CNN to Rep Jeff Duncan: NO, We did not retract or backtrack our story on Sessions-These are FACTS.

[kpete]

No, @RepJeffDuncan. We did not retract or backtrack on our story. We stand by our reporting. Those are the facts.

Link to tweet

[OldHippieChick]

1. I realize I'm a little late to the party, but this is the second instance today of

a Rethug stating something publically that is patently untrue. They simply think that if they say something their followers will buy it and I suppose many of them do, but this is getting to be more frequent. Surely to goodness they are going to start realizing they can't keep this up. The Montana story was the other instance where the right-wing was falsely reporting and assuming no one would call them on it. Cannot wait for their play on the shoving of another NATO leader and how the other NATO leaders were "impressed" being berated by the Toddler.

[dalton99a]

2. Kick.

[MyOwnPeace]

3. And,

where's this "recent Harvard study?"

I'll wait.........................................................................................................................

[Shandris]

5. Google is your friend.

Usually you can hit most links just by typing in the main words in your query. For instance I used 'Harvard study trump coverage negative' to find a link that referred back to the study. Here ya go.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=ab6d830a9d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085

I make NO commentary on the study, its methodology (in fact I didn't even glance at it), and so on. Just providing the study itself.

[Maeve]

6. so let's see what the study found (all direct quotes from above page)

Findings include:

President Trump dominated media coverage in the outlets and programs analyzed, with Trump being the topic of 41 percent of all news stories—three times the amount of coverage received by previous presidents. He was also the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds of his coverage.
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.
----------------------
Presidents are more than the main focus of U.S. reporters. Presidents are also their main target. Although journalists are accused of having a liberal bias, their real bias is a preference for the negative.[22] News reporting turned sour during the Vietnam and Watergate era and has stayed that way.[23] Journalists’ incentives, everything from getting their stories on the air to acquiring a reputation as a hard-hitting reporter, encourage journalists to focus on what’s wrong with politicians rather than what’s right.[24] Once upon a time, the “honeymoon” period for a newly inaugurated president included favorable press coverage.[25] That era is now decades in the past. Today’s presidents can expect rough treatment at the hands of the press, and Donald Trump is no exception (see Figure 4). Of the past four presidents, only Barack Obama received favorable coverage during his first 100 days, after which the press reverted to form. During his second 100 days, Obama’s coverage was 57 percent negative to 43 percent positive.[26]
---------------------------------------
What’s truly atypical about Trump’s coverage is that it’s sharply negative despite the fact that he’s the source of nearly two-thirds of the sound bites surrounding his coverage. Typically, newsmakers and groups complain that their media narrative is negative because they’re not given a chance to speak for themselves. Over the past decade, U.S. coverage of Muslims has been more than 75 percent negative. And Muslims have had little chance to tell their side of the story. Muslims account for less than 5 percent of the voices heard in news reports about Islam.[31] So why is Trump’s coverage so negative even though he does most of the talking? The fact is, he’s been on the defensive during most of his 100 days in office, trying to put the best face possible on executive orders, legislative initiatives, appointments, and other undertakings that have gone bad. Even Fox has not been able to save him from what analyst David Gergen called the “’worst 100 days we’ve ever seen.”[32]

[Shandris]

7. Mhm. It both says what they say and doesn't...

...like almost every study ever reported on mainstream television. One of the reasons I believe literally zero that I see on mainstream television.

The only actual reports I like to read are the science ones, and wouldn't ya know it they're all behind multiple-tens-of-thousands-of-dollar paywalls. Odd that a country that wants its populace so 'educated' goes to such lengths to bar off real research.

[eppur_se_muova]

10. HAHAHAHAHAHA!! *Where* did you ever hear that this country wants its populace "educated" ?

Only bleeding-heart libruls want that. Oh, wait, I forgot -- when Repugs say "education" they mean "job training for whatever labor pool will make corporate America rich through at least the end of this quarter", so they tend to praise education a lot without clarifying that they only mean their version of education. It's part of the smoke screen.

[GoCubsGo]

4. Thank goodness for redistricting, as that lunatic used to be my representative.

He's so batshit crazy, I feel lucky to have Joe Wilson as my rep. Wilson is not quite that delusional.

[jberryhill]

8. First word on his Twitter profile - "Christian"

Kind of says it all these days.

[gratuitous]

9. So many demands for fair treatment from rich white guys in positions of power

When, oh when, will President Trump and Rep. Duncan at last get fair treatment? Maybe we should hold a telethon or something.