They are putting too much negative bias into their coverage of President Donald J. Trump.
The proportion of their positive or neutral coverage of Trump is minuscule in comparison to their negative coverage, the amount of which is overwhelming. It is not as if there are a lack of positive things to write, there are numerous stories available which are neutral, however the MSM as a collective is making a conscious choice to ignore these positive stories, cherry picking only the negative ones.
Is this why many of the news companies are failing as businesses?
Fuck off he's trying to have an actual discussion instead of talking about women or memes
Lincoln Adams
The new York times along with many other popular newspaper/ tabloids started going bankrupt almost a decade ago. They're at this point being sponsored to write shitty stories or do it because it gets attention a la yellow journalism
Msm television networks are a whole different animal, they're literally controlled by one person at the head who makes all the content and narrative decisions. These individuals also happen to be kikes.
Ethan Evans
With the advent of Twitter and normie book, most plebs who couldn't care less will just get their news from buzzfeed or John Oliver; this accessibility to low information news combined with Msm's steady drop in quality has caused them to fail
Austin Reed
We must secure the existance of our people and a future for white children.
Justin Roberts
That's an interesting take on it, and it aligns with some things I've heard made by Andrew Brietbart
