MRC Study: Documenting TV’s Twelve Weeks of Trump Bashing

[TomSea]

MRC Study: Documenting TV’s Twelve Weeks of Trump Bashing
By Rich Noyes | October 25, 2016 | 10:15 AM EDT

In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has 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 a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC).

In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump (440 minutes) than about similar controversies involving Clinton (185 minutes). Donald Trump’s treatment of women was given 102 minutes of evening news airtime, more than that allocated to discussing Clinton’s e-mail scandal (53 minutes) and the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play scandals (40 minutes) combined.

Read More At: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2016/10/25/mrc-study-documenting-tvs-twelve-weeks-trump-bashing

Drudge has up at his page, 91% on the net is anti-Trump, the establishment and elites are really scared of this guy.

Those same broadcasts included more than three times as many opinionated statements about Trump, 91 percent of which (623) were negative vs. just nine percent positive (63).

[aligncare]

Silence? Crickets? Mum's the word about Hillary's crimes, incompetence and ill health? Gee...that sounds awfully familiar... where on the internet haven't I heard a word about Hillary? Hmmm... 

[GrouchoTex]

This was destined to happen.
Every election cycle the Media tears down the Republican nominee.

Remember 4 years ago, "binders full of women", remember "dog on the car roof", remember "he doesn't know his garbage man", remember "he allowed a worker to die of cancer"?

The trick is to find a candidate that:

(a) doesn't have the excess baggage. You recall, he didn't even allow his own staff to vet him, so they could combat the tomfoolery coming.
(b) doesn't make it so easy by responding to every trivial charge.

Everyone saw this coming.

Is it fair?
No.
does it happen every 4 years?
Yes.

[geronl]

Trump is a horrible, sleazy person who deserves all the bashing he gets

[DiogenesLamp]

This was destined to happen.
Every election cycle the Media tears down the Republican nominee.

Remember 4 years ago, "binders full of women", remember "dog on the car roof", remember "he doesn't know his garbage man", remember "he allowed a worker to die of cancer"?

The trick is to find a candidate that:

(a) doesn't have the excess baggage. You recall, he didn't even allow his own staff to vet him, so they could combat the tomfoolery coming.
(b) doesn't make it so easy by responding to every trivial charge.

Everyone saw this coming.

Is it fair?
No.
does it happen every 4 years?
Yes.

Why does it happen?  Because Liberal Democrats own the television broadcast system and create these conditions,  and we don't.   


Lots of conservative writers point out that every election the Liberal Democrat media crucifies our candidate as being stupid,  or unfit,  or ignorant,  or some such.   


Years later they talk about how great he was,  and how the one currently running for election is simply horrible.   


They do this year after year because they control what the American public hears,  and we don't. 


The nation is steered by the television system. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Trump is a horrible, sleazy person who deserves all the bashing he gets

But Hillary deserves ten times more.   

[GrouchoTex]

Why does it happen?  Because Liberal Democrats own the television broadcast system and create these conditions,  and we don't.   


Lots of conservative writers point out that every election the Liberal Democrat media crucifies our candidate as being stupid,  or unfit,  or ignorant,  or some such.   


Years later they talk about how great he was,  and how the one currently running for election is simply horrible.   


They do this year after year because they control what the American public hears,  and we don't. 


The nation is steered by the television system.

....and has been the case since Cronkite.

However, social media is playing the largest role it has to date.
Things such as 3 a.m. tweets are giving the Liberal media more ammo than they would have had in the past.
Everyone can film and record anywhere, now.
It is more important than ever before to be disciplined and stay on message.
Unfortunately, one of the things the endeared people to Trump was his off-the-cuff, no-holds-barred style, but that will only get you so far, as we are now seeing.
He's run that part of his race so long now, that people are not taking him seriously.
Again, all predicted and forewarned.

[DiogenesLamp]

....and has been the case since Cronkite.

However, social media is playing the largest role it has to date.
Things such as 3 a.m. tweets are giving the Liberal media more ammo than they would have had in the past.

Ammo will never be a problem for the Liberal media because they manufacture it whenever they need it with whatever happens to be available.   They will literally create a scandal out of thin air by simply harping on something they don't like.   


"Mr. Cruz,  Why do you hate children and poor people?"   


It's that easy.   

Everyone can film and record anywhere, now.

But only the television networks can get this video out to several hundred million people every week.   Bad stuff recorded about their side doesn't get aired.  Bad stuff recorded about our side gets aired.   

This is a fools game for us to play.   We need to demand and FORCE equal access to the broadcasting system so that they can't censor us.   Censoring our side of the discussion is how they have been winning.   Nobody knows about Hillary's wonky eyes,  or how she screams "F*** You! "  and "Pigs!"  at her secret service detail.   

The media refuses to cover this stuff because they know it hurts her.   If we had equal access,  they couldn't get away with censoring this stuff from the public.   Imagine,  two straight weeks of talking about Hillary's neurological problems which cause her eyes to diverge.   How could anyone think she was fit after two weeks of such a discussion?   

It is more important than ever before to be disciplined and stay on message.
Unfortunately, one of the things the endeared people to Trump was his off-the-cuff, no-holds-barred style, but that will only get you so far, as we are now seeing.
He's run [/i]that race so long now, that people are not taking him seriously.
Again, all predicted and forewarned.

Everything is predicted and forewarned,  including a lot of stuff that is absolute nonsense,  but which the proponents take seriously when they propose it.   


Predicting how the media is going to attack you is impossible.   If you are foolish enough to think they will let you get by with the Bill Clinton standard of ethics and behavior,  (and let's face it,  the Donald Trump stuff doesn't come close to living down to the level of the Bill Clinton standard)   then you would not expect the media to attack you from this direction.   

But hypocrisy is irrelevant to them,  it is always "all for the cause."   


Trump was foolish to believe he would be given the same consideration as they routinely give Bill Clinton,   though many of us could have told him they wouldn't. 


Trump made the mistake of siding with the "Dirt people",  and now his former "Cloud people"  want his scalp and are using their control of the airwaves in an effort to get it.   

[edpc]

MSM - more gaslighting than downtown San Diego.

[GrouchoTex]

This is a fools game for us to play.   We need to demand and FORCE equal access to the broadcasting system so that they can't censor us.

They may ignore us, but it isn't censorship. 2nd amendment cuts both ways.
Should we demand equal time for Liberal radio talk show host?

Censoring our side of the discussion is how they have been winning.   Nobody knows about Hillary's wonky eyes,  or how she screams "F*** You! "  and "Pigs!"  at her secret service detail.

Yet you and I know about this, how so? Not through censorship.   

If we had equal access,  they couldn't get away with censoring this stuff from the public.   

It is a free market. If there was a market for such stuff, it would emerge (like talk radio has). 


Predicting how the media is going to attack you is impossible.   If you are foolish enough to think they will let you get by with the Bill Clinton standard of ethics and behavior,  (and let's face it,  the Donald Trump stuff doesn't come close to living down to the level of the Bill Clinton standard)   then you would not expect the media to attack you from this direction.   

But hypocrisy is irrelevant to them,  it is always "all for the cause."   


Trump was foolish to believe he would be given the same consideration as they routinely give Bill Clinton,   though many of us could have told him they wouldn't.

This is true. He thought he would get a pass, but he didn't.


Trump made the mistake of siding with the "Dirt people",  and now his former "Cloud people"  want his scalp and are using their control of the airwaves in an effort to get it.

But his "dirt" wasn't unknown, so who do you blame for that?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaGKxAgCguU

[DiogenesLamp]

They may ignore us, but it isn't censorship. 2nd amendment cuts both ways.

I'm going to stop you right here,  because if we can't reach a comprehensive standard on this point,  there is no point in exploring further aspects of this flawed premise.   


A man shouting into the wilderness is not exercising a right to freedom of speech.    Speech inherently requires listeners,   and preventing the listeners is effectively stopping the speaker. 


The media uses the  publicly owned airwaves to communicate with 350 million Americans.    This ability to speak through the airwaves  is now the defacto standard method of engaging in speech on matters of such importance for which the freedom of speech enshrined in our constitution was created in the first place. 

If all do not have equal access to the airwaves,  then freedom of speech is effectively restricted in the same manner as if the speaker were gagged.   


The founders never conceived of modern television,  and they never contemplated it's persuasive ability in reaching gullible minds.    They were familiar with speakers speaking from podiums before crowds,  or writing commentary on paper.   

This new medium can persuade in a manner that speech and writing cannot.   It can make a false reality believable through careful orchestration and drama.   And it does.   


The founders never intended,  nor do I believe they would even tolerate,  the control of this medium to rely completely in the hands of one political party.   It would be dangerous to freedom to allow such one party control to exist.   


That one party control is now reality,  and  Yes,  the media is censoring us,   and Yes,  we should stop tolerating it.   

[GrouchoTex]

I'm going to stop you right here,  because if we can't reach a comprehensive standard on this point,  there is no point in exploring further aspects of this flawed premise.

This is not a flawed premise just because you deem it so. 


A man shouting into the wilderness is not exercising a right to freedom of speech.    Speech inherently requires listeners,   and preventing the listeners is effectively stopping the speaker. 

You are demanding government controlled "listening", is what you are advocating. How will you enforce that?


The media uses the  publicly owned airwaves to communicate with 350 million Americans.    This ability to speak through the airwaves  is now the defacto standard method of engaging in speech on matters of such importance for which the freedom of speech enshrined in our constitution was created in the first place. 

If all do not have equal access to the airwaves,  then freedom of speech is effectively restricted in the same manner as if the speaker were gagged.   


The founders never conceived of modern television,  and they never contemplated it's persuasive ability in reaching gullible minds.    They were familiar with speakers speaking from podiums before crowds,  or writing commentary on paper.   

Yet the founders would have guaranteed that all media of the day (newspapers) have equal amounts of articles and lines given to opposing veiwpoints? A hope, maybe, a demand? never.

This new medium can persuade in a manner that speech and writing cannot.   It can make a false reality believable through careful orchestration and drama.   And it does.   


The founders never intended,  nor do I believe they would even tolerate,  the control of this medium to rely completely in the hands of one political party.   It would be dangerous to freedom to allow such one party control to exist. 

They are a "for profit" media, and the Founders would have seen that as such, thereby not to be altogether trusted. That our own citizenry cannot see that is sad, but not criminal, and should not be made such.


That one party control is now reality,  and  Yes,  the media is censoring us,   and Yes,  we should stop tolerating it.

By all means, start a media outlet. Or get a group of investors to buy an existing one, and change the tone

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm going to stop you right here,  because if we can't reach a comprehensive standard on this point,  there is no point in exploring further aspects of this flawed premise.   


A man shouting into the wilderness is not exercising a right to freedom of speech.    Speech inherently requires listeners,   and preventing the listeners is effectively stopping the speaker.


The media uses the  publicly owned airwaves to communicate with 350 million Americans.    This ability to speak through the airwaves  is now the defacto standard method of engaging in speech on matters of such importance for which the freedom of speech enshrined in our constitution was created in the first place.

If all do not have equal access to the airwaves,  then freedom of speech is effectively restricted in the same manner as if the speaker were gagged.   


The founders never conceived of modern television,  and they never contemplated it's persuasive ability in reaching gullible minds.    They were familiar with speakers speaking from podiums before crowds,  or writing commentary on paper.   

This new medium can persuade in a manner that speech and writing cannot.   It can make a false reality believable through careful orchestration and drama.   And it does.   


The founders never intended,  nor do I believe they would even tolerate,  the control of this medium to rely completely in the hands of one political party.   It would be dangerous to freedom to allow such one party control to exist.   


That one party control is now reality,  and  Yes,  the media is censoring us,   and Yes,  we should stop tolerating it.

I am flattered that you found my words worth quoting,   but I was sort of hoping for some sort of response or rebuttal from you.    :) 

[GrouchoTex]

I am flattered that you found my words worth quoting,   but I was sort of hoping for some sort of response or rebuttal from you.    :)

I hit the button to fast, Whoops, but I did reply above that.

[Bigun]

MRC Study: Documenting TV’s Twelve Weeks of Trump Bashing
By Rich Noyes | October 25, 2016 | 10:15 AM EDT

In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has 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 a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC).

In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump (440 minutes) than about similar controversies involving Clinton (185 minutes). Donald Trump’s treatment of women was given 102 minutes of evening news airtime, more than that allocated to discussing Clinton’s e-mail scandal (53 minutes) and the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play scandals (40 minutes) combined.

And before that it was ALL Trump ALL the time!  None of this comes as a surprise to those of us who told you it was going to happen many MONTHS before it did!

[Wingnut]

Trumps is getting the coverage he deserves.

[DiogenesLamp]

Trumps is getting the coverage he deserves.

Could live with that if Clinton was getting the coverage she deserved.   

[Wingnut]

Could live with that if Clinton was getting the coverage she deserved.

If he could have kept his mouth shut and cut his 4am tweets out....the mean old  press might have been force to expose Hils acts.    But we will never know.

 Trump being the biggest bleep to ever run for office made it to easy for a lazy press.

[DiogenesLamp]

If he could have kept his mouth shut and cut his 4am tweets out....the mean old  press might have been force to expose Hils acts.    But we will never know.

I would say you are kidding,    but I have learned that these impassioned statements, made from emotion, are taken very seriously coming from those who make them.   


Nonsense.   The media was *never*  going to cover Hillary's long history of corruption and criminal behavior,  her massive lies,  her abuses of power,   her incompetence.   It didn't matter what Trump did or did not do,   the New York Liberal media would not significantly attack their Democrat candidate no matter what she did.

They did not investigate Obama,  they did not investigate Clinton.  They simply have no interest in the corruption or perversions of Democrat candidates. 

Trump being the biggest bleep to ever run for office made it to easy for a lazy press.

With Obama and both Clintons representing far worse bleeps,  you are going to attempt to portray Trump as worse? 


Unreal. 

[edpc]

I would say you are kidding,    but I have learned that these impassioned statements, made from emotion, are taken very seriously coming from those who make them.   


Nonsense.   The media was *never*  going to cover Hillary's long history of corruption and criminal behavior,  her massive lies,  her abuses of power,   her incompetence.

 True, but he did not need to provide them with ammunition. I appreciate that he is awake and available at 3 AM, but many of his tirades were far from his promise to be so presidential.

[Wingnut]

With Obama and both Clintons representing far worse bleeps,  you are going to attempt to portray Trump as worse? 


Unreal.

What is unreal is you and the other Trump Democrats defending this assclown when you should be serving him up on the same platter  as you do Hil and Obama.