[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / egy / fur / htg / ita / polk / waifuist / zoo ]

/n/ - News

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 1 per post.


8chan News Board Ring: /pn/ - Politics and News - /politics/ - Politics

File: d321f5404af07a4⋯.jpg (61.21 KB, 619x391, 619:391, Harvard Study Reveals Yuge….jpg)

 No.541847

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

https://archive.fo/bB891/91989277423dd7ca8d695cf35d5996fdb364053e

The academics based their study on seven US outlets and three European ones.

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

https://archive.fo/bB891

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/

 No.541857

Wow. Nothing to see here folks.


 No.541948

File: 86674ee47e3d112⋯.jpg (63.72 KB, 511x500, 511:500, anti-trump-msm-narrative.jpg)

Who could have guessed this would happen?


 No.541979

actual news bump


 No.541999

My local news paper has done nothing but put trump on the ("front page every day") since the election.


 No.542002

>>541847

OY VEY! THIS IS FAKE NEWS GOYIM! NOTHING TO SEE HERE!


 No.542029


 No.542056


 No.542058

File: b804a9d8fc2015d⋯.jpg (29.01 KB, 640x426, 320:213, ASS.jpg)

Why are reports negative or positive?

They need to be neutral.

News has become shit.


 No.542083

actual news bump


 No.542099

>>542058

Most people don't want to read it unless it flatters their preconceptions.


 No.542268

news bumparoo


 No.542292

news bump 005


 No.542315

>>541847

>news coverage is sorted into positive and negative categories with no neutral category

Sounds meaningless to me. You can't tell me that absolutely 0 articles from Trump's first 100 days across all of the news outlets they looked at have been neutral. Even CNN would have neutral articles despite with their massive bias, simply because neutral articles would be less supporting than the 7% of positive coverage that they gave Trump according to this study. Their point breaks down further when they list that there has been no neutral coverage related to Trump's actions on the economy which their study shows has had 46% positive reporting on average regardless of news outlet.


 No.542316

>>542315

The only truly neutral article would be blank.

Under most statistical analysis even the neutral ones would have a bias one way or the other.


 No.542320

I was at someone else's house the other day, helping them with some yard work. When finished I went inside and heard the TV on in the living room. It was either CNN or some other mainstream network (can't remember which one). All I heard for 20 minutes straight was Trump bashing. Non stop. That is literally all they will talk about. Nothing else besides Trump and the evil boogeyman Russia. And no evidence provided either. Just talk! I eventually had to turn it off, it started to give me a headache.

I am so glad I canceled my cable service, I will never ever go back.


 No.542321

>BBC less biased against him than most of the others

How the fuck do you out-bias the fucking BBC?


 No.542322

>>542320

>And no evidence provided either. Just talk!

Where have you been for the past god knows how long? That's what has happened everywhere when TV news needs to report on things 24/7, it isn't exclusive to CNN.


 No.542323

>>542316

>Under most statistical analysis even the neutral ones would have a bias one way or the other.

Their method is flawed if any article no matter how neutral it appears to actual human readers must fit into black and white positive/negative categories. If that is their method then their study will show any situation as being partisan even if every single article reviewed would come off as neutral to every human reader who isn't some hyper sensitive snowflake with a persecution complex.


 No.542331

>>542322

I haven't had cable for over ten years, cut it along time ago because paying the monthly bill wasn't worth it. The new shows sucked and I hardly watched the news on TV anyway. I got accustomed to reading news on the internet.

It was a game changer to witness how bias the mainstream boobtube media really is. They have become attack dogs for the leftists in this country. I remember the days when they had more neutral coverage, but those days are far gone.


 No.542333

>>542321

Just take a look at the US mainstream media when you get the chance. They have accomplished the seemingly impossible when it comes to competitive bias. I'll warn you though, if you are even somewhat awake and aware of what is actually going on it will make you so frustrated you'll start to get physically sick as I did. You can sense their utter contempt and hatred towards their political opponents, much like you could sense it going to /pol/ or /leftypol/ or some other politically extremist board. It disturbs me how divided America has become.


 No.542339

>harvard has to conduct a study to find out something any random joe that's not a koolaid swilling regressive have known for years

One of the top collages in the US everyone.


 No.542418

>in another thread "Lol, Harvard is worthless because it accepted a rap album as thesis from a nigger student."

But this study is (((BASED))) amirite?

>inb4 "shitposting"

Nope, my point is that if a source it shit, then it's shit even when it is saying something you like.

Why bother citing a kiked out source? Doing so provides an attack vector whereby such a source can flatter you in order that you will spread their memes.


 No.543413

surprise?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / egy / fur / htg / ita / polk / waifuist / zoo ]