Harvard did a recent study about bias by our Plastic Media. Feel free to read the article and discuss. A left leaning university should help with the truths of the discussion. It gives our good folks on the left a strong foot hold in the conversation...
Disclaimer: I am only sighting one source. It's Harvard's study. The source sighted is only one of thousands. I am not affiliated with the source, nor have I gone further into the source other than reading the information provided and forwarding that information along to you, the viewer.
shocked we didn't get too hear how it is the all trumps fault . or was it G.W. bush's fault . or how Harvard is wrong cause a high school teacher said so lol
"Michelle Obama Is Pink Perfection in an Off-the-Shoulder, $397 Top While Touring Italy!"
You know, so you know. The important things and such.
In other headline news...
"Melania Smacks Away Trumps Hand!"
You know, so you know. The important things and such.
This scenario plays out constantly within our media. I and many have been calling out the blatant BS and extreme media bias, and it has been proven. We all knew this, yet were battled feverishly against the knowledge we were sharing. Not berating, but when facts are clear, crystal even, then wasting time is just that, wasting time.
Nostradamus Tony at your service... I predict a new buzzword that truthfully blurs the line in defense of reporting a false narrative. I am sure that such a word already exist, but it does not come to mind. It will come to light and span the globe within days.
The report that Tony Kania has put up here for discussion, "News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days", has been published online by a Harvard-associated website. Find it here: https://shorensteincenter.o...umps-first-100-days/
What report?
quote
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office.
The report is based on an analysis of news reports in the print editions of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the main newscasts of CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC, and three European news outlets (The UK’s Financial Times and BBC, and Germany’s ARD).
What is at the very beginning of the report?
quote
President Trump dominated media coverage in the outlets and programs analyzed, with Trump being the topic of 41 percent of all news stories—three times the amount of coverage received by previous presidents. He was also the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds of his coverage.
Republican voices accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency, compared to only 6 percent for Democrats and 3 percent for those involved in anti-Trump protests.
European reporters were more likely than American journalists to directly question Trump’s fitness for office.
Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president.
Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic.
This is the last or summary section of the report. I have marked parts of it with boldface for emphasis:
Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days was negative even by the standards of today’s hyper-critical press. Studies of earlier presidents found nothing comparable to the level of unfavorable coverage afforded Trump. Should it continue, it would exceed even that received by Bill Clinton. There was not a single quarter during any year of Clinton’s presidency where his positive coverage exceeded his negative coverage, a dubious record no president before or since has matched. Trump can’t top that string of bad news but he could take it to a new level. During his first 100 days, Clinton’s coverage was 3-to-2 negative over positive. Trump’s first 100 days were 4-to-1 negative over positive.
Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? That question cannot be answered definitively in the absence of an agreed-upon version of “reality” against which to compare Trump’s coverage. Any such assessment would also have to weigh the news media’s preference for the negative, a tendency in place long before Trump became president. Given that tendency, the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever.
What’s truly atypical about Trump’s coverage is that it’s sharply negative despite the fact that he’s the source of nearly two-thirds of the sound bites surrounding his coverage. Typically, newsmakers and groups complain that their media narrative is negative because they’re not given a chance to speak for themselves. Over the past decade, U.S. coverage of Muslims has been more than 75 percent negative. And Muslims have had little chance to tell their side of the story. Muslims account for less than 5 percent of the voices heard in news reports about Islam. So why is Trump’s coverage so negative even though he does most of the talking? The fact is, he’s been on the defensive during most of his 100 days in office, trying to put the best face possible on executive orders, legislative initiatives, appointments, and other undertakings that have gone bad. Even Fox has not been able to save him from what analyst David Gergen called the “’worst 100 days we’ve ever seen.”
Nevertheless, the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump’s contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his presidency. As he tweeted a month after taking office, “The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!”
That tweet made headlines, as have many of Trump’s attacks on the press. It’s understandable why journalists would report and respond to such attacks, but it could be counterproductive. A long-running battle in which Trump accuses the press of trafficking in fake news while journalists reply that their news is anything but fake would probably, fairly or not, weaken the public’s confidence in the press. Research has found that familiarity with a claim increases the likelihood people will believe it, whether it’s true or not. The more they hear of something, the more likely they are to believe it.
If a mud fight with Trump will not serve the media’s interests, neither will a soft peddling of his coverage. Never in the nation’s history has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy. The media’s credibility today is at low ebb, but the Trump presidency is not the time for the press to pull back. The news media gave Trump a boost when he entered presidential politics. But a head-on collision at some point was inevitable. It’s happened, it isn’t pretty, and it isn’t over.
At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it. The public’s low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press’s watchdog role. One of the more remarkable features of news coverage of Trump’s first 100 days is that it has changed few minds about the president, for better or worse. The nation’s watchdog has lost much of its bite and won’t regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties. The news media’s exemplary coverage of Trump’s cruise missile strike on Syria illustrates the type of even-handedness that needs to be consistently and rigorously applied.
How might the press better navigate the days ahead? For starters, journalists need to keep their eye on the ball. We live in a fast-paced media era, as journalists rush to be at the crest of breaking news. Through his tweets and actions, Trump exploits this habit, enabling him to change the subject when it suits his needs. During the presidential campaign, that tactic enabled him to shed a number of damaging revelations before many voters had a chance to hear about them, much less think about them.
The press should also start doing what it hasn’t done well for a long time—focus on policy effects. Journalists’ focus on the Washington power game—who’s up and who’s down, who’s getting the better of whom—can be a fascinating story but at the end of the day, it’s food for political junkies. It’s remote enough from the lives of most Americans to convince them that the political system doesn’t speak for them, or to them.
A broadening of the scope of political coverage would require journalists to spend less time peering at the White House. Our analysis of news coverage of Trump’s first 100 days found that, except for his court-challenged immigration orders, the press paid only minimal attention to Trump’s executive orders. He issued a large number of them, covering everything from financial regulation to climate change. Collectively, these orders, immigration aside, accounted for less than 1 percent of Trump’s coverage, and rarely did a news report track an executive order into the agencies to see how it was being handled.
Since Trump’s inauguration, the press has been paying more attention to Main Street. But judging from the extent to which Trump’s voice has dominated coverage of his presidency, the balance is still off. More voices need to be aired.
Journalists would also do well to spend less time in Washington and more time in places where policy intersects with people’s lives. If they had done so during the presidential campaign, they would not have missed the story that keyed Trump’s victory—the fading of the American Dream for millions of ordinary people. Nor do all such narratives have to be a tale of woe. America at the moment is a divided society in some respects, but it’s not a broken society and the divisions in Washington are deeper than those beyond the Beltway.
The lesson of the 2016 election has been taken to heart by many journalists. Since Trump’s inauguration, the press has been paying more attention to Main Street. But judging from the extent to which Trump’s voice has dominated coverage of his presidency, the balance is still off. More voices need to be aired. Trump might be good for ratings but he’s not the only voice worth hearing. Never have journalists fixated on a single newsmaker for as long as they have on Trump. If he sees journalists as his main opponents, one reason is that between Trump and themselves there’s not much air time for everyone else. Journalists need to resist even the smallest temptation to see themselves as opponents of government. It’s the competition between the party in power and the opposing party, and not between government and the press, that’s at the core of the democratic process. When spokespersons for the opposing party get a mere 6 percent of the airtime, something’s amiss. Click to show
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-23-2017).]
And in walks the thread spammer. "Let's throw in so much information, writing, and such that a thread becomes unreadable." That is what you purposely do. Are you not educated Rinselberg? I know that you are. Why am I even asking? You did not even look at the stats.
You posted the opinion article written in disgust of our President. I posted the facts. While connected, the opinions of a matter are not what we are discussing here. Facts are the matter.
And in walks the Paid thread spammer. "Let's throw in so much information, writing, and such that a thread becomes unreadable." That is what you purposely do. Are you not educated Rinselberg? I know that you are. Why am I even asking? You did not even look at the stats.
You posted the opinion article written in disgust of our President. I posted the facts. While connected, the opinions of a matter are not what we are discussing here. Facts are the matter.
There is a long middle section of that report which I did not duplicate. Does the middle section support the final section, which I duplicated? Key question, but I haven't given it that much time. That would be a lot.
I did not conceal any statistics that are part of the sections that I duplicated.
The report ends with three sentences that I had marked for emphasis using boldface:
quote
Journalists need to resist even the smallest temptation to see themselves as opponents of government. It’s the competition between the party in power and the opposing party, and not between government and the press, that’s at the core of the democratic process. When spokespersons for the opposing party get a mere 6 percent of the airtime, something’s amiss.
If I understand it correctly, where it says "spokespersons for the opposing party get a mere 6 percent of the airtime", the authors of the report are talking about spokespersons for or spokespersons that represent (parts of) the Democratic Party.
Where are you trying to go with this thread? And how can you proceed(?) without "drilling down" to a certain extent into the original report that is the subject of the very first link--a report about THIS report--the original report.
The report, which is a product of the Harvard University Kennedy Graduate School of Government's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, offers criticism of how a selection of major media outlets have covered the first 100 Days. It uses statistics to present specific aspects of the media coverage that the authors of the report describe as unbalanced and not fully informative.
Is this thread an attempt to "circle the wagons" around the Trump administration on this forum with a "whitewash"..?
What would you say to a report that criticizes the media for presenting a mostly negative view of violent Islamic extremists? That the media should have more "balance"..?
I am not equating "Trump" with "Islamic extremists", but there's something about this thread that makes me uncertain--even skeptical--about a direction that it seems to have from the very first post. Putting my posts in this thread to the side.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-23-2017).]
You assume too much. The thread subject is clearly written. Thanks for the page spam. A simple Click to show helps to keep a page clean and readable. Just a bit of advice. We, yes we get confused when you fill a page with nonsense, then bold face a few sentences which state your reasoning. A lot of fluff. I have never needed a fluffer. Or a blue pill for that matter.
Originally posted by rinselberg: The report that Tony Kania has put up here for discussion, "News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days", has been published online by a Harvard-associated website. Find it here: https://shorensteincenter.o...umps-first-100-days/
What report?
Indeed, what report ? Certainly not the one Kania "reported" which in and of itself was not a report either. It did however display graphics of the actual findings. Tony posted a discalimer.
Your rinselberg report ? You were honest. It was by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.
What is the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government ?
It was founded by this guy ...
quote
He was a steadfast supporter of the Democratic Party, and in 1997 received the Democratic National Committee’s Lifetime Achievement Award. Mr. Shorenstein was an advisor to Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton.
Originally posted by Tony Kania: You assume too much. The thread subject is clearly written. Thanks for the page spam. A simple Click to show helps to keep a page clean and readable. Just a bit of advice. We, yes we get confused when you fill a page with nonsense, then bold face a few sentences which state your reasoning. A lot of fluff. I have never needed a fluffer. Or a blue pill for that matter.
OK. I put the "HIDE" tags for that one longer section that I duplicated. I have used them before--frequently.
His ' poor ' job performance is because of being strangled at every turn by liberals. So far nearly everything hes tried to do promised from his campaign has met nothing but fights...some literally. Of course no one ever can get anything ever done if their locked in a box. Obama was worse than Trump in every way, including 'lying' yet conservatives, even me, let his rein run its course rather than riot. Of course we complained but not nearly to the extent liberals and press are doing now. You dont like Trump, fine...do what we did and let him do his 4 (or 8) years and vote your guy or gal in next election...if you can find one that believes in the Constitution and laws.
A far as Harvards findings, what else would I expect from a totally liberal minded college ? Might even expect it from every college because the liberals are busy indoctrinating students to the left point of view.
Hard to ignore those Clinton numbers if one is claiming a Liberal bias in coverage of the first 100 days.
I suspect the negative press regarding Trump is mainly due to his poor job performance and consistent lying.
Yeah, did you even read the findings? No, you obviously did not. You just saw another reason to shat on Trump.
I am having a very difficult time with you today. Perhaps it is me? It could be the islam inspired terrorist attack yesterday? It could be that you are being daft? Whatever the reason, I am not going to listen to stupidity. It has been/is being pointed out, yet you are riding along like the passenger of a bus. No control over reason.
Eh, enjoy your day. Don't fret on me.
quote
Originally posted by newf:
You mean what many attribute to helping him win? Covering him too much.
Whatever straw that needs grasping. You are not even a part of this process. You only can interject opinion. I sleep well knowing this.
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 05-23-2017).]
Yes his numbers for the first 100 days were better.
Drumph has historically low approval ratings, I suspect that this would be reflected in neg vs pos news coverage as well. His attacks on the media don't help much either I wouldn't imagine.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-23-2017).]
Yes his numbers for the first 100 days were better.
Drumph has historically low approval ratings, I suspect that this would be reflected in neg vs pos news coverage as well. His attacks on the media don't help much either I wouldn't imagine.
You are proving retarted. If you ever choose to read my link, the Harvard study, then you will see that only YOU are discussing the first 100 days. Even then, it is hard to ignore the numbers provided by a liberal college.
My gawd man, are you trolling me? I can haz a laugh with you if you are, but here, in this thread, I have provided facts, and you absolutely choose to not witness them? It is mind boggling! Yet, I am a racist because of your inability to understand?
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 05-23-2017).]
The resort where I work has 2 newspaper subscriptions: The Orlando Sentinel and USA Today. Every day when I go to work, I check out the newspapers. And every day, there is something negative about Donald Trump on the front page. EVERY SINGLE DAY, since he was elected. It seems these newspapers are going through a lot of effort to make the President look bad. Maybe they ran out of safety pins?
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 05-23-2017).]
You are proving retarted. If you ever choose to read my link, the Harvard study, then you will see that only YOU are discussing the first 100 days. Even then, it is hard to ignore the numbers provided by a liberal college.
My gawd man, are you trolling me? I can haz a laugh with you if you are, but here, in this thread, I have provided facts, and you absolutely choose to not witness them? It is mind boggling! Yet, I am a racist because of your inability to understand?
From your quoted article.....
quote
What is less surprising are the findings of the study that expose the extent of that bias in the reporting by the mainstream media that show as many as 98 percent of the reports about Trump’s first 100 days in office are more hostile than those covering the same period in the administrations of Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton
.
By the way feel free to check into your source article "US HERALD"
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-23-2017).]
Journalists need to resist even the smallest temptation to see themselves as opponents of government. It’s the competition between the party in power and the opposing party, and not between government and the press, that’s at the core of the democratic process. When spokespersons for the opposing party get a mere 6 percent of the airtime, something’s amiss.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
If I understand it correctly, where it says "spokespersons for the opposing party get a mere 6 percent of the airtime", the authors of the report are talking about spokespersons for or spokespersons that represent (parts of) the Democratic Party.
Only a leftist could possibly read that paragraph and somehow come to the conclusion that the salient point of it is bemoaning that the Democrat party is only getting 6 percent of the media coverage.
Lets take another look at it:
Journalists need to resist even the smallest temptation to see themselves as opponents of government.
It’s the competition between the party in power and the opposing party, and
not between government and the press, that’s at the core of the democratic process.
When spokespersons for the opposing party get a mere 6 percent of the airtime, something’s amiss.
......
You leftist liberals have become so content with a leftist press acting as a political surrogate you don't even see it as a problem !
Let's take another line from that article you liked enough to highlight Ronald:
"Research has found that familiarity with a claim increases the likelihood people will believe it, whether it's true or not. The more they hear of something, the more likely they are to believe it."
How odd. It seems that the author is simply paraphrasing someone else:
" A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Vladimir Lenin
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-23-2017).]
Drumph has historically low approval ratings, I suspect that this would be reflected in neg vs pos news coverage as well.
I see we are back to the same media driven POLLS as before the election.
Those same POLLS that proved to be so manipulated and WRONG.
quote
Originally posted by newf:
It doesn't matter anymore how credible a source is. Some people want to believe or disbelieve so bad that the truth has lost it's value IMO. Ignoring facts has been legitimized by their masters when they discredit truth in reporting with blanket catch phrases like "fake news". Isn't it what authoritarians do? Discredit the institutions and get people to believe that theirs is the only truth?
Never underestimate peoples willingness to be led.
You keep following those media POLLS. Just occasionally bleat; BAAAAAAAA, BAAAAAAA as you shuffle along with the other sheep.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-23-2017).]
You mean what many attribute to helping him win? Covering him too much.
Judging how the election went, Id say most people didnt believe half the crap liberals and liberal news was putting out. Pretty much any accusations rolled right off his back to the voters, while the lies and crap from Hillary obviously all stuck since voters threw her out with the dirty bath water. All she and liberals could do was cry and whine. boohoo.
Oh right, there are no facts unless Trump or some alt-right site says there are.
You lefties whine and complain constantly that President Trump is a "liar", but then you hold up proven, documented, FALSE, alt-left media POLLING as some kind of authoritative fact.
THAT is some serious whack-job leftist "alt-thinking" !
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-23-2017).]
Let me take a moment to set up any "viewers" who are just looking in on this, and haven't been following it since the "first pitch".
Tony Kania posted a link to a column that appears in "US Herald" under the banner "Harvard Study Proves How OUT OF CONTROL Anti-Trump Media Bias Is, No President’s EVER Been Attacked Like This Before…".
Just looking at that banner, with the ALL CAPS, it looks like another "out of control" RANT from another brain dead Anti-Anti-Trump blogger. You've all seen that before, I hope. Anti-Anti-Trump. Maybe it would be more elegant if it were Anti2-Trump. In other words, someone who is against anyone who finds serious fault with President Trump, his White House staff and his associates, his policies, his public statements, his statements that he may have thought would not become public but were "leaked" to WaPo like his blurting out classified intel to Sergey Lavrov or "leaked" to NYT like his calling fired FBI director Jim Comey a "nut job" in front of Sergey Lavrov, his Twittering (tweets), his friends, people who are related to him by "blood" or by marriage, his hair... whatever. His connections to various commercial enterprises around the world that some Anti-Trump people suspect are Conflicts of Interest that violate the Emoluments clause, which does not exempt the POTUS.
So I look at this little column in the US Herald (whatever that is) that has caught the attention of Tony Kania. And it doesn't look like anything solid. It says that a "Harvard Study Proves ..." so I consult the Harvard report itself to see if I can figure out what it does or does not "prove".
Before I turn to the Harvard report, let me zoom in on something that is in the US Herald, where it says "a study showed [that] 96 percent of working journalists contributed to Hillary Clinton’s campaign." A "study". WHAT study? Where could I find this study? It doesn't say. I mean, I could use Google or some other online search tool and try to find this study with some extra effort on my part, but this is one of the hallmarks of "crap" journalism. If the author of this rant column in the US Herald wants to refer to this study, he should give me a link, or a reference that I could just go look it up directly without playing "Clue" to try to find it. Did the author encounter this study but doesn't remember how or where he encountered this study? If that is what happened, then this author should come clean and say it.
So that's the US Herald, but what about the Harvard report? It's kind of a long report. It says many things. My attention was drawn to various statements, that I highlighted with boldface in my first venture into this discussion. There is one statement that I thought was especially important, and it came at the very end of the Harvard report. This:
quote
Journalists need to resist even the smallest temptation to see themselves as opponents of government. It’s the competition between the party in power and the opposing party, and not between government and the press, that’s at the core of the democratic process. When spokespersons for the opposing party get a mere 6 percent of the airtime, something’s amiss.
If I understand it correctly, where it says "spokespersons for the opposing party get a mere 6 percent of the airtime", the authors of the report are talking about spokespersons for or spokespersons that represent (parts of) the Democratic Party. (That is what I said before.)
And so I was greeted with a rant from "randye", or maybe it would be more informative to refer to him as "rantye", but here's his rant--a rant that I have edited for cosmetic purposes to make it more readable. I took out his arbitrary tags to make text "big" and to make himself even harder to understand by using COLOR. But here's his rant:
quote
Originally posted by randye:
Only a leftist could possibly read that paragraph and somehow come to the conclusion that the salient point of it is bemoaning that the Democrat party is only getting 6 percent of the media coverage.
You leftist liberals have become so content with a leftist press acting as a political surrogate you don't even see it as a problem !
Let's take another line from that [same Harvard] article [that "rinselberg" liked so much that he highlighted], which is: "Research has found that familiarity with a claim increases the likelihood people will believe it, whether it's true or not. The more they hear of something, the more likely they are to believe it."
How odd. It seems that the authors [of the Harvard report] are simply paraphrasing someone else: " A lie told often enough becomes the truth." ~Vladimir Lenin.
I think the authors of the Harvard report ARE "bemoaning" that the Democrat [sic] party is only getting 6 percent of the media coverage.
How would "you" (someone other than "randye") parse or interpret that statement, at the end of the Harvard report?
I did not examine the Harvard report at great length, but I did read through the final section of it. I read through that final section until I came to this "mere 6 percent of the airtime" for spokespersons of the "opposing party", which--given that this is a report about the media coverage of Trump's first 100 days--I understand "opposing party" as Democrats, or Independents (like Bernie Sanders, who calls himself an "Independent", but ran in the Democratic primaries), or anyone who is not part of, or aligned with, or generally in accordance with the Republican Party.
Is there some other way to interpret that particular sentence of the Harvard report? Having read through that final section, I did not pick up anything that would make me think that there is some other way to understand or to contextualize this "mere 6 percent of airtime" for "spokespersons of the opposing party"..?
The authors of the Harvard report are "bemoaning" a massive inequality of media airtime between spokespersons for the party of Trump (94 percent of airtime, by an obvious subtraction) and spokespersons of the opposing party (only 6 percent of airtime).
How do I know that the authors are bemoaning this massive inequality of airtime? Because that sentence ends with "something is amiss." That sounds like "bemoaning" to me? How about 'you"..?
Are they bemoaning that the spokespersons of the opposing party (Democrats; etc.) are media shy? Not making themselves available to the media or not diligent in trying to get their facts and their opinions published or "aired" in the media? I didn't get that sense, from reading the last section of the report. I think the authors of the Harvard report are bemoaning that the media itself has been focusing way too much on Trump and any topic that is directly related to Trump, and that the media itself has not been doing hardly enough reporting about what Democrats are thinking and saying (and doing.) That is what I make of that statement at the very end of the report, where it says "spokespersons for the opposing party get a mere 6 percent of the airtime."
I cannot say myself whether that "mere 6 percent of the airtime" is an accurate observation, because I do not look at hardly any of the particular media venues that were the basis of the Harvard report. I watch the MSNBC cable television channel, a fair amount, almost every day. It seems like MSNBC is giving considerably more than just "6 percent" of their airtime to interviews and reports that center on spokespersons who are Democrats, or Independents, or who find serious fault with President Trump and the way that President Trump has been staffing and presiding over the Executive Branch during his first 100 Days.
So, as far as that rant (post) from the person behind the "randye" avatar, I don't know whether he was disputing my interpretation of that "6 percent" sentence in the Harvard report, or whether he is disputing the accuracy of that "6 percent" statement in the Harvard report. Those are two different disputes.
Now, having come to this point, I see where the "mere 6 percent of airtime for spokespersons of the opposing party" could be taken as a symptom or a clue, that the media (journalists) have set themselves up as--to paraphrase from the Harvard report--opponents of the government; i.e., opponents of the party in power, which is, at this time, the party of Trump. So, I guess, yeah, that could very possibly be more on target, as far as exactly what it is that the authors of the Harvard report are bemoaning.
Reflecting on that last section of the Harvard report, which I duplicated in my earlier post, there are statements that I did not highlight, that suggest that the media has been underreporting certain aspects of the Trump administration--like the less widely publicized among Trump's body of new Executive Orders--that merit more attention from the media.
I think that anyone here who has not read that last section of the Harvard report, under the heading of "Thoughts on Trump’s Coverage", would do well to consider the effort of reading it. I suggest reading from the report itself--not the text that I duplicated and highlighted. Find the Harvard report here: https://shorensteincenter.o...umps-first-100-days/
Aside from the Harvard report--I do not think this is discussed in that report--there's one aspect of Donald Trump and his more politicized associates that I believe is very deceptive, and that is how he "talks shade" or "disses" every aspect of the situation that he inherited after the two terms of President Obama. The U.S. economy? Could have been better, but that's a truism--anyone could always say that. I think Trump has been persistent in trying to take credit for positive-trending aspects of the economy (like U.S. workforce expansions) that were actually planned before Trump took office. And they weren't counting on Trump being elected, because for some of those planned workforce expansions, they were planned before the election even got started, and before Trump was a candidate.
And what about the wreckage that is the "Middle East"..? Iraq and Syria. The U.S. "catalyzed" military operations that are currently going on there, to clear ISIS from its last territorial strongholds in Iraq and Syria, are straightforward continuations of what was already started when Obama was in office. Trump will never acknowledge that fact. Because Trump has to use deception to "diss" Obama, in order to make "Trump" sound that much better by comparison. Trump has been persistent in blatantly "photoshopping" history and reality.
The Trump administration could be on the verge of moving additional U.S. military trainers and some combat units back into Afghanistan, in a surge-like move. Not the full scale SURGE that "W" did in response to the deteriorating situation in Iraq (2007), but a "mini-surge".
He's not going to remind anyone that a President (Hillary) Clinton would likely be making the very same move.
What say "you"..? (To "channel" Bill O'Reilly.)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-23-2017).]
If you put more effort into communicating your thoughts in a more cordial manner--to disagree without being disagreeable--your posts would be easier to interpret. Your constant name calling and middle school level insults get in the way of whatever facts or realities you are trying to present.
You could have just said "No, rinselberg, you are missing the point. That mere 6 percent of airtime for the Democrats is only a symptom of the much larger reality that journalists have actually set themselves up in direct opposition to the Trump administration." And then you might even have enlarged from there.
Your constant hyperbole and sophomoric insults are getting in the way of any substance or ideas that you would like to get across. Unless, of course, your only purpose here is to effort yourself in an attempt (a futile attempt) to be condescending to the max.
Why do you think that you can play alchemist and transform your online dysfunction" into my online dysfunction..? You've been doing this for years without any progress.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-23-2017).]
You could have just said "No, rinselberg, you are missing the point. That mere 6 percent of airtime for the Democrats is only a symptom of the much larger reality that journalists have set themselves up in opposition to the Trump administration." And then you might even have enlarged from there.
Why do you think that you can play alchemist and transform your online dysfunction" into my online dysfunction..? You've been doing this for years without any progress.
So then you ADMIT that you DO actually get the point of the author but CHOSE instead to attempt your own lengthy, sophomoric tap dance around it.
Do you think that somehow you can always play "alchemist" with the truth, the same as you do with your dysfunctional, obsessive muslim threads?
You've been doing that for years without any progress, but I'll say one thing, you do put the *fun* in dysfunctional.
By the way Ronald, I am "condescending" toward you out of necessity. The same as I am toward anyone else, (i.e. leftists), with obvious emotional and intellectual disabilities.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-23-2017).]
I suggest that anyone with any real interest in the Harvard report, go straight to the report itself, online, and read through that last section that comes after the section header of "Thoughts on Trump’s Coverage".
The Harvard report has a kind of double-edged or two-handed character to it. On the one hand--as evidenced by that "mere 6 percent of airtime for spokespersons of the opposition party" sentence that I singled out--it says that news media and journalists are in error when they allow themselves to become part of any opposition movement or phenomenon that arises in opposition to the government itself--the Trump administration. The sentence makes this point by implication--by warning that media and journalists should not merge with the opposition party.
And yet--on the other hand---the Harvard report itself seems to line up with the very same "big name" media venues that are the basis for the Harvard report. There are very negative statements about the Trump administration from the authors of the Harvard report that are embedded within the Harvard report itself--particularly in that one (final) section that I am suggesting that people here could do well to read through for themselves.
"Right at the end. The small little paragraph with the words. In between the sentence with letters and punctuation. Pronouns and adjectives will mix and create written thoughts. These written thoughts can bring light, or they can bring a lesser light. At times this light can shine brightly amongst the nothingness. Who knows? Allah did not mean to blow up those children. Drumph bad. Me need direction. Blah, blah, blah."
As educated as you are, at times this is all I hear from you.
So then you ADMIT that you DO actually get the point of the author but CHOSE instead to attempt your own lengthy, sophomoric tap dance around it.
Do you think that somehow you can always play "alchemist" with the truth, the same as you do with your dysfunctional, obsessive muslim threads?
You've been doing that for years without any progress, but I'll say one thing, you do put the *fun* in dysfunctional.
By the way Ronald, I am "condescending" toward you out of necessity. The same as I am toward anyone else, (i.e. leftists), with obvious emotional and intellectual disabilities.
Well, how about that. If you make a hardcopy of this post and take it to Starbucks, you'll be in line for a Unicorn Frappe. Just don't forget the 7 USD ($) or whatever they're charging.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-23-2017).]
.
I sleep well knowing this.
Yet, I am a racist because of your inability to understand?
