Study Finds 88 Percent of Media Coverage is Anti-Trump

[Zippyjuan]

Media is usually critical of leaders. The sign of a real leader is how they respond to it. Ignore it and move along or be a whiner.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-finds-harsh-media-coverage-for-obama/

Study finds harsh media coverage for Obama

President Obama "has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment" of all presidential candidates over the past five months, according to a study released Monday from the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Pew found that Mr. Obama was the subject of negative assessments nearly four times as often as he was the subject of positive assessments. It found he received "positive" coverage nine percent of the time, "neutral" coverage 57 percent of the time and "negative" coverage 34 percent of the time.

The study, which was conducted using a combination of "traditional media research methods [and] computer algorithms to track the level and tone of coverage," cuts against the widespread conservative claim that the "liberal media" aides Mr. Obama and other Democrats while attacking Republicans.

Pew says it looked at coverage from more than 11,500 news outlets, including local and national broadcasts, news websites and blogs.

 

[timosman]

Media is usually critical of leaders. The sign of a real leader is how they respond to it. Ignore it and move along or be a whiner.

I do not know if you realize this but nobody wants to listen to your false equivalency stories. If I were you I would be staying on the down-low for a while. If your rep is any indication you are pretty low for the number of posts you've made. You may start thinking why that is before you lose your "beyond repute status"

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Pew found that Mr. Obama was the subject of negative assessments nearly four times as often as he was the subject of positive assessments. It found he received "positive" coverage nine percent of the time, "neutral" coverage 57 percent of the time and "negative" coverage 34 percent of the time.

What negative assessments? I went to the link outlining the study. It did not say anything about that. All it said was:

Four years later, with Obama clearly planning to run for re-election and potential Republican candidates biding their time, coverage has been minimal.

So their criteria for positive/negative is maximum/minimal coverage? So Obama did not get the same coverage in 2012 as 2008 and they call that "negative?" Not focusing on the incumbent over a wide open GOP race is "negative?"

 

[juleswin]

Ya, the shoe fits, the media is the enemy. Most of us here know that. Ron Paul knows that. Ron Paul has his own brand of talking $#@! on Trump that doesn't sound ANYTHING like the media's brand of talking $#@! on Trump. Yet we have people here parading around the media's horse crap on a daily basis.

I would give it to you. Half of the criticisms by the media is just silly. Especially when they start with the Russia and anti semetic topics. The man is anti Russia and very pro Israeli which is actually a reason to criticize him but the media does the reverse and still criticizes him.

In this analogy, the media is the garden snake you bring in to eradicate the rad problem.