10 ms·

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2019/11/12/impeachment-frenzy-tv-networks-blast-trump-96-negative-news https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich

by asdf21 6y ago

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2019/11/12/impeachment-frenzy-tv-networks-blast-trump-96-negative-news 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 6y ago
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 6y ago
  Exactly who else is going to cover the % of negative media coverage on Trump, in your mind, other than a "right wing" source?
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      Lol, what? So were you able to find a "academic source" that audited the media in this way?
      - dang 6y ago
        We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments. Not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by asdf21 6y ago

joshuamorton 6y ago

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 6y ago
Exactly who else is going to cover the % of negative media coverage on Trump, in your mind, other than a "right wing" source?
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    Lol, what? So were you able to find a "academic source" that audited the media in this way?
    - dang 6y ago
      We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments. Not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html