Posted on 12/28/2017 6:32:13 AM PST by blam
The media’s coverage of President Trump has been overwhelmingly negative, more than three times more critical than the initial coverage of former President Barack Obama and twice that of former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
The Pew Research Center said that the early coverage of Trump was 62 percent negative. By comparison, Obama’s coverage was just 20 percent negative.
“About six-in-ten stories on Trump’s early days in office had a negative assessment, about three times more than in early coverage for Obama and roughly twice that of Bush and Clinton. Coverage of Trump’s early time in office moved further away from a focus on the policy agenda and more toward character and leadership,” said Pew.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.
Only three times the negative coverage?
I would have guessed it was higher than that.
>>Only three times the negative coverage?
>>I would have guessed it was higher than that.
I thought the same thing.
Obama: 3 networks, 3 news channels 100% in the tank for him. 1 against.
Trump: 3 networks, 3 news channels 100% convinced that he is Hitler. 1 that mostly hates him, but has to keep the viewers so does provide some fair reporting. Also, sports channel commentators 100% against him.
Seditionists exposed!
Pew is liberal, so the fact they even brought it up is remarkable.
Surprisingly, “Newsrooms” foreign and domestic are cheering their success.
They are claiming O’s negatives were 20%. FAKE NEWS. They were actually less than 5%, about the same as Trump’s positives.
I was going to post the same thing. I doubt there was 20% negative reporting on O’bozo in his first year. Unless they are including and/or overvaluing talk radio/Rush.
Of the fifty largest newspapers in the country, only one (Las Vegas) endorsed Trump in the 2016 election.
Now _that_ is media bias.
Even with all the non stop negative reporting , the Presidents polling is actually pretty good. Imagine his approval rating if the Drive Bys did some accurate reporting.
They could have said media was TWELVE times more positive for stinkin’ BO than for Trump.
Oops...”only” EIGHT times more positive.
Last time I noticed, Lester Holt (NBC evening news anchor) referred to Trump as “Mister Trump”, not “President Trump”.
I find that almost every single story I hear on ABC, CBS or NBC is twisted to be negative for Trump.
For example, today’s reports of people in HIGH tax states like NYS are paying 2018 taxes early is reported as if the Tax Cut Bill is problematic for the entire nation, not just high earners in welfare states like NY.
Then Trump in West Palm Beach, every statement made at the firehouse was “fact checked”. Seriously?
The media is more problematic than any Russia influence. The Russians had a handful of bloggers and a few media social posts - The MSM fake news is 24/7 fake anti-Trump news, which IMHO is more dangerous for our electorial system as people are not getting unbiased truthful stories, just anti-Trump news activism.
The Media ,you mean the Propaganda Arm of the Demonut Party
I was the media that made Trump President. They held their fire against him until after the primaries, thinking that Hillary could beat him.
I’m amazed Trump’s numbers are as high as they are considering the nonstop hatred express by the MSM.
More like 300x
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.