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.

Harvard_media_Trump

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:

Harvard other-presidents-tone

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.

Gregg Jarrett on Comey Memo: “Comey has put Himself in a Box,” … Why Didn’t Comey Present This Immediately as Required by Law?

 ISN’T IT IRONIC THAT COMEY AND THE ELEMENT OF INTENT WOULD ARISE AGAIN AND DID COMEY COMMIT A CRIME BY NOT SAYING THAT TRUMP COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Okay common sense thinking people, let’s take a look at what former FBI Director James Comey really did here without the sensationalism and gotcha of the liberal MSM. The latest attempt to bring President Donald Trump down comes from a so-called memo from Comey that was leaked to the NY Times. As Fox News Anchor Gregg Jarrett stated in his well thought out commentary below, “Comey has put himself in a box.” Why did James Comey not present this obstruction with justice claims when they happened as he is required to by law? Good question. Maybe because it either never happened or he felt that the comments did not rise to such a level, not was their any intent. So why now then? Well that’s obvious, sour grapes. This is Comey’s revenge. In the end, some one broke a law in all of this and it appears to be James Comey.

This leaked memo speaks volumes of what was in charge of the FBI

james-comey-FBI

Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States.  Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey.  (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361)  He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law.

So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ?  If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it.

Obstruction requires what’s called “specific intent” to interfere with a criminal case.  If Comey concluded, however, that Trump’s language was vague, ambiguous or elliptical, then he has no duty under the law to report it because it does not rise to the level of specific intent.  Thus, no crime.

There is no evidence Comey ever alerted officials at the Justice Department, as he is duty-bound to do.  Surely if he had, that incriminating information would have made its way to the public either by an indictment or, more likely, an investigation that could hardly be kept confidential in the intervening months.

But by writing a memo, Comey has put himself in a box.  If he now accuses the President of obstruction, he places himself in legal jeopardy for failing to promptly and properly report it.  If he says it was merely an uncomfortable conversation, he clears the president of wrongdoing and sullies his own image as a guy who attempted to smear the man who fired him.

Either way, James Comey comes out a loser.  No matter.  The media will hail him a hero.

Forget what the MSM says, James Comey is in a no win situation. He was duty bound by law to report such an obstruction of justice that the MSM is running with, yet he didn’t. He comes off looking small and smarmy trying to get his revenge for being fired. So we have an FBI Director who didn’t follow the law? The only thing we can surmise from all of this is that Comey thought anything Trump said was insignificant and that Trump broke no laws. Otherwise, why didn’t he act upon the so-called obstruction of justice when it occurred?

Poll: 35% of Americans Don’t Know ObamaCare & Affordable Care Act Are the Same Thing

UNINFORMED AMERICA, LET’S HOPE THESE PEOPLE DON’T KNOW HOW TO VOTE EITHER …

As reported at The Hill, 35% of Americans have no clue that Obamacare and the not-so Affordable Care Act are one in the same. How is that possible. The Times article bias tried to portray that people are confused between the two names for the same law, yet some how when we look at the numbers … among Republicans, a higher percentage of 72% said they knew Obamacare and the A.C.A. were the same. The liberal bias Times would have you believe that the high percentage is a reflection of the party’s longstanding hostility to the law. Sorry Times, maybe it’s because they pay attention more and are more informed.

Obama_dr

More than one-third of Americans are unaware that ObamaCare and the Affordable Care Act are the same law.

The figure comes from a new poll by Morning Consult that found 35 percent of Americans do not know ObamaCare is another label — made popular by the GOP — used to describe the Affordable Care Act, enacted under former President Barack Obama in 2010.

About 17 percent of Americans polled thought they were two different laws, and 18 percent said the didn’t know whether they were the same policy or two different things.

The New York Times published the results from the survey on Tuesday. Morning Consult conducted the survey in late January with a sample of 1,890 adults.

The bias analysis of the polling data courtesy of the NY Times:

Sorry Libs, it’s not a matter of confusion, this is a matter of a voter electorate being willfully and woefully uninformed. When one side of the political spectrum is so uninformed regarding what was supposed to be Barack Obama’s signature piece of legislation, their is a problem and it has nothing to do with confusion. However, ask those same Obamacare-ACA challenged people who the Kardashian’s are and the number skyrockets.

This finding, from a poll by Morning Consult, illustrates the extent of public confusion over a health law that President Trump and Republicans in Congress hope to repeal.

In the survey, 35 percent of respondents said either they thought Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act were different policies (17 percent) or didn’t know if they were the same or different (18 percent). This confusion was more pronounced among people 18 to 29 and those who earn less than $50,000 — two groups that could be significantly affected by repeal.

Among Republicans, a higher percentage (72 percent) said they knew Obamacare and the A.C.A. were the same, which may reflect the party’s longstanding hostility to the law.

This confusion may affect the public debate over health care policy. If many people think repealing Obamacare would not affect the popular provisions of the A.C.A., they might not understand the potential consequences of the proposals being considered in Washington.

Two Inspectors Generals Ask Justice Department to Open Criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton Email Account

THIS IS HARDLY VIA A RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY, THIS CRIMINAL PROBE IS BEING REQUESTED BY TWO INSPECTOR GENERALS …

The New York Times report Thursday that two inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department with regards to Hillary Clinton’s personal email account as Secretary of State and at least four messages from her email that contained classified information. That was before the NY Times decided to scrub their story at the bequest of the Clinton camp. No left-wing media bias there, huh? Who thinks the Times would change a story like this for a GOP presidential candidate?

Hillary Clinton sent at least four messages from her personal email account containing classified information during her time as secretary of state, according to a memo from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community obtained by the Wall Street Journal.

Following a New York Times report Thursday that two inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department, the Journal cited a letter to Congress from the inspector general.The Times later made revisions to the initial story.

Email/Server-gate is going to hound her all the way to the 2016 Presidential election. The media talks about how Trump should withdraw for what he has said about illegals. If that is the case, Hillary Clinton should withdraw immediately for her actions and lack of transparency as Secretary of State under Obama. Speaking of Obama, will his DOJ actually investigate Hillary? If not, why not?

CNBC: Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account.

Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.

It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.

Frightening Predeictions for Senate Democrats in Upcoming Midterm Elections from NY Times and WAPO

It’s Halloween time, but Senate Democrats have more to fear than ghosts, goblins, witches and vampires … NT Times and WAPO predict Democrats are the Walking “political” Dead …

With just days to go before the 2014 midterm November 4th elections, two very liberal papers, the New York Times and Washington Post, are predicting a GOP Senate takeover. The NY Times predicts that there is a 69% chance that the Republicans will win control of the US Senate.  According to the Times, Republicans will win Louisiana, Arkansas, South Dakota and Kentucky, West Virginia and Montana, leaving the seven most competitive states below in question. The NY Times predicts that Democrats will win the senate races in New Hampshire, North Carolina and Kansas; however, the GOP will run the rest of the seats in play in Georgia, Iowa, Alaska and Colorado. If the New York Times is correct, the GOP will hold a 52-48 control of the Senate after the elections.

Senate_2014 predictions_NYT

According to our statistical election-forecasting machine, the Republicans have a moderate edge, with about a 69% chance of gaining a majority.

State-by-State Probabilities #
To forecast each party’s chance of gaining a majority, our model first calculates win probabilities for each individual Senate race. In addition to the latest polls, it incorporates the candidates’ political experience, fund-raising, a state’s past election results and national polling. More about our methodology.

However, if Democrats think that the NYT’s 69% chance of a GOP victory is bad … the WAPO is predicting a 95% chance of the Republican party taking back control of the US Senate.

The model’s factors fall into three categories:

1) The national landscape. On average, the better things are going in the country, the better the president’s party will do in an election.  We capture national conditions using two measures: presidential approval and change in gross domestic product. At the same time, the president’s party usually does worse in midterm years than presidential years even after accounting for the first two measures, so our model takes account of that, too.

2) The partisanship of the state or district. Obviously, House and Senate candidates will do better when their party dominates a district or state. We measure this with Obama’s share of the major-party vote in 2012. In Senate races, we also include the incumbent’s share of the major-party vote from the election six years before, which is the incumbent’s share of the Democratic and Republican votes, combined with an indicator for whether that incumbent is running or the seat is open. The incumbent’s previous election matters mainly when the incumbent is running again.

3) Key features of the race. The model currently takes account of whether the incumbent is running, which captures the well-known incumbency advantage in congressional elections. For the Senate, we also build in each candidate’s level of experience in elective office. In the Senate, we categorize experience into five levels, from someone who has never held an elective office to an incumbent senator. For states where there hasn’t yet been a Senate primary, we impute candidate experience using historical averages from similar races.  (After the primaries, we will also add candidate experience to the House model.  There, the measure will be simpler: whether the candidate has held any elective office.)

Question: The NY Times and WAPO have been among the two most liberal media outlets that have carried the water for Barack Obama and Democrats, why are they calling the election now for the GOP? Is it because they want to put out faux-news and give Republicans voters a false sense of security or is it because they see the handwriting on the wall and are trying to mantain some sort of credibility by finally reporting the truth?

Harry Reid

Harry Reid literally begs for money as he sees his job of Democrat Senate Majority Leader slipping away. Just curious Dingy Harry, if you can triple one’s gift, you need money how? I have a deal for you, You can just double my donation of $0.00.

But I’m emailing once more because this moment is absolutely critical. I know you’re a busy person, but this is an absolute MUST-READ:
Our Final Weekend Get Out The Vote Push is on the chopping block: We’re still $1,389,071 short with 24 hours left.
If we don’t fill that budget gap, we’ll be forced to scale back our plans to mobilize 575,000 voters this weekend. These are voters who could determine the outcome of the whole Senate.
I’m begging for your help to close the gap IMMEDIATELY. If we fall short before the last end-of-month deadline tomorrow, our chance to keep the Senate gets a whole lot smaller.
Will you pitch in to the Final Weekend GOTV Push before the final deadline in 24 hours? We’ll triple-match your gift.

Other nightmarish 2014 US Senate predictions for Democrats. None of the pollsters are predicting that Democrats will maintain control of the Senate and Harry Reid (NV-D) will no longer be Senate Majority Leader.

Senate control predictions 2014

Next Page →

Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

 
 
  • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
  • Red (comments)
  • Dugga (technical issues)
  • Dana (radio show comments)
  • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Close
E-mail It