Everything COVID-19

[Bob In PA]

Rich: I think this one will work.  Bob

https://i0.wp.com/www.bitsandpieces.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Relative-importance-in-2020-so-far.jpg?fit=600%2C600&ssl=1

PS. Also replaced the one in my original attempt.

[MightyGiants]

Kind of clever




I don't think I agree (I already gone into great detail about masks) but I could see how some people could feel that way, especially if you get your Covid news/information from certain sources.

[Bob In PA]

Kind of clever

I don't think I agree (I already gone into great detail about masks) but I could see how some people could feel that way, especially if you get your Covid news/information from certain sources.

I think it's a thing they sell at "Bits and Pieces" (essentially a jigsaw puzzle seller) and someone drew on the extra line.  Bob  PS. Thanks for being only indirectly political.   

[philo43]

I am wondering how Fox News has become the whipping boy for the left.  There was a chart  posted 3- 4 weeks ago (to lazy to find it) that showed FOX news was slightly of the center line as MSN  and CNN were from the left.

We have many posters who post quotes from CNN and MSN, but they are not discredited like so many posters  discredit Fox News.

I have not watched FoX news in over 15 years.

Seems to me this is a very large straw man created by the left. 

[MightyGiants]

I am wondering how Fox News has become the whipping boy for the left.  There was a chart  posted 3- 4 weeks ago (to lazy to find it) that showed FOX news was slightly of the center line as MSN  and CNN were from the left.

We have many posters who post quotes from CNN and MSN, but they are not discredited like so many posters  discredit Fox News.

I have not watched FoX news in over 15 years.

Seems to me this is a very large straw man created by the left.

You make a fair point about MSNBC and CNN not being much better than FOX.   I will say that I think this chart is better than the previous one I posted as it seems to be newer and goes into more detail

[MightyGiants]

Can someone tell me how this is in the best interest of the nation?!?!

Look I have no doubt the Democrats will ask tough questions and maybe some will be intended to make Trump look bad.  However, this has been the way our nation has worked for a long time.  Plus I am at a loss to see how less transparency would be good for our nation as we deal with this deadly virus

The Trump administration is rebuffing House Democrats' effort to hear testimony from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield on safely reopening schools during the coronavirus pandemic.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman Bobby Scott (D-Va.) sent Redfield a letter last week asking him or a CDC designee to testify at a hearing on how K-12 public schools can reopen for in-person classroom instruction this fall. But on Friday, Scott said his panel had been informed that the Trump administration would not allow CDC testimony at the hearing planned for next week.

[MightyGiants]

Philo if you want to know why people are being so critical to FOX "News" I suggest you watch this video

Just found the Fox News victory lap video, enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGDNaB6fZCU

[Bob In PA]

I will say that I think this chart is better than the previous one I posted as it seems to be newer and goes into more detail

Rich: I can't agree with the major networks being in the middle.  Pew Research (hardly conservative, actually pretty fair) does a rundown of the number of news stories pro-Trump versus anti-Trump and the number is in the neighborhood of 90 percent anti and less than 10 percent pro.  The only difference between them and CNN and MSNBC is that the network channels don't have "opinion" shows which are merely advertisements for the respective political parties.  During the Obama administration the comparison between pro- and anti-Obama was far, far different.  Trump is being bashed by the networks in a somewhat different manner, but "bashed" nonetheless.  And he still managed to win the Electoral College.  I believe that is an achievement unparalleled in the history of Presidential elections.  The closest things came on the other side of the ledger was the "fake news" that Dewey defeated Hoover, and that was just one incident. Bob

[Bob In PA]

Philo if you want to know why people are being so critical to FOX "News" I suggest you watch this video

Rich: IMO it takes a lot of chutzpah to put that video up.

For the better part of THREE YEARS IN A ROW all of the other TV outlets told us Trump colluded with Russia and Adam Schiff claimed to have"direct" evidence of collusion.

In other words, nearly every night, they took a premature "victory lap" and all of those laps turned out to be "fake news" and utterly wrong.  And they never apologized to their viewers.  Just moved on to the next lie.

Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich: I can't agree with the major networks being in the middle.  Pew Research (hardly conservative, actually pretty fair) does a rundown of the number of news stories pro-Trump versus anti-Trump and the number is in the neighborhood of 90 percent anti and less than 10 percent pro.  The only difference between them and CNN and MSNBC is that the network channels don't have "opinion" shows which are merely advertisements for the respective political parties.  During the Obama administration the comparison between pro- and anti-Obama was far, far different.  Trump is being bashed by the networks in a somewhat different manner, but "bashed" nonetheless.  And he still managed to win the Electoral College.  I believe that is an achievement unparalleled in the history of Presidential elections.  The closest things came on the other side of the ledger was the "fake news" that Dewey defeated Hoover, and that was just one incident. Bob

Bob,

Look, I would love to look at the research that you are citing from Pew, but I can't find it (even with my Google skills).  I really need to see the methodology on this one.  I mean such a study has a great many challenges including:


1)  What do define as Pro-Trump VS Anti-Trump
2)  How do you decide what is newsworthy and what isn't
3)  How many stories were there to pick from and how many of them were positive or negative


Until I see how they handled all those issues, I really can't take much stock in the study.  Now if I can see they did an outstanding study where on a given night there were 10 positive stories (that were newsworthy) and 5 negative stories (that were newsworthy) but they ran 4 negative and only 1 positive then I will say the facts are on your side.   If they don't, it's only your opinion that the network news is biases, which you are certainly entitled to.

[MightyGiants]

Rich: IMO it takes a lot of chutzpah to put that video up.

For the better part of THREE YEARS IN A ROW all of the other TV outlets told us Trump colluded with Russia and Adam Schiff claimed to have"direct" evidence of collusion.

In other words, nearly every night, they took a premature "victory lap" and all of those laps turned out to be "fake news" and utterly wrong.  And they never apologized to their viewers.  Just moved on to the next lie.

Bob

Roger Stone and Trump's pardon

[Bob In PA]

Bob,

Look, I would love to look at the research that you are citing from Pew, but I can't find it (even with my Google skills).  I really need to see the methodology on this one.  I mean such a study has a great many challenges including:


1)  What do define as Pro-Trump VS Anti-Trump
2)  How do you decide what is newsworthy and what isn't
3)  How many stories were there to pick from and how many of them were positive or negative


Until I see how they handled all those issues, I really can't take much stock in the study.  Now if I can see their did an outstanding study where on a given night there were 10 positive stories (that were newsworthy) and 5 negative stories (that were newsworthy) but they ran 4 negative and only 1 positive than I will say the facts are on your side.   If they don't, it's only your opinion that the network news is biases, which you are certainly entitled to.

Rich: I will try to find the Pew stats later tonight and hopefully unearth them by tomorrow.  I wrote a note.  If you can't find them, I doubt whether I'll succeed, but I have two places to look for help.  Bob

[LennG]

Rich: I can't agree with the major networks being in the middle.  Pew Research (hardly conservative, actually pretty fair) does a rundown of the number of news stories pro-Trump versus anti-Trump and the number is in the neighborhood of 90 percent anti and less than 10 percent pro.  The only difference between them and CNN and MSNBC is that the network channels don't have "opinion" shows which are merely advertisements for the respective political parties.  During the Obama administration the comparison between pro- and anti-Obama was far, far different.  Trump is being bashed by the networks in a somewhat different manner, but "bashed" nonetheless.  And he still managed to win the Electoral College.  I believe that is an achievement unparalleled in the history of Presidential elections.  The closest things came on the other side of the ledger was the "fake news" that Dewey defeated Hoover, and that was just one incident. Bob

Bob

When he does something good they WILL comment on it, when he does something stupid they will also comment on it.
A La 10% good=90% bad.

Arithmetic is simple when you understand the math.   

[LennG]

Rich: IMO it takes a lot of chutzpah to put that video up.

For the better part of THREE YEARS IN A ROW all of the other TV outlets told us Trump colluded with Russia and Adam Schiff claimed to have"direct" evidence of collusion.

In other words, nearly every night, they took a premature "victory lap" and all of those laps turned out to be "fake news" and utterly wrong.  And they never apologized to their viewers.  Just moved on to the next lie.

Bob

Didn't the Mueller probe basically say there was collusion with Russia? Sorry but that is what I came away with, no matter how much he denies it.

AND, obviously, I have no proof, but at the time, I would have bet my bottom dollar that the Russians interfered with some of the votes in PA. The vote was so close and all they had to do was make a 'few changes' in some remote polling place to swing the state to Trump. And don't say it couldn't have happened? It could have and IMVHO it did. yes, I cannot prove it, but you also can't say positively it didn't go down that way.

[LennG]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jimmy-carter-trump-didnt-win-2016-election-russians-interfered

Jimmy Carter says investigation would show Trump didn't win 2016 election: He's in office 'because Russians interfered'



This isn't where I got my own opinion, but I am not the only one who thought this way.