Fox news viewers are nuts

[Trotsky]

More insults while I provide actual proof to prove you are wrong.

But I expect you to insult when you are proven wrong. It's what you do. It's quite lazy but some in here will eat it up

So continue to say something then when it's refuted with back up. You can call the one who refutes it with data an idiot moron retarded nazi. Whatever it takes to make you think you are right.

You have not produced a single bit of data, you gaping twat. You provided a study saying most media coverage of Trump is negative, which I accepted and said "FUCKING DUH" and explained why saying that is proof of "bias" is fallacious.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Read the numbers. They are straight gossip at this point.

Please provide said numbers.

 

[SBJJ]

For anyone interested:

Most of the rest of these graphics are fairly outdated and still have CNN with a slight right bias instead of slight left.

Lol. Nice try. Not actual studies.

Should we post charts from Breitbart or Infowars.

Post me an actual unbiased study

 

[SBJJ]

Please provide said numbers.

Already provided

 

[SBJJ]

You have not produced a single bit of data, you gaping twat. You provided a study saying most media coverage of Trump is negative, which I accepted and said "FUCKING DUH" and explained why saying that is proof of "bias" is fallacious.

It's an actual unbiased study. Something you do not like

 

[Trotsky]

Type of an explanation?

You hate data. You hate studies. You hate facts.

You love insults and you obviously really love hearing yourself talk.

If I only had a buck every time you were proven wrong in these threads only to call the person stupid, ignorant or worse. Meanwhile all the person did was provide a correction to your false info without insulting you.

In B4 I'm called a retard or worse.

I would never call you a retard.

A mentally challenged person generally knows they are mentally challenged. You, on the other hand, are blissfully unaware of the fact that you're too stupid to understand basic realities.

On your moronic point:

If your favorite football team gets destroyed by another team, and the local newspaper writes a story about the game, is the resulting news story--which paints an ugly picture of your team's performance--an example of the newspaper's bias against your beloved team?

Of course not.

But that's essentially what some conservative media believe when it comes to coverage of the Trump White House. In their view, since most coverage of Trump is negative, that proves the media is biased against the president.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjo...e-media-but-not-because-of-bias/#14a533af728e

It's an actual unbiased study. Something you do not like

See above for the 20th fucking time.

 

[SBJJ]

You have not produced a single bit of data, you gaping twat. You provided a study saying most media coverage of Trump is negative, which I accepted and said "FUCKING DUH" and explained why saying that is proof of "bias" is fallacious.

Gaping Twat. Lol

Such an Internet tough guy

I've seen a picture of you. There is no way you'd talk to me like that face up

 

[Trotsky]

Gaping Twat. Lol

Such an Internet tough guy

I've seen a picture of you. There is no way you'd talk to me like that face up

LOL

 

[SBJJ]

I would never call you a retard.

A mentally challenged person generally knows they are mentally challenged. You, on the other hand, are blissfully unaware of the fact that you're too stupid to understand basic realities.

On your moronic point:


https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjo...e-media-but-not-because-of-bias/#14a533af728e



See above for the 20th fucking time.

Another nice try. Lol!

A media contributer to a magazine.

You got more tough guy?

 

[SBJJ]

LOL

You realize how easy it is to get into someone's social media from a site like this?

I assure you I am far from a moron in some areas

 

[Trotsky]

Also, from the Harvard study this genius is talking about:

"The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising," the Harvard report says. "The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever."

 

[SBJJ]

LOL

Actually many pictures

 

[SBJJ]

Also, from the Harvard study this genius is talking about:

That's an opinion

 

[Trotsky]

That's an opinion

That's an explanation of the output of the study, from the person who compiled the data.

If you don't understand this by now, then you're welcome to keep living in your delusion. Have fun.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Already provided

That article you provided opined on CNN over blowing things. How is this anywhere near Alex Jones, the man who keeps insisting Sandy Hook is a false flag operation by Obama?

 

[SBJJ]

That's an explanation of the output of the study, from the person who compiled the data.

If you don't understand this by now, then you're welcome to keep living in your delusion. Have fun.

It's a persons opinion on why the data could be biased. Just like Sean Hannity would have an opinion or Rachel Maddow might. But the RAW numbers are what they are.

Why do you act so tough. Is it because of your size or the way you look?

 

[SBJJ]

That article you provided opined on CNN over blowing things. How is this anywhere near Alex Jones, the man who keeps insisting Sandy Hook is a false flag operation by Obama?

I have NEVER seen more than 2 minutes of Alex Jones. I just assume he's also 95% negative on Hillary/Obama or whoever.

Maybe he's harsher or meaner. But kinda hard to more biased on anything when you are 95% negative and are having stories you air debunked

 

[AFCrookie]

The hypocrisy is strong in this thread

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chic...ge-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column,amp.html

That's not a real argument. The media's tough on Trump because he's objectively incompetent at his job. Because he's president, people are going to be super critical when its abundantly clear that he has no idea what he's doing. If you're tired of coastal liberal elite condescension, I would get used to it.... Continuing to support the Donald kind of guarantees that you get talked to like a mentally challenged juggalo for the foreseeable future.

 

[Trotsky]

It's a persons opinion on why the data could be biased. Just like Sean Hannity would have an opinion or Rachel Maddow might. But the RAW numbers are what they are.

So, just so everyone reading this is clear: it is your belief that, no matter what a person or organization does, if a particular media outlet's coverage on person or organization is not evenly positive/negative, then that outlet is biased, correct?

Why do you act so tough. Is it because of your size or the way you look?

You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[SBJJ]

So, just so everyone reading this is clear: it is your belief that, no matter what a person or organization does, if a particular media outlet's coverage on person or organization is not evenly positive/negative, then that outlet is biased, correct?



You are embarrassing yourself.

Unless we are talking a convicted murderer or pedophile, yes, media outlets should be fair. Especially with politicians that are representing 35 to 50% of the population?

I've seen you. I am not the 1 that should be embarrassed. I suggest you cut the tough guy shtick