Study: 91 percent of coverage on evening newscasts was negative to Donald Trump

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/study-91-percent-of-trump-coverage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297

Golden Mean fallacy eh?

A whopping 91 percent of news coverage about Donald Trump on the three broadcast nightly newscasts over the past 12 weeks has been 'hostile', a new study finds.
The study, conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, found that not only has Trump received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to the study.
In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump, such as his treatment of women, than controversies surrounding Clinton, such as her email practices or the Clinton Foundation.
For the study, MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). Of the total newscasts, the networks devoted 29 percent of their time to the campaign. The study did not include comments from the campaigns or candidates themselves, instead focusing on what the correspondents, anchors, expert commentators, and voters on the street said in order to try and hone in on any sort of slant from the networks.

Ninety-one percent of the things Donald Trump says are negative, so . . .

100% of the things she says is a lie.

ZING!!!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Ninety-one percent of the things Donald Trump says are negative, so . . .

I think hes pretty popular, bruh.

I guess he has never actually listened to Hillary speak, all she talks about it war with Russia. It's baffoons who are willing to vote for her when she wants war.

It's almost as if most people over a 50 point IQ think he'd be a disaster or something.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Ninety-one percent of the things Donald Trump says are negative, so . . .

👍

Originally posted by Nephthys
It's almost as if most people over a 50 point IQ think he'd be a disaster or something.

Considering her own staff thinks she is a mess, naive and she herself admits she is detached from people. What does that say about the people voting for her?

They don't drool while talking?

Syria-Failire
Libya-Failure
Russia Reset-Failure
Iran Deal only Embolden Iran plus we gave them ransom-failure
Obamacare-Failure.

Only a mouth breather would vote for another 4 years of this👆

I don't think you understood, I was implying that you were a sub-human neanderthal. I didn't ask you to spam more horseshit about the future POTUS.

I cant post whatever I want, and there isn't anything you can do about it.

Go ahead and prove how those points are horeshit, unless you think all of those were successes?

Huh. It's almost as if the mainstream media are biased against Trump. mmm

Originally posted by Nephthys
It's almost as if most people over a 50 point IQ think he'd be a disaster or something.

Do these same imbeciles have an explanation for why Hilary won't be a disaster?

Originally posted by Surtur
Do these same imbeciles have an explanation for why Hilary won't be a disaster?

She's intelligent, experienced, not emotionally volatile, not dependent on rednecks for votes, not a bigot, and doesn't peddle conspiracy theories about how vaccines cause autism and global warming is a hoax started by the Chinese.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
She's intelligent, experienced, not emotionally volatile, not dependent on rednecks for votes, not a bigot, and doesn't peddle conspiracy theories about how vaccines cause autism and global warming is a hoax started by the Chinese.

Okay, do they have a non-bullshit reason?

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay, do they have a non-bullshit reason?

Please provide an actual rebuttal for the record.