The State of the Nation

[b***@gmail.com]

On the other hand, Trump has insulted women and every minority and every
ethnicity (other than those males of white, European background) and is
held to a far, far lower standard than Clinton was.

On the news the other day there was a report of a study done by a major
university (I can't remember if it was Harvard or Yale) regarding the
stories journalism has done on Trump. NY Times was 99% negative followed
by Washington Post, ABC, and CBS all above 92%. Fox came in at 52%
negative. Those were the only media measured.
So I don't see that the holding him to a lower standard carries any
water, sincestories about Hilary have never come close to those percentages.
Just saying. Not a Trump groupie. Will admit to voting for him as the least
objectionable but had to hold my nose. And I pray daily that he will grow into
the job, and learn to and stop tweeting or speaking off the cuff.
Carol

The reason that so many news stories are negative is that Trump has
needlessly involved himself in so many scandals in such a short time.
He has also engaged in unconstitutional actions that the courts have had
to halt, and that because he really knows nothing about the law or the
Constitution - a bad trait for a head of state.

Can't remember reference, I've seen quoted the law which gives the
President the power to deny entry to the US of anyone for any reason he
sees fit.
The reason so many stories are so negative is that the mainstream media is
terminally biassed towards the left. They have been totally negative to
the extent that no sane person believes a word from the NYT, WashPo, CNN MSNBC

Quite the opposite:

"The New York Times (NYT) added 276,000 subscribers after Donald Trump's election as US president" - Quartz Feb 3, 2017

"The Washington Post set records for traffic and digital advertising revenue in 2016 ... new subscriptions have grown by 75 percent, more than doubling digital subscription revenue." - NPR Dec 27, 2016

[Carol Dickinson]

reason so many stories are so negative is that the mainstream media is

Post by b***@gmail.com

terminally biased towards the left. They have been totally negative to
the extent that no sane person believes a word from the NYT, WashPo, CNN MSNBC

"The New York Times (NYT) added 276,000 subscribers after Donald Trump's election as US president" - Quartz Feb 3, 2017
"The Washington Post set records for traffic and digital advertising revenue in 2016 ... new subscriptions have grown by 75 percent, more than doubling digital subscription revenue." - NPR Dec 27, 2016

Doesn't mean that more people believe in their biased slant on the news. It just means more of them are angry enough to start paying attention and get active.

Fox remained #1 on TV news until they fired O'Reilly. Combined with the loss of Meghan Kelly, and the apparent soon departure of Hannity there has been a drop in their viewership. I don't know who is #1 now.


We have only one newspaper here and its owned by Maclatchy (sp?) which leans far left in a community that has been far right for years. Nobody reads it. I can't imagine why it remains in business. It is struggling.

So I listen to Fox because it is the more fair and balanced bringing on a LOT of progressive guests and having several progressive on air talent. So you get a more balanced understanding of the news.

But the new replacement shows I just can't get enthused about and the shift in schedule hasn't helped. The only shows I can depend on to give me some measure of real news now is Sheperd Smith who is on Alaska time before I get up and Brett Bair who is on when I am usually out of the house. I do record them. I used to watch the Five when it was on at lunch time here but their new time means I can't usually fit it in to my day and I can't spend 3 hours a night trying to catch up with that. It was good for debate and opinion and interpretation of the news. The hour Tucker Carlson was on was a good hour for me but despite his intellectual discussions I have to grit me teeth because he actually laughs at the opinions of his guest nightly. I usually don't listen to him unless there is a fast moving story that needs updating after Bret.

I agree Trump exacerbates these news story issue with his off the cuff statements and tweets. But still that doesn't excuse 97% negative coverage. The right and apparantly the center of the country despised Obama (or Trump would not have been elected) but the coverage was much fairer to him.

Carol

[b***@gmail.com]

reason so many stories are so negative is that the mainstream media is

Post by b***@gmail.com

terminally biased towards the left. They have been totally negative to
the extent that no sane person believes a word from the NYT, WashPo, CNN MSNBC

"The New York Times (NYT) added 276,000 subscribers after Donald Trump's election as US president" - Quartz Feb 3, 2017
"The Washington Post set records for traffic and digital advertising
revenue in 2016 ... new subscriptions have grown by 75 percent,
more than doubling digital subscription revenue." - NPR Dec 27, 2016

Doesn't mean that more people believe in their biased slant on
the news. It just means more of them are angry enough to start
paying attention and get active.
Fox remained #1 on TV news until they fired O'Reilly. Combined
with the loss of Meghan Kelly, and the apparent soon departure
of Hannity there has been a drop in their viewership. I don't
know who is #1 now.

If you don't think that even search engines are biased too, I can look up a few news site headlines for you. Here:

Breitbart News: "Fox News Slips to 3rd Place in Primetime for First Time in 17 Years" Breitbart News May 22, 2017

-- http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/05/22/fox-news-slips-to-third-place-among-key-demographic-for-first-time-in-17-years/

"Fox News Finds Itself in Third Place Looking Up at MSNBC, CNN"
Bloomberg May 23, 2017

-- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-23/fox-news-finds-itself-in-third-place-looking-up-at-msnbc-cnn