If there wasn’t any negative news about President Trump there’d be no news at all!

The “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” is just relentless when it comes bashing our president.

In an editorial on the “Investor’s Business Daily” website, they claim, “Media Trump Hatred Shows In 92% Negative Coverage of His Presidency: Study”

trump neg 7

They continue by saying, “Anti-Trump Media: To say that the big networks haven’t exactly had a love affair with Donald Trump, as they plainly did with President Obama, is an understatement. A new survey shows that not only is coverage of Trump overwhelmingly negative, but the president’s biggest accomplishment — the roaring economy — gets almost no attention.”

No…, not “almost no attention,” NO attention!

trump neg 9

“What they found was, as Trump himself might say, sad: ‘Over the summer, the broadcast networks have continued to pound Donald Trump and his team with the most hostile coverage of a president in TV news history — 92% negative, vs. just 8% positive.’”

I would argue that even these numbers are a misnomer.  I would say news coverage is 92% negative, 7% is just “non-negative” and 1% or less are actually positive.

trump neg 2

“Moreover, the very focus of what the media cover is highly selective. Some two-thirds of the Trump coverage came from five topics, including the Russia investigation, immigration, the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, North Korea, and U.S.-Russia relations.

Let’s see, what’s missing from that list? Oh yes, the one thing that’s overwhelmingly positive for President Trump: the economy.”

In other words…, propaganda by omission.

“If we don’t report it, it didn’t happen, or it’s not important.”

Even when they report something of a positive nature, it always has to come with a caveat.

For example, here we have typical negative Trump headline by Joe Williams for FOX Business:

“US adds 75,000 jobs in May, far less than expected.”

Can we not just be glad that we added 75,000 jobs in May?

And what about the unemployment rate in the country that remains at 3.6 percent…, the lowest since 1969?  I haven’t heard much about that.

Propaganda by omission and the “but” news.

President Trump cut taxes for everyone, but…

President Trump has brought manufacturing jobs back to America, but…

President Trump is making NATO allies finally pay their fair share, but…

President Trump is making other countries deal fairly with us regarding trade, but…

But, but, but.

trump neg 6

In addition to the “but” news, we also see bizarre, negative, fake news articles that just leaves you scratching your head.

For example:

“Washington Post columnist links Trump’s UK fashion choices to life missteps.”

By Bradford Betz for Fox News.

“If you can’t properly wear a tux, you’re going to have a lot of problems in life, according to Washington Post fashion critic Robin Givhan.”

trump neg 1

“Her 965-word, June 5 article dresses down President Trump, the First Lady– and to a lesser extent– his family – for what she called poor fashion sensibilities during an appearance the Buckingham Palace Banquet this week.”

“Givhan goes on to equate fashion with diplomacy. With this equation, Givhan’s concludes, we can gain subtle insights into the president’s mind.’

What?

The “fashion critic” feels the need to join in the Trump bashing as well?

It also appears that “the fashion critic,” an esteemed and necessary position in its own right, is also a qualified psychoanalyst!

Then we have another article published by “Yahoo Style UK,” titled:

“Disrespectful Melania Trump criticized for leaving sunglasses on during D-Day ceremony.”

Excuse me?

How is this this being “disrespectful?”

trump neg1306-donald-trump-dday.w700.h700

If anything, Yahoo is being disrespectful of the First Lady.

Then we have an article for the “Style” section of “The Daily Beast,” by   Alaina Demopoulos and Tim Teeman titled:

“Is That a Hat or UFO? Melania and Ivanka Trump Bid a Fashionably Fierce Farewell to U.K.”

Can you ever imagine these people taking pot shots at Michelle Obama’s wardrobe?

Of course not.

The article went on and on about all of the poor Trump fashion choices in their opinion, and finished off by saying, “The queen, meanwhile, looked her usual, utterly on-point distinctive self, in a wonderful hot pink coat dress and hat (with non-life-threatening brim), while imminently doomed British Prime Minister Theresa May donned a curious spearmint coat, with turned in collars, over white dress and a hat that was a complementary satellite dish shape to Melania’s UFO.”

trump neg 3

So the bottom line is…, all of the fashion choices made by royals, socialists and liberals are exquisite, while those made by conservatives are horrendous.

Lastly, we have a typical “fake news,” “liberal propaganda” article by   Heather Timmons, titled, “Joe Biden beats Donald Trump in Texas presidential poll.”

Does anyone really believe that Joe Biden would beat Donald Trump in Texas?

Of course not.

They don’t tell us that the poll question that was asked was, “Who is the creepiest presidential candidate?”

In this instance, Joe Biden wins hands down!

trump neg 4

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

The disingenuous “biased, liberal, fake news media” tries to paint President Trump as a liar…, again, regarding Mexico and the border wall. 

According to Ying Ma of Fox News, “Trump-haters are again foaming at the mouth over comments made by The President regarding the border wall he has promised to build.  Once again, they are wrong about their criticism of the president.”

“President Trump noted last week that his campaign promise to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it ‘obviously’ did not mean getting a check from the Mexican government directly.  Rather, he said, Mexico will be paying for the wall indirectly, ‘many, many times over’ via the trade agreement his administration recently renegotiated with Canada and Mexico to replace NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement).”

“The anti-Trump media wasted no time accusing the president of lying. CNN, featuring all-out indignation from its anchors, promptly replayed video footage from Trump campaign rallies showing Trump and his raucous crowds chanting that Mexico will pay for the wall.”

“The Washington Post has chimed in as well and declared in a headline: ‘Trump falsely asserts he never promised Mexico would directly pay for the border wall.’”

“Meanwhile, Politifact screamed out its own verdict: ‘Trump says he didn’t say Mexico would write US a check for border wall.  But he did.’”

Before our friends in the “biased, liberal. Fake news media” go getting too excited, let’s remember that it was only a couple weeks ago that the congress finally authorized any wall spending, and only $1.375 billion at that, so there hasn’t even been an opportunity for Mexico to kick in for anything until just recently.

Nevertheless, it is extremely disingenuous for his critics to huff and puff over what they perceive as a lie.

Do you recall such an uproar after former President Obama declared, “If you like your doctor you can keep doctor.  If you like your plan you can keep your plan.”  Or how about, “Every family will save $2,500 on this plan on average.”  Or how about, “The Affordable Care Act” (ObamaCare) won’t add one dime to the federal deficit.”

I sure don’t, and these were actual premeditated lies…, just to name a few!

It’s just another example to the “biased, liberal, fake news media” and their propaganda by omission.

“One could disagree with the substance [of President Trump’s claims], but those pretending to be honest and objective observers of President Trump should at least try to understand why ‘build the wall’ … became a rallying cry during the last presidential campaign.”

“The chant reflected voters’ frustration that Mexico was engaging in unfair practices, whether in trade or immigration, while politicians in Washington on both the left and the right did nothing about it”

“Candidate Trump promised to change this.  If Trump-haters paid attention to this core idea, they might understand why Trump supporters care far more about whether the president builds the wall and strengthen border security than they care about whether Mexico pays for the wall directly or indirectly.”

BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the very bottom of this page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

build the wall

For all of those liberals living in denial…, well here you go, straight from the horse’s…, uh, I mean the editor’s mouth!

Jill Abramson, a veteran journalist in her own right, and the former executive editor at The New York Times newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says “The Times” has a financial incentive to bash the president and that the imbalance is helping to erode its credibility.  She added that, the paper’s “news” pages have become “unmistakably anti-Trump.”

Please go on Ms. Abramson, but tell us something we don’t already know.

Being the executive editor for four years during President Obama’s tenure was obviously a pretty boring time at “The Times.”  The “biased, liberal, fake news media” wasn’t interested in any hard hitting investigative “journalism” concerning President Obama or his administration.  There were no daily attacks of President Obama, the first lady, or his family. There was only properly spun propaganda or propaganda by omission.

I’m sure “The Times,” version 2017-2018, looks and sounds quite different today compared to the paper she left four years ago.

I do wonder, however, what she is referring to when she says “The Times has a financial incentive to bash the president….” What “financial incentive” exactly do they receive for bashing the president, and from whom?

This definitely does not sound like something a “fair and balanced” news source would practice.  Does it?  Fair minded people of course would say “no,” but how do my liberal friends respond to this?  I’m just wondering, and I hope they give me some feedback.

I can’t see any possible justification for this behavior unless you’re okay with a major media outlet being a propaganda tool for any ideology or political party, while claiming to be objective.

According to Howard Kurtz, of Fox News, for Media Buzz, “In a soon-to-be published book, ‘Merchants of Truth,’ that casts a skeptical eye on the news business, Abramson defends the Times in some ways but offers some harsh words for her successor, Dean Baquet.  And Abramson, who was the paper’s only female executive editor until her firing, invoked Steve Bannon’s slam that in the Trump era the mainstream media have become the “opposition party.”

‘“Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,’ Abramson writes, adding that she believes the same is true of the Washington Post. ‘Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.’”

“Abramson describes a generational split at the Times, with younger staffers, many of them in digital jobs, favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. ‘The more “woke” staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,’ she writes.”

President Trump routinely claims that he “is keeping the failing New York Times in business.”  Some would say this is an exaggeration, but the former editor acknowledges a “Trump bump” that saw digital subscriptions during his first six months in office jump by 600,000, to more than 2 million.

I would call that quite significant!

‘“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative…,’ Abramson added.”

When her boss, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. decided to let her go, he called her in, fired her, and handed her a press release announcing her resignation.

Abramson says she replied, “Arthur, I’ve devoted my entire career to telling the truth, and I won’t agree to this press release.  I’m going to say I’ve been fired.”

Just one more attempt at “fake news” I guess!

Of course the rest of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” claim that a result of losing her job she is now being vindictive and making false claims against The New York Times.

It’s funny, but I never hear “the biased, liberal, fake news media” claiming that former Trump appointees or employees are acting in a vindictive manner or making false claims against him.

Just sayin’.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

nytimes-fake_news-all_the_news

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑