sicily!! there's a place I'm sure I could spend several weeks in, were I younger and more moneyed.. I've read a variety of books about it, even recently a Leonardo Sciascia novel; have read him before. https://www.google.com/#q=leonardo+sciascia
Still on my shelf is the Australian writer Peter Cobb's Midnight in Sicily... not a novel. It got a Publishers Weekly Best Book of the Year award, whatever year that was.

Picturing Trump at a Palermo street market...

This could work out to be funnier than Trump's meeting the pope.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Liberals just think that rape is OK if it is done by a liberal. Note that movie director who violently raped a 13 year old girl and is always protected from extradition to the US. Liberals actually condemned the 13 year old girl for having been brutally raped.

Um, plenty of liberals loathe Polanski for what he did. My guess would be most, easily.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Elizabeth Warren Slams ‘Bizarre’ Glass-Steagall Statements From Trump’s Treasury Secretary
He appears to know that his statements are asinine (classic Orwellian crappola). He has to work really hard not to break out in laughter himself as he tries to explain his "support" for a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act.

When Warren calls a perfectly reasonable response "orwellian" then you can rest assured that every cheese-eater and his brother will promptly parrot her words, eh?

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Quote:

If your favorite football team gets destroyed by another team, and the local newspaper writes a story about the game, is the resulting news story--which paints an ugly picture of your team's performance--an example of the newspaper's bias against your beloved team?

Of course not.

But that's essentially what some conservative media believe when it comes to coverage of the Trump White House. In their view, since most coverage of Trump is negative, that proves the media is biased against the president.

Source

Quote:

Source froml study: News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days

3 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

I'd love to see the link to the Harvard study.

It was in the post, wasn't it? If not, I'm sure you can easily find the study online, via google.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Trump is responsible for, and deserves, any and all retaliation he might receive from the media.

Yes. And I add; he cannot stand the slightest scrutiny. The guy is a ******* snowflake. That's why he antagonized them all, including FAUX News. He can't stand any opposition, any questioning. Simple: he can't stand the truth. So he beats on the press corp. Again and again. He tries to intimidate them, as I suppose he would do with a business rival. And it escalates to the level of acrimony we see now.

He has branded journalists "enemies of the people". You're damn right they gona try to tear him down: Now they're fighting for survival. Either Trump or the "MSM" will survive this fight in one piece, not both.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

The Kennedys put the hounds, so to speak, on MLK.

Yes, that's what I said, and I gave the reason. I don't recall any attempt to muzzle King or delegitimize his leadership by RFK. J. Edgar Hoover, he's the guy who referred to King as a "notorious liar" but the FBI under Hoover was practically an independent organization.

Quote:

There are no black and white hats...

You think just because I reject the comparison with Nixon that I think the Democrats were without fault? Hell, they have just as much to answer for — like redlining neighborhoods and allowing landlords and property developers to discriminate against blacks. But instead you parrot the "they're the same as Nixon line" — that's just plain lazy. There are historic differences between the parties and their misdeeds reflect that.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Trump is responsible for, and deserves, any and all retaliation he might receive from the media.

Yes. And I add; he cannot stand the slightest scrutiny.

You got it backwards, Ollie. It's the MSM that can't abide by the slightest criticism. This notwithstanding the fact that they make it their business to constantly criticize others. Typical bully mentality, sho nuff.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know