Nearly All Media Coverage of Trump Negative

[Veritas]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-me...overage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297

A whopping 91 percent of news coverage about Donald Trump on the three broadcast nightly newscasts over the past 12 weeks has been 'hostile', a new study finds.

For the study, MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). Of the total newscasts, the networks devoted 29 percent of their time to the campaign. The study did not include comments from the campaigns or candidates themselves, instead focusing on what the correspondents, anchors, expert commentators, and voters on the street said in order to try and hone in on any sort of slant from the networks.

"Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage," the study found. "This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate."

This coincides with the story I posted on 86% of all contributions by news employees goes to Clinton. Of course, liberals claim that that in no way is a conflict of interest. They can still be objective. Well this obviously proves that theory wrong. They clearly put their money where their mouth is...literally.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Or maybe, Trump is just that bad.

 

[FreeinChrist]

He hasn't helped himself. From the 'Mexico is not sending their best.... rapist' comment, to John McCain not being a hero, retweeting comments by white supremacists, dissing the Pope, tried to deny knowing David Duke, Megan Kelly and the "blood coming out of wherever" comment, comments about 2nd amendment solution to Hillary Clinton, feuding with Gold Star parents, overreacting to Lisa Muchado, the video comments (Access Hollywood), recorded comments made on tv interviews and radio - like with Howard Stern, lack of paying taxes though complaining about the poor not paying, Trump University lawsuit, Trump Foundation issues (if they are complaining about Clinton Foundation, it is fair game), his bankruptcies (but he is a great businessman), the nearly billion dollar loss in one year, comments about Putin and the Ukraine and ties to Putin including Paul Manafort, and possible (probably) violation of the Cuban embargo....and all the accusations of inappropriate behavior with women and dressing rooms of the Miss Universe pagents.......he got the attention he wanted but not how he wanted it.

I really wish the other Republican candidates vetted him better. Some of this could have been made known earlier.


though maybe I don't really wish that. I am up in the air on it because I think this campaign has been ugly.

 

[SteveB28]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-me...overage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297

A whopping 91 percent of news coverage about Donald Trump on the three broadcast nightly newscasts over the past 12 weeks has been 'hostile', a new study finds.

For the study, MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). Of the total newscasts, the networks devoted 29 percent of their time to the campaign. The study did not include comments from the campaigns or candidates themselves, instead focusing on what the correspondents, anchors, expert commentators, and voters on the street said in order to try and hone in on any sort of slant from the networks.

"Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage," the study found. "This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate."

This coincides with the story I posted on 86% of all contributions by news employees goes to Clinton. Of course, liberals claim that that in no way is a conflict of interest. They can still be objective. Well this obviously proves that theory wrong. They clearly put their money where their mouth is...literally.

Were you complaining during the primary section of the election process, when Trump was receiving so much media attention that he spent virtually nothing on promoting himself?

Was it 'the media' that forced him into making outrageous comments about women, migrants, minority groups, etc....?

Was it 'the media' that prevented him from preparing adequately for his debates, such that a pimply-faced 8th grade student would have been able to best him in an argument, let alone a polished debater...?


.

 

[Paulos23]

I really wish the other Republican candidates vetted him better. Some of this could have been made known earlier.

I don't think it would have made a difference. There was clearly a segment of the GOP voters that where waiting for someone like him.

 

[J Cord]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-me...overage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297

A whopping 91 percent of news coverage about Donald Trump on the three broadcast nightly newscasts over the past 12 weeks has been 'hostile', a new study finds.

For the study, MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). Of the total newscasts, the networks devoted 29 percent of their time to the campaign. The study did not include comments from the campaigns or candidates themselves, instead focusing on what the correspondents, anchors, expert commentators, and voters on the street said in order to try and hone in on any sort of slant from the networks.

"Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage," the study found. "This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate."

This coincides with the story I posted on 86% of all contributions by news employees goes to Clinton. Of course, liberals claim that that in no way is a conflict of interest. They can still be objective. Well this obviously proves that theory wrong. They clearly put their money where their mouth is...literally.

Hmmm. Candidate does something stupid every single day. Supporters can't figure out why the candidate gets negative media coverage. Hmmmm.

Yeah, I don't understand it either.

 

[iluvatar5150]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-me...overage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297

A whopping 91 percent of news coverage about Donald Trump on the three broadcast nightly newscasts over the past 12 weeks has been 'hostile', a new study finds.

For the study, MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). Of the total newscasts, the networks devoted 29 percent of their time to the campaign. The study did not include comments from the campaigns or candidates themselves, instead focusing on what the correspondents, anchors, expert commentators, and voters on the street said in order to try and hone in on any sort of slant from the networks.

"Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage," the study found. "This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate."

This coincides with the story I posted on 86% of all contributions by news employees goes to Clinton. Of course, liberals claim that that in no way is a conflict of interest. They can still be objective. Well this obviously proves that theory wrong. They clearly put their money where their mouth is...literally.

That's not a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest would be if Hillary were paying the reporters. What you've described is, at worst, bias.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

It is just crooked Hillary and the Commie Nazi Lügenpresse.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

I'm a bit up in the air too. I totally agree that Trump should have been vetted more, but I can say the same thing about Hillary and her emails.

 

[cow451]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-me...overage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297

A whopping 91 percent of news coverage about Donald Trump on the three broadcast nightly newscasts over the past 12 weeks has been 'hostile', a new study finds.

For the study, MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). Of the total newscasts, the networks devoted 29 percent of their time to the campaign. The study did not include comments from the campaigns or candidates themselves, instead focusing on what the correspondents, anchors, expert commentators, and voters on the street said in order to try and hone in on any sort of slant from the networks.

"Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage," the study found. "This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate."

This coincides with the story I posted on 86% of all contributions by news employees goes to Clinton. Of course, liberals claim that that in no way is a conflict of interest. They can still be objective. Well this obviously proves that theory wrong. They clearly put their money where their mouth is...literally.

MRC. Possibly one notch above WorldNutDaily. Possibly.
Sounds like an accurate summation of Donald J. Trump, the only person on the planet capable of losing an election to Hillary Clinton in a general election:

"This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate."

 

[Jezmeyah]

As a republican I support the republican platform that Trump is running on as a candidate. I don't pay any attention to the news reports about what he may have said concerning particular groups or how he may have said it, because the politically bias news media wants a republican voter to not vote for him based on those things and therefore lose sight of the republican platform reason for voting for him.

 

[variant]

He has run one of the most negative campaigns I have ever seen.

His twitter for instance is a unrelenting vomit of hatred and negativity about everything.

 

[Jezmeyah]

He has run one of the most negative campaigns I have ever seen.

His twitter for instance is a unrelenting vomit of hatred and negativity about everything.

Even as many people seem to do on this forum. When I worked as the maid for a motel, I had to clean up after someone who'd left me their stomach contents on the bathroom floor. It made me gag a few times but thank God, I never added to it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm a bit up in the air too. I totally agree that Trump should have been vetted more, but I can say the same thing about Hillary and her emails.

I don't understand how any rational person who's been paying attention could've been surprised by either of them.

 

[USincognito]

MRC. Possibly one notch above WorldNutDaily. Possibly.

That's what I was going to note. Brent Bozo's propaganda organ complaining about media bias is a hilarious. They could find media bias in a weather report.

 

[pat34lee]

What I'm seeing here is that the muckraking works. Tell me anybody
on here hated Trump last year, and I mean hatred like somebody did
you wrong personally. Then look at the snide remarks about him on
this Christian forum. Nothing has changed, except the media telling
us that we should hate him for whatever they made up today or drug
out from 10 years ago. Hillary's past, they minimize or sweep under
the rug.

And all for what? So their favored candidate gets the prize. And they
gave it to her, as they did with Obama, by helping to hide his past,
instead of properly vetting him, which is their job. Of course, this goes
back to the Bill Clinton campaigns, but they got ridiculous for Obama.
http://www.wnd.com/2009/08/106051/

And they are only getting worse.

 

[J Cord]

It is just crooked Hillary and the Commie Nazi Lügenpresse.

Oh, I saw a bunch of Trump supporters using the term, it was on the news last night.

 

[J Cord]

What I'm seeing here is that the muckraking works. Tell me anybody
on here hated Trump last year, and I mean hatred like somebody did
you wrong personally.

Oh, I've been perfectly clear: As soon as I saw Trump courting racists to join his base, I was all in against him. Period. The last thing the world needs is another racist leader, especially one leading the most powerful military in the world.

 

[Jezmeyah]

Oh, I've been perfectly clear: As soon as I saw Trump courting racists to join his base, I was all in against him. Period. The last thing the world needs is another racist leader, especially one leading the most powerful military in the world.

To say that Trump is 'courting racists' is highly inaccurate when compared to the words from his own mouth "I don't want them. I don't need them." The unwanted endorsement from those racists is not the same as being a racist, or courting their vote.

To say that Trump is racist and would be a racist leader is an opinion that jumps to a wrong conclusion. It's like saying that a woman who wears pants is a lesbian.

But it's clear where you are getting your information concerning Trump which is filtered and interpreted for you through the opposition.

I do not seek to change your opinions, any more than I think that you would seek to change my political views. I am merely observing the trend in the bias media to make their opponent look as anathema as possible.

 

[LoAmmi]

To say that Trump is 'courting racists' is highly inaccurate when compared to the words from his own mouth "I don't want them. I don't need them." The unwanted endorsement from those racists is not the same as being a racist, or courting their vote.

To say that Trump is racist and would be a racist leader is an opinion that jumps to a wrong conclusion. It's like saying that a woman who wears pants is a lesbian.

But it's clear where you are getting your information concerning Trump which is filtered and interpreted for you through the opposition.

I do not seek to change your opinions, any more than I think that you would seek to change my political views. I am merely observing the trend in the bias media to make their opponent look as anathema as possible.

He has retweeted white supremacists, retweeted a picture of a Star of David over money with Hillary's face calling her corrupt, brought out the old "international banks" trying to overthrow the government, and made many other awful comments including suggesting that a Federal Judge born in the United States could not judge him because the man was of Mexican ancestry. He's courting racists.