yep, that's how they started. 50% of the people thought the msm news was boring and biased. Now those people watch FOX and still think you and your side are boring and biased.
The outlier quip was not meant as a compliment. The outlier generally gets tossed when drawing statistical conclusions. I mean, any sane person knows fox news is entertainment so this is of course redundant.
In this case 50% of the people tossed msm. Boring and biased was the conclusion. And in this country, you don't need a full 50% to win. And 50% of the people are still pissed about that. And they use their msm to show it. But even when they are pissed they are still boring. And if they don't start shutting down more and more libertarians on campus more of these studies could surface.
So when an ignorant president makes all manner of gaffes, you are commending Fox because it looks for the silver lining in the stupidity rather than reporting the stupidity for what it is? That's the new definition of balance? The report only showed that Fox had a more positive balance of coverage compared to other news sources. There was no reference to accuracy. Okay, so Fox had good things to say about stupid shit that Trump did. They give him an award for just showing up and playing. Awesome. Now how about squaring all of that "balance" with the facts? http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/ http://www.inquisitr.com/2105906/fo...mers-says-new-study-by-former-reagan-adviser/ http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/06/fact-checker-finds-60-fox-news-statements-false-lie.html http://www.businessinsider.com/stud...-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5 So Fox is full of crap but, oh, love that balance.
I don't watch news to see who used their left hand drinking tea in a land that has no running water to spare.
It's not your imagination: Study finds Trump coverage overwhelmingly negative You may have gotten the impression that the coverage of President Trump is kinda sorta pretty negative. That’s not quite right: It’s overwhelmingly negative. Stunningly negative. Head-shakingly negative. That’s according to a new study by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center, a widely respected operation that chronicles media coverage. And adding to the sharply negative tone is the sheer volume. It’s not your imagination—Donald Trump is the most heavily covered president ever. The center examined the coverage of Trump’s firs 100 days in three major papers—the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post—and the main newscasts of CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News. The top line figure: Some 80 percent of these stories and segments had a negative tone, 20 percent positive (beyond those that were neutral). That is bad. In fact, it’s twice as negative as the coverage of Barack Obama’s first 100 days, and much more negative than that for George W. Bush and Bill Clinton as well. And the differences are stark when you drill down by news organization. At CNN and NBC, 93 percent of the stories were negative in tone toward Trump, the study says. Put another way, their main newscasts could find only 7 percent of stories worth being positive toward the president. CBS wasn’t far behind, at 91 percent negative. Then there was the New York Times (87 percent) and Washington Post (83 percent). The Wall Street Journal clocked in at 70 percent negative. And Fox News was, well, fair and balanced. The study found Bret Baier’s “Special Report” to be 52 percent negative and 48 percent positive toward Trump. The network that is often derided by the rest of the media for being too pro-Trump was actually the fairest, according to the Harvard researchers. What’s more, issues matter. It’s telling that 96 percent of the coverage of immigration was negative, along with 87 percent of the coverage on health care and Russia’s impact on the election. Some 81 percent of the coverage on Trump’s fitness for office was negative. Those are all subjects with a pretty clear media narrative. By contrast, “only” 54 percent of the stories on the economy were negative. Even in the president’s best week of the period examined, when he ordered airstrikes against Syria, his coverage was 70 percent negative. Overall, say the researchers, the coverage of President Trump “was negative even by the standards of today’s hyper-critical press.” And all of this resonates in a very loud echo chamber. On the national networks studied, 41 percent of the stories involved Trump. That means of everything going on in the world, more than four out of 10 stories dealt with this president—three times the usual level, Shorenstein says. And Trump was the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds of these reports, talking or tweeting. So if Trump seems inescapable, he is. Why? He drives ratings, pure and simple. Boring presidents don’t rate as much airtime. And whether you like or loathe Trump, it’s fair to say he’s never boring.
Apparently you didnt read the study, im more than willing to admit Fox has probably been slightly to the right of where of where the actual coverage should be probably Trump deserves about 65% negative coverage at this point, but nowhere near 95% of places like CNN. Plus how do you explain the MSM's coverage of Trump where its overwhelmingly negative even though the majority of the Country agrees with Trump. For example, Immigration, 96% negative coverage even though if you take just about any one of Trumps ideas on immigration the majority of the country supports him, and in cases like Sanctuary cities, even the immigrants agree with him, its actually overwhelmingly against the liberal position on that one in terms of polling. On International Trade he aligns pretty much on the same side as Bernie Sanders, and the vast majority of the country, yet still somehow 84% negative. You dont think thats obviously hyperpartisan coverage?
I can give you 100% negative coverage of the democrat party and it can go on all day 24/7 and never run out of stupid things they say and do. Just give me more time, there's not enough of it to cover all their lies.