(03-10-2018, 12:47 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote:

(03-10-2018, 12:41 PM)DragonFury Wrote: What study?

Do you really want to do this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/eri...-negative/

Yes I do, because it's apparently very fashionable to say "a recent study..." and then not post said study or post a study from a clearly biased source. This study fore example is from teh Media Resource Center, a clearly conservative organization which immediately calls into question the validity of the study. The study also focuses on just three nightly programs (none from Fox) and does not account for viewing figures.

So on the whole, it's not correct to say 91% of "main stream media" coverage is negative. 91% of coverage on three specific programs on three networks is negative and that doesn't include any other programs on those networks or the largest network in terms of ratings.

---

(03-10-2018, 03:21 PM)TJBender Wrote:

(03-10-2018, 08:45 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: It is funny watching some of you squirm at the mere thought of Trumps accomplishments thus far as POTUS.

Don't worry though, they have several clinical trials for TDS waiting for FDA approval.

In all fairness, if Trump somehow does manage to broker a deal that sees North Korea give up its nuclear weapons program and doesn't rape the South in the process, I will be duly impressed.

If that actually happens he should get the Nobel Peace Prize IMO, even if the prize itself is a complete farce.

---