Still Looking for a Positive Trump Story in My Local Paper

Reading comprehension is simply not your strong suit!

1 Like

Sooner or later you will get the message that you are an unwanted troll. Best you just slink away.

1 Like

7 replies now… I’ll ask the question again. This is on topic.

Name 1 thing that Trump did in the last week that was good that wasn’t reported on? I’ll even offer an easier question… how many good things has Trump done this past week (reported or not reported)?

I don’t think he necessarily changed that. I believe they were skewed before he ran. More people were just made aware of it this time around and they were a bit more obvious about it, considering we had wall - to - wall coverage with tv anchors calling the race for Hillary before the East Coast was even done reporting their tallies.

According to Trump’s tweets, he has revived the Steel industry. New and expanded plants are happening all over the country, resulting in billions paid to the Treasury.

He also stated, once again, the he has done more in the first two years than any other president. So, it must not be hard to find a positive story.

Take a look at my subject line and OP.

"LOCAL PAPER"

Please go away. Really

1 Like

I know what you OP says. My question still stands. what positive stories should your local paper be reporting on in the last week? Any regarding Trump is National news, so you should be able to identify those stories for your local paper.

This is the 8th post and no response.

Now that is funny. I whole week.

How about the trend?

Unprecedented hostility: Broadcast coverage of President Trump still 90% negative, says study

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/6/trump-coverage-still-90-negative-says-new-study/

It has been a pattern since President Trumpwas inaugurated well over a year ago. Coverage of the White House on the “Big Three” broadcast networks — ABC, CBSand NBC — remains 91 percent negative, according to a new study by the Media Research Center, which has been tracking the phenomenon since Mr. Trumphit the campaign trail in 2016.

It was over 90 percent hostile then — and remains so now. The trend is unprecedented, according to the analysis.

The conservative press watchdog monitored nightly evening networks newscasts throughout January and February to find that anchors and correspondents uttered 10 times more negative comments about the president than positive statements. Analysts examined over 500 stories.

Out of a total of 712 evaluative comments made on the air, only 65 were positive, or 9 percent. The rest — 647 comments — were negative, amounting to 91 percent. The ongoing Russia collusion investigation was the leading topic of choice, followed by immigration issues, the recent government shutdown, and the White House response to the Parkland student shooting.

Throughout January and February, the analysts found that 63 percent of news coverage was devoted to scandals — and just 37 percent to real policy issues.

1 Like

I guess you can’t take a hint.

1 Like

No I got the hint. You are incapable of having a discussion unless it fits your echo chamber. You complain about something and when challenged to provide evidence you back down.

Sounds rather snowflaky

Just stop with your echo chamber BS…we watch how libs talking points race across the net and media to forums such as this within seconds.

You included.

What this post doesn’t do is correlate negative coverage with negativity from Trump. Is 91% not in line with the percentage of positive things Trump has done? Maybe 91% is accurate? Maybe it isn’t?

Taking a micro view… Trump this week tweeted that his intelligence agencies need to “go back to school”. Should that garner positive coverage?

And then there are “con” talking points. 2 sides of the partisan coin. Those ideas should be challenged so that we all have a better understanding of each side correct?

So in a effort to do that, I am offering another side for the purposes of discussion. The problem is very few people here are here to have a discussion. They want to broad brush or misrepresent issues and when challenged (ie asked for evidence) don’t want to play ball anymore. I am fine with that, just don’t pretend or accuse me of not wanting to have a discussion or debate. I’m game but both sides need to come with receipts.

I don’t put you in that category, there are a few others too (TWR, Samm for example) but everyone else in this thread is not here for a discussion

Sooner or later you will get it through that thick skull of yours that no one here will give you the time of day.

You really need to go away.

1 Like

And maybe the press is biased which accounts for the negative stories.

Negativity from Trump? In your opinion? The presses opinion?

And he is likely correct about the intelligence agencies (oxymoron).

I hear you. Some people continue to read the cut and paste articles. Th Denver post at on time had 600 employees.

Today they have 60 employees.

At one time they had 450K subscribers, in 2016, 134K. The company was in bankruptcy and bought and taken private and statistics are no longer available. Some has said they have approximately 100K left.

That drop in subscribers was due to the internet, not necessarily their lack of readable content.

Do you have a source you can back that up with?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/circulation-and-revenue-fall-for-newspaper-industry/

Digital revenue is trending up while newspaper circulation is trending down. A direct correlation.

Um, no. I did not ask you for trends. I asked you for a source to back up your assertion specifically to the numbers @louman posted: