It's gotten worse. I know it seems impossible to believe, but according to a new analysis from MRC, the coverage of Trump during his first 100 days this time around was even more biased than the first term. In 2016, Orange's coverage by the big three was
89% negative. This time, that's increased to
92% negative coverage. Think about that for a moment: 92 versus 8. They've changed your mother's old saying into, "If you don't have something bad to say, don't say anything."
So when our resident talking point, idiot boy tries to cite his polls about Orange the Hun, what does he think helps shape those snapshot opinions? (and none of that addresses methodology of things like who they are asking, how they are asking, specific wording, etc.).
92 v. 8. And before someone tries to pull out some journalistic standard of it's their job/responsibility to always be negative about our leaders to keep them on the straight and narrow: that same coverage of a certain former sleepy president during the same period of time???
59% positive.
The hatred and unified effort is just crazy. For example, anyone take a look at the DJIA or Nasdaq lately? We'll see how they close out the month today, but they are back to the same levels or above how they closed out March. But, would anyone know that unless they paid attention to alternate "news" sources versus depending on the big three to be anything close to fair, honest, and neutral?
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...assaults-2nd-trump-admin-92-negative-coverage