[horsemessiah]

This is simply not true. Looking at the three mainstream cable channels (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) Fox hardly ever critical, MSNBC is almost exclusively critical, and CNN is pretty in between. Fox is by far the most popular of these three.

Similarly, the NYTimes and Washington Post are usually pretty critical of Trump (unless he's bombing people, in which case they love him) and the WSJ are somewhere in between.

Then, consider that Americans are increasingly not getting their news from these sources and podcasts, blogs, social media, etc. are becoming the primary source of news for many people.

All this to say, to claim 97% of media is critical of Trump is a wild fantasy of victimhood that has no basis in reality.

[asdf21]

Also, you're completely wrong about Fox. I don't generally watch mainstream news period, but one day it was on in a hotel, and like you, I expected neutral to positive coverage on Trump.

It was just the opposite, like 20 minutes straight of "Russia Gate," just endlessly hyping up and trying to validate the scandal. If Fox is a friend of Trump's, he doesn't need enemies.

[asdf21]

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2019/11/12/i...

96% Negative Spin from the main 3 networks.

>Silent on Economic Success: Despite record highs in the stock market and a fifty-year low in the unemployment rate, the President’s handling of the economy was given a stingy 4 minutes, 6 seconds of airtime during these six weeks, or less than one percent of all Trump administration news (645 minutes).

[joshuamorton]

You're citing an openly right wing media watchdog whose goal is to perpetuate the narrative that right wing ideas are suppressed. It calls CNN "hacks" in it's headlines. That's not a reliable source.

[asdf21]

Exactly who else is going to cover the % of negative media coverage on Trump, in your mind, other than a "right wing" source?

[joshuamorton]

An academic source that can describe a pre-propoosed methodology and doesn't have the appearance of being explicitly anti-CNN.

You can't seriously think that "the only people we can believe are people who openly call CNN hacks". That's just an admission that you only believe people who agree with you.

Put another way: there was a recent article on HN about using sources who you had uncertainty about, because those sources give you the most information (in a bayesian sense, they cause you to update your priors the most). The source listed gives me no reason to update my priors, because I could predict the result from the source.

[asdf21]

Lol, what?

So were you able to find a "academic source" that audited the media in this way?

[dang]

We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments. Not what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html