"Republican voices accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency, compared to only 6 percent for Democrats and 3 percent for those involved in anti-Trump protests.
Which must mean that there are A LOT of republicans that report NEGATIVE about trump. Which mean they don't like him. No wonder his polling numbers are shit."
real/genuine objectivity on TER discussion boards.
Yup these discussion boards are purely for entertainment purposes. Yup, we certainly have more than enough trolls who don't believe one grain of the poo poo they spout when they click the "post message" button. We even witness different levels of intelligence and some who blindly believe falsehoods when those falsehoods come from THEIR political party.
But is there even a remote chance that BOTH sides are able to agree when the facts are basic and crystal clear? Case in point;
1) Trump has gone out of his way to oppose AT&T's merger with Time Warner, ordering justice department lawyers to sue, effectively blocking this merger. It is clear to the most casual observer that these entities deal with distinctly different businesses, with not even the slightest potential of creating a monopoly across one industry. We all know Time Warner owns CNN and Trump's feelings about CNN reporting are made clear every day as he throws barbs at their network.
2) Yet Trump congratulated Rupert Murdock on the Disney purchase of 21st Century Fox. These are two companies that DO compete in the media industry and who would no longer be competing for business, therefore creating a more expensive market place for their consumers. But of course, Fox always paints a favorable picture of Trump, no matter the facts and Trump realizes Fox is in his corner.
Is this what we should expect from any president, no matter their political affiliation? What ever happened to fairness, objectivity, and acting for the benefit of the common good?
-- Modified on 12/17/2017 10:20:27 AM
And I'll bet you'll see the lawyers for AT&T making the same point in court. That said, legally I think it's a stretch because, while Trump has said very negative things about CNN I don't think he's voiced an opinion on the Verizon/Time-Warner merger. But all the lawyers need to do is point out the fundamental inconsistency between the government's supporting on deal and opposing the other.
There is a difference - ATT and Time Warner merges a carrier with a content provider; whereas Disney and Fox merges content providers. I am not saying one is good and one is bad, and agree Trump should keep his mouth close on this and many other things, but these two mergers are different. One creates "vertical" integration while the other concentrates a market presence (in content).
"But of course, Fox always paints a favorable picture of Trump, no matter the facts and Trump realizes Fox is in his corner."
Fox is "always" in his corner? I really have to ask if you watch Fox? Ever? I cant believe you do with such an ignorant statement as that.
Do you not remember Megan Kelly HAMMERING Trump with the first question about his misogynistic quotes in the debate? I am sure you do.
Every single day, Fox gives air time to numerous people who trash Trump. As many liberals have pointed out here with glee, Shep Smith has been extremely tough on Trump.
And if that is too anecdotal for you, how about we take a peak at a Harvard University study that showed Fox covers Trump negatively 53% of the time during his first 100 days? My math may be off but I am pretty sure that 53% is MORE than half. LOL
So whatever point you were trying to make, and it may have been a valid one, you stepped all over by your TDS and your Fox hatred.
Now, stop your hypocrisy by worrying about all these "falsehoods" you are so concerned about and work on the ones you are spouting. ;
I've said this before. I watch fox, although I'm not glued to it and it doesn't shape all my opinions. So I watch it so and I've seen the love fest for trump..They have a Juan Williams human pinata to punch around.but as a whole, they basically cuddle him.
Megan Kelly ask one tough question in the first debate, when fox really didn't have a dog in the fight they were feeling the field.It was ONE question, She didn't HAMMER him And I think as time went on, she got alot of shit for it that it may have played into her decision to leave.
Not fox had become all trump, all the time..but keep it positive
-- Modified on 12/17/2017 5:47:40 PM
It doesn't shape all of mine either, but I thank God Fox News is there, for we would have a complete monopoly of liberal cacophony in its absence. Fox is run by people, and people are biased, so bias will be present on Fox, as it is with ALL media.
If someone doesn't like Fox, I could care less. But there is no reason for "objective" people, ahem, to blatantly lie or be ignorant about what they say/do. Like I said, many people EVERY day bash Trump on Fox.
So, feel free to take them on with facts, like I do with CNN and others, and not with wild, far left preconceived notions and falsehoods that are SO easily debunkable.
Btw, did you miss me hyper? lol
On Fox, and other networks viewers should be careful to pay attention what is reported as news, and what is put out there as opinions. Opinions on Fox are very much slanted in one direction, whereas on other networks they are slanted in the opposite direction. And then there is what THEY say the news is, and what they decide to report on....but that is a whole different story - and also why you need to watch more than one news story on different networks.
But I can say this, loyal fox watchers believe 99.9% of what they say, they really can't filter out all the BS. I know quite a few fox watchers and the shit or talking points that fox spews is their "bible".
They just can't comprehend the difference between the truth and what is a flat out lie.....
Sorry Dumphy, can't say I missed you....but glad you're back and it seems all is well.......so carry on.
"Megan Kelly ask one tough question in the first debate, when fox really didn't have a dog in the fight they were feeling the field.It was ONE question, She didn't HAMMER him And I think as time went on, she got alot of shit for it that it may have played into her decision to leave."
He tends to exaggerate!
You know you are in trouble when you have to parse ONE word from Dunphy's post and debate the word "hammered." Ha! You keep winning the those "big" battles Dims, like how many Diet Cokes MAGA enjoys and all your "wins" with the polls, and we'll keep destroying ISIS and make this economy roar! hahaha!
but one thing has not changed. You would not recognize objectivity if it bit you in the ass.
You unknowingly, completely proved my initial premise. Which are you; 1) troll, 2) one who doesn't believe one grain of the poo poo you post but still post it, or 3) one who lacks the intelligence to be a free thinker and would rather blindly follow any falsehood his/her political party espouses? You are so used to sticking your head in the sand, and blindly following your man Trump, you probably have no clue, which one fits you best.
You just couldn't muster up the discipline to respond to the administration's reaction to the two mergers I mentioned. Did you feel trapped or cornered? So typical of you and those like you. Don't respond to an issue if it reflects negatively on your party or your demagogue, just change the subject, deflect, and stay as far away from reality as you can. Predictable, so predictable!
Your love affair with Fox is pretty obvious! I prefer any news network that actually reports the news rather than one that more closely resembles a reality TV program. Lucky for you, this IS America and you are free to be as ignorant as you wish!
Is this you backing off the absurd notion that "Fox always paints a favorable picture of Trump" or are you sticking with that? You dodged that in your response. I wonder why? LOL
I guess you are new here, or maybe new to chat boards in general, but I really am allowed to choose and pick things you say in your OP to comment on.
All you had to do was stay on topic about the mergers, but NOOOOO, you just couldn't help yourself as you swerved from the truth with your factually untrue anti-Fox screed and hit me head on. 
As for your assertion that I "blindly follow my man Trump" that only just furthers your complete and utter ignorance of the posts made on this board.
-
Or you could have simply researched my numerous attacks on Trump, as I have referred to him as a POS on many occasions.
But why let any of these facts get in the way of all your fallacious arguments? LOL
Yes, you are "allowed" to avoid the central theme of an OP's post when you lack the intellect to add a rationale reply and use all the excuses you can conjure up, if that makes you feel better.
Yes, you are "allowed" to deflect and change the subject when you are cornered and feel you have no other way out, just like your bud Trump.
Yes, you are "allowed" to click on the "Post Message" tab, even when you do not believe even one word of your own poo poo but feel compelled to say something no matter how ridiculous.
Yes, Sean Hannity would agree with your every word as you would naturally agree with his, and you are still "allowed" to consider yourself a free-thinker and objective, even though your words clearly show you are not.
Yes, you are "allowed" to prove my initial premise, even though you may lack the intellect to know that is exactly what you are doing. Or is it your misplaced arrogance that prevents you from seeing reality as it truly is?
Troll on troll, you are DEFINITELY "allowed" to be a troll as many of our fellow posters here have so articulately pointed out. But unfortunately you are out of affirmations from me as you have already gone over the limit I set for trolls.
-- Modified on 12/17/2017 10:21:38 PM
He is hard right, braggadocios, demeaning at times and annoying almost always, but he is certainly not a troll. You and I probably agree on 80-90% of the issues, whereas I agree with JD only about 5% of the time,
He is a dichotomy, however, as Jack is also witty, funny and intelligent, so there is definitely a mixed bag there. He does make me think from time to time, and although I disagree with him often, he does make intelligent and cogent points and almost always attempts to back up those opinions with main stream news links. Does that sound like the attributes of a troll?
I do agree with him that is doesn't appear you are all too familiar with his posts, as he is certainly not a mouthpiece for Sean Hannity. He has repeatedly called Trump a piece of sh*t in the past and has, on several occasions, excoriated Trump for his boorish and over the top rhetoric.
So while you are certainly free here to call him a troll, or align him and all his views with the current administration, that does not make it so, as those assertions are wildly inaccurate and a gross mischaracterization of his board persona.
There are many trolls on the politics and religion board, it just so happens that JD is not one of them.
"Republican voices accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency, compared to only 6 percent for Democrats and 3 percent for those involved in anti-Trump protests.
Which must mean that there are A LOT of republicans that report NEGATIVE about trump. Which mean they don't like him. No wonder his polling numbers are shit."
You misinterpreted what the study said - the below is directly from the study
"It was also the case that Trump did most of the talking (see Figure 1). He was the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of his coverage. Members of the administration, including his press secretary, accounted for 11 percent of the sound bites. Other Republicans, including Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, accounted for 4 percent. Altogether, Republicans, inside and outside the administration, accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency."
The news showed "republican voices" in the negative news stories. But most of that was just showing Trump speaking, not criticizing himself!! Even the rest of it, in no way, can be assumed to be criticism of Trump.
"'Several moves by the FCC under Pai have been cast as 'massive handouts' to Sinclair and the telecommunications industry. In April, the agency reinstated the obsolete UHF discount that, as Common Dreams reported, "essentially functions as a loophole allowing broadcast companies to exceed the FCC's limit on how much of a nationwide audience they can reach.'"