[Albert]

[Ter]

Again, why would our brain genius OP include one if reading the article was necessary? Sorry you guy suck at everything you do.

On the contrary, it is a good article.
Try to read it.
Your reaction peppered with abuse and insults is not convincing, it is rather a sign of intellectual laziness.
You perfectly illustrated the polarisation in American society.

[SpecialOlympian]

Hmmm. Maybe the guy with the Soros avatar posting bullshit NY Post OpEds wants to engage in very serious and very rational debates while clawing at his chest and screaming "Benghaziiiiiiii!!"

No. Your position and opinion are shit. I've decided that I will never read the article just to annoy you. What'chu gonna do about it?

Spoiler: show

Also just lmfao off @ a guy with a Soros avatar, posting an article from one of AMERICA'S most conservative and pro-Trump newspapers blaming me for polarization. You do realize that Trump and the guy who owns the NY Post are besties, right? The guy has straight up bought stories just to silence them for Trump.

[pugsville]

Indeed many headlines start by saying "Trump lied, Trump was wrong, Trump is misleading" and so on, ths is not really up for discussion.
Interesting that the same facts can be viewed in totally different ways, according to people's preconceptions.

Well as trump does lie, mislead and is wrong about stuff on a staggering often basis, thats what the headlines should have said,

The dysfunction of journalism is evenhandness between truth and lies.

[SpecialOlympian]

Well as trump does lie, mislead and is wrong about stuff on a staggering often basis, thats what the headlines should have said,

The dysfunction of journalism is evenhandness between truth and lies.

No. But, Benghazi. Obama.

That not what article about. Lets agree Trump good. He Christ. Most persecute man ever. Media bad. Trump good. Durr.

[Ter]

Well as trump does lie, mislead and is wrong about stuff on a staggering often basis, thats what the headlines should have said,

The dysfunction of journalism is evenhandness between truth and lies.

I agree, but there is no evenhandedness.
The mainstream news sources, NYT, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, they are all 100% pro-Democrat and terribly biased against Trump.
That is exactly what the OP was claiming.

[SpecialOlympian]

[SpecialOlympian]

Maxine Waters was 100% correct by the way. Politics is not a 9 to 5 job. It is a power struggle, and a minority of dipshits appointed the dumbest man to ever trod the Earth to the highest office in the land. Voters politely shouting at the officials carrying out unpopular, inhumane, and poorly thought out policies is the least thing said officials should be worried about.

If you have sympathy for people who are incarcerating and separating children from their parents, people who are betraying the mission of their appointed office, people who are just sentient turds in general, etc. then fuck you.

It supremely fucking owns that Trump appointees like Nielsen, Huckabee, Pruitt, et al can no longer leave their homes without being told by the people they nominally represent that they suck. That is democracy in action. Sorry if it triggers you, but if you side with a dumbass who does retard impressions and mocks dead soldier's families then you sholdn't be surprised when nobody outside your bubble respects your insincere calls to decency, decorum, and ~fair media treatment~ of the president.

I don't have to read the big dumb OpEd to know I am correct when I say this: Trump gives no respect to anyone, and deserves none in return. And you, as a supporter of Trump, do not have the right to demand I respect your retarded opinion. In fact, you should respect me for refusing to read some bloviating dipshit's longwinded article. I am being extremely presidential right now by refusing to read it.

[colliric]

Maxine Waters was 100% correct by the way. Politics is not a 9 to 5 job.

Yes it is. Being a Politician is a 9-5 job. Your not on some 24-hour holy mission from God in a blue suit with Dan and John at your side..

I don't have to read the big dumb OpEd to know I am correct when I say this: Trump gives no respect to anyone, and deserves none in return. And you, as a supporter of Trump, do not have the right to demand I respect your retarded opinion. In fact, you should respect me for refusing to read some bloviating dipshit's longwinded article. I am being extremely presidential right now by refusing to read it.

Actually yes we do(Freedom of Speech), but you also have the right to refuse give it. Ok, that's how freedom of opinion & speech works.

We are free to demand respect from you, you are free to tell us to fuck off.

[Hong Wu]

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/ ... 2018-07-03 Reuters has Trump at 43% approval with registered voters. Safe re-election numbers are generally considered to be 45% likely voters. So these recent strategies do not appear to have tangibly harmed Trump's odds of re-election; they may even be helping him.

I know I keep writing this but I feel as if a lot of people in American society today are not capable of appreciating basic democratic presumptions and I don't think that universal suffrage democracy was intended for people who can't hold a civil discussion.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Well as trump does lie, mislead and is wrong about stuff on a staggering often basis, thats what the headlines should have said,

The dysfunction of journalism is evenhandness between truth and lies.

I agree, but there is no evenhandedness.
The mainstream news sources, NYT, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, they are all 100% pro-Democrat and terribly biased against Trump.
That is exactly what the OP was claiming.

But, as I already pointed out, it has been shown by analysis that the mainstream media coverage favoured Trump during the election. It concentrated on Clinton "scandals" (such as endless coverage of an email server, and meaningless nonsense about the Clinton Foundation, while the actual illegal misuse of the Trump Foundation went almost uncommented on - this is finally coming to court). Trump had, and has, loads of scandals, only a few of which have got much coverage (eg grabbing pussies). There was, for instance, hardly any comment on him having to pay out $25 million to those defrauded by Trump University - the suit that was going on during the election.

The OP claims there is bias against Trump, but it's just another partisan working for Team Trump, saying "forget the facts - don't you Trump supporters feel you and Trump are picked on? Of course you feel that. And your feelings are the truth, whatever the facts."

[Hong Wu]

But, as I already pointed out, it has been shown by analysis that the mainstream media coverage favoured Trump during the election. It concentrated on Clinton "scandals" (such as endless coverage of an email server, and meaningless nonsense about the Clinton Foundation, while the actual illegal misuse of the Trump Foundation went almost uncommented on - this is finally coming to court). Trump had, and has, loads of scandals, only a few of which have got much coverage (eg grabbing pussies). There was, for instance, hardly any comment on him having to pay out $25 million to those defrauded by Trump University - the suit that was going on during the election.

The OP claims there is bias against Trump, but it's just another partisan working for Team Trump, saying "forget the facts - don't you Trump supporters feel you and Trump are picked on? Of course you feel that. And your feelings are the truth, whatever the facts."

Your post proved no such thing. It was about the number of sentences published. Even if we take those numbers as true, the number of sentences published doesn't necessarily tell us what they were doing because (1) media is more than just print media, (2) the sentences and the headlines often don't line up and (3) the placement or coverage given to different articles can be very different, for example, a pro-Trump article (sometimes with a misleading headline) might be published in the interests of looking unbiased but the anti-Trump articles are the ones that get put up on the front page.

If we're going to assume you're correct though, why do so many people distrust the media?

[SpecialOlympian]

Why do so many people find it hard to pass the Bar or find gainful employment within the 48 contiguous states? I am just asking questions in a way that presumes the answer, please engage seriously with me.

Points 2 & 3 are pointless equivocating, btw. The issue is the coverage. And boy, what a brilliant plan to look unbiased by burying articles nobody is ever meant to read just in case someone does a study of your paper. You know what cash strapped newspapers love to do? Waste time and money writing shit nobody is going to read.

In regards to televised media, Trump had nearly all of his rallies broadcast for free and even had free footage of his empty podium broadcasted when he was late. But this is all a pointless, insincere argument by partisan hacks to deligitimize criticism of the president because his actions are indefensible.

In fact, I seem to remember some of our resident chuds citing all of the free media coverage he was receiving as one of the reasons they believed he would win. How odd, I wonder why their memories are so short?

[Hong Wu]

Deeper analyses than "number of sentences" from places like Harvard concluded that the media was extremely biased against Trump: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu ... olumn.html

[SpecialOlympian]

Thank you for sharing the first Google result you could find with us, another oped, which you've dutifully misrepresented by stating the study found the coverage of Trump's first 100 days was biased rather than negative.

Simply reporting the actions of the Trump administration within the first 100 days was negative coverage. What is the positive spin for claiming 3 million illegal immigrants voted (and subsequently creating a commission to look into the lie), lying about crowd size, etc.? It's not the media's duty to pretend Trump is not constantly shitting his pants.

[Albert]

I still believe 3 million illegals voted in that election. But this election it will not happen, because the benevolent rule of our leader has eliminated such prospects. Democrats can not abuse the system anymore.

SO have you even read the OP?

[SpecialOlympian]

I read the TL:DR, and thus am more than adequately prepared to address the topic. That topic being: the insincere complaints of partisan hacks about why the media is just so darn mean to Trump, a man who continually backtracks, lies, and commits unforced errors.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I've read the OP, because someone sane has to. It's basically "The New York Times are horrible, liberal people who wrote a lot about Trump because they found that was good for circulation, and then said don't vote for him. And the weaselly Washington Post followed their lead. Boo! Hooray for brave Rupert Murdoch who gave us the fair and balanced Fox News!" ("Is that OK, Mr. Murdoch, will you increase my salary, please?")

So, @Hong Wu, the accusation of bias was aimed at print media (as the tldr put it "the leading newspapers in the US have completely lost credibility due to unparalleled demonstrated bias"), and it was about 2016 and the election, not 2017 and Trump's presidency. Which, let's face it, has been an unparalleled clusterfuck, with Trump hires getting fired for treason, grift and incompetence at an incredible rate, Trump initiatives getting blocked by courts, and his 'major achievement' being to get Republicans with majorities in both houses to actually agree on a tax bill after a year. Big fucking wow. He is judged by historians to be the worst president ever, so of course reporting is going to be more negative than positive. Unbiased reporting is not meant to be an "all shall have prizes" sop to Trump's bloated ego.

Your points 2 and 3 are just more right wing "fuck the facts, it's the way I feel about the articles that counts" whining.

[One Degree]

Curious how any of you explain the Democrats saying these attacks on Trump are not working and we need to quit it. I wonder why they would say that if all the coverage is unbiased?
I can’t imagine them suggesting honest attacks be stopped. Can you?

[Albert]

I've read the OP, because someone sane has to. It's basically "The New York Times are horrible, liberal people who wrote a lot about Trump because they found that was good for circulation, and then said don't vote for him. And the weaselly Washington Post followed their lead. Boo! Hooray for brave Rupert Murdoch who gave us the fair and balanced Fox News!" ("Is that OK, Mr. Murdoch, will you increase my salary, please?")

So, @Hong Wu, the accusation of bias was aimed at print media (as the tldr put it "the leading newspapers in the US have completely lost credibility due to unparalleled demonstrated bias"), and it was about 2016 and the election, not 2017 and Trump's presidency. Which, let's face it, has been an unparalleled clusterfuck, with Trump hires getting fired for treason, grift and incompetence at an incredible rate, Trump initiatives getting blocked by courts, and his 'major achievement' being to get Republicans with majorities in both houses to actually agree on a tax bill after a year. Big fucking wow. He is judged by historians to be the worst president ever, so of course reporting is going to be more negative than positive. Unbiased reporting is not meant to be an "all shall have prizes" sop to Trump's bloated ego.

Your points 2 and 3 are just more right wing "fuck the facts, it's the way I feel about the articles that counts" whining.

That is not what was in the article I suggest you reread it or actually read it.