Harvard University Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

TELL US SOMETHING WE DON’T KNOW … NEWSFLASH, THE MSM IS BIAS AND HAS AN AGENDA AGAINST TRUMP.

According to a Harvard University study, the MSM bias against President Donald Trump is huge and unprecedented. If it seems like the MSM has it out for President Trump and reports pretty much every thing he does as negative, that is because they do. Just look at the charts below and see how the MSM reports on topics in a positive or negative slant and then take a look at how Trump compares to other presidents, especially Obama.

Keep this in mind when you watch the news. They are no longer reporting it, they are slanting it to fit their liberal, left-wing agenda. The MSM was AWOL for Obama’s eight years and the endless scandals like Fast & Furious, Benghazi, IRS-gate, let alone the lies of Obamacare. But for Trump, they do not even give him a chance. The MSM is working in lockstep with the Democrat party as their propaganda arm. Remember this, especially at election time.

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

It found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Democrat Maxine Waters Admits No Trump-Russia Collusion Evidence Found (Audio)

EVEN MAXINE WATERS ADMITS THERE IS NO THERE, THERE …

There has been no one more vile and hateful for the Democrats in going after President Donald Trump than Maxine Waters. However, during a podcast with WAPO writer Jonathan Capehart even she had to admit when asked whether she had seen any evidence, either through the intelligence briefings, anything to back up any of the accusations that she has made regarding Russian-Trump collusion … Water’s answer was no. But of course since when did Democrats need evidence or facts to get in the way of their talking points?

That is why it is astonishing that the liberal MSM Washington Post opinion writer Jonathan Capehart left that significant admission made during his own podcast off his May 9 column about it. Sarcasm intended.

Newsbusters:

JONATHAN CAPEHART: I’ve got to ask you, because you leveled a whole lot of accusations out there about collusions and hacking and all of that. Have you seen anything, either through the intelligence briefings, anything to back up any of the accusations that you’ve made?

MAXINE WATERS: First of all, don’t forget that all of our intelligence agencies say, yes, they have the documentation that they did the hacking on the DNC and on some of us.

CAPEHART: But the collusion, though?

WATERS: No, we have not. That’s why investigations are so important, to drill down and to connect those dots and to get the facts. What we have is a lot of smoke that causes us to want to know more about what has happened. Why is it there are so many people around him are connected to oil? Why is it that Michael Flynn, who evidently has a great relationship with Putin, who has received payments for so-called speeches and who’s spent a lot of time in Russia and was accused of talking about sanctions, he lied about it and he got caught?

Hypocrite Democrat Senate Minority Schumer to President Trump: Comey Firing a ‘Big Mistake’ … Isn’t This the Same Guy Who Said I Have No Confidence in Comey?

REALLY CHUCKY, IT WASN’T TOO LONG AGO YOU WERE CALLING FOR COMEY’S HEAD …

It would appear that Chuck Schumer was for the firing of FBI director James Comey before he was against it. Senate Minority leader took the podium with with moral condemnation of Comey. Schumer told Trump that it was a big mistake to fire Comey. REALLY? Who does not think that if Hillary won the 2016 presidency, God forbid, that she would have not fired him. Schumer said that the “first question” for the Trump administration is why the president decided to fire Comey now. The FBI is investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 White House race, as well as any connections between Trump’s campaign and Moscow.

But this is not what the two face, hypocritical Schumer was saying previously about James Comey. The duplicity of Schumer reeks of nothing more than partisan politics.

The Hill:

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) says he told President Trump that his decision to fire FBI Director James Comey was a “big mistake.

“Earlier this afternoon President Trump called me and informed me he was firing Director Comey,” Schumer told reporters on Tuesday. “I told the president, ‘Mr. President, with all due respect, you are making a big mistake.’ ”

He added that Trump didn’t “really respond” to his comment.

Trump fired Comey on Tuesday based on the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters.

Trump wrote in a letter to Comey that the FBI has to restore “public trust and confidence.”

But wait, wasn’t it just last November 2016 when New York Sen. Chuck Schumer gave Comey a vote of no confidence and all but alluded to the fact that Comey would be fired once Hillary Clinton won? That is exactly what was said.

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer gave FBI Director James Comey a no-confidence vote in response to Comey’s revelation that the agency has reopened its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.

“I do not have confidence in him any longer,” the likely incoming leader of the Senate Democrats, told Bloomberg.

That statement raises the possibility that Democrats will try to oust Comey after the presidential election. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi hinted at the prospect Wednesday. “Maybe he’s not in the right job,” the California Democrat told CNN. “I think that we have to just get through this election and just see what the casualties are along the way.”

Comey rocked the presidential campaign when he sent a letter to lawmakers on Friday revealing that investigators had found a new batch of emails “pertinent” to the Clinton probe while conducting “an unrelated investigation.” The letter was at odds with the standard procedure of the FBI not to confirm or deny ongoing investigations, but Comey thought it was necessary because he testified before Congress that the Clinton probe was finished.

President Trumps First 100 Days … Bias MSM Coverage 89% Negative

BIAS MEDIA, WHAT BIAS MEDIA?

As reported at MRC, the liberal bias media has been as unfair to newly elected President Donald Trump as any president in recent times. They refer it to as the honeymoon from hell. It is a far contrast from the MSM’s slobbering love affair hat they had with  their hero, Barack Obama. How did that work out for America? Softball questions and defending a liberal, lying president has turned into the most hostile press treatment of any incoming American president, with the broadcast networks punishing him with coverage that has been 89% negative. Don’t think that this is not lost on We the People.

As President Trump approaches the end of his first 100 days in office, he has received by far the most hostile press treatment of any incoming American president, with the broadcast networks punishing him with coverage that has been 89% negative. The networks largely ignored important national priorities such as jobs and the fight against ISIS, in favor of a news agenda that has been dominated by anti-Trump controversies and which closely matches what would be expected from an opposition party.

For example, President Trump’s push to invigorate the economy and bring back American jobs received a mere 18 minutes of coverage (less than one percent of all airtime devoted to the administration), while his moves to renegotiate various international trade deals resulted in less than 10 minutes of TV news airtime.

Eight years ago, in contrast, the broadcast networks rewarded new President Barack Obama with mainly positive spin, and spent hundreds of stories discussing the economic agenda of the incoming liberal administration.

For this study, MRC analysts reviewed all of ABC, CBS and NBC’s evening news coverage of Trump and his new administration from January 20 through April 9, including weekends. Coverage during those first 80 days was intense, as the networks churned out 869 stories about the new administration (737 full reports and 132 brief, anchor-read items), plus an additional 140 full reports focused on other topics but which also discussed the new administration.

Former Obama Official Susan Rice Now Denies Obama Administration Inappropriately Unmasked Trump team

HMM, WASN’T IT JUST A WEEK AGO OR SO THAT RICE SAID SHE KNEW NOTHING OF THIS UNMASKING  …

My what a difference a week, s lot of hot water and even more explaining does when it comes to getting caught in a lie. Former national security adviser Susan Rice is now in full CYA mode as she went on a liberal friendly network categorically denied that the Obama administration inappropriately spied on President Trump or members of his transition team. Really Ms. Rice, now its a denial. Wasn’t it just a couple of weeks ago you knew nothing? So why did you unmask the names again? The unmasking that you claimed to know nothing about, now it appears you ordered it done. She claims the allegations are false. Hmm, just like the Benghazi attack was the result of a video tape, right? YOU HAVE ZERO CREDIBILITY!!! Now Rice claims she leaked nothing. Really, like she would admit to a crime.

Just how did Susan Rice’s story change from her best imitation of Sgt. Schultz of “I know Nothing,” to the Obama administration did nothing wrong? What is shameful is a liberal MSM that is now defending her actions. Imagine, just imagine if it were w GWB White House that did this to Barack Obama?

Former national security adviser Susan Rice on Tuesday categorically denied that the Obama administration inappropriately spied on President Trump or members of his transition team.

“The allegation is that somehow, Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes,” Rice told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “That’s absolutely false.”

Rice had requested that at least one Trump transition team member be “unmasked,” Bloomberg View reported Monday, leading to claims that the Obama White House had intended to use that intelligence to damage Trump’s transition.

While Rice did not deny making any such requests — declining to comment on specific reports — she denied that her actions went outside the scope of her job.

“It was not uncommon, it was necessary at times to make those requests,” she said. “I don’t have a particular recollection of doing that more frequently after the election.”

As Jonathan Turley reminds us … “I Know Nothing About This”: Rice Accused Of Ordering Unmasking Of Trump Aides and Then Lying About Her Knowledge [UPDATED]

The story emerging suggests the White House learned last month that Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports involving Trump staff inadvertently intercepted.  There were reportedly dozens of such requests, suggesting a comprehensive and ongoing effort to unmask aides.  That would constitute a serious privacy abuse and raise troubling questions about the use of intelligence operations for political purposes.

The National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, reportedly discovered Rice’s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons and raised it with the White House.

U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive (Section 18) only allows unmasking of the identity of U.S persons when it is essential to national security. The question is why the identity of Trump aides satisfied this standard if there was no evidence (as has been reported) of collusion.  Nevertheless, this intent standard is difficult to violate absent a confession or incriminating statement.

However, just last month, Rice  was asked on the “PBS NewsHour” about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: “I know nothing about this,” adding, “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today.”

Susan Rice On Unmasking Of Trump Team, ‘I Know Nothing’