BREAKING: Major Network ADMITS They Didn’t Cover 24% of 78 Listed Islamist Terror Attacks!

In their rush to DEFEND themselves, one station actually proved Trump’s point.

Journalists keep picking fights with Trump. And they keep getting their butts handed to them.

When Trump called the news agencies out for bias, they asked him what he meant.

He told them they tend to jump all over the Anti-Trump protest stories, but they don’t give proper coverage to Terrorist attacks.

When reporters scoffed, and said ‘prove it’, Trump’s staff provided a list.

They laughed at the list. (At first.)

We reported those, they said. Actually, they missed the point. Completely.

There’s a REASON the public doesn’t give the news nearly the respect our parents’ generation did. It’s BS like this.

ClashDaily made the case (yesterday) that even what they DID report, they bent over backwards to NOT tie it to Radical Islam. (It’s HERE if you have a Liberal relative that needs help understanding that.)

In their rush to DEFEND themselves, one station actually proved Trump’s point. See if you can catch the error. The following blockquote is taken from a CBS article:

On Air Force One, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Mr. Trump didn’t really mean that terrorist attacks received no coverage. The president’s actual complaint, he said, was that such acts don’t get enough attention.

“He felt that members of media don’t always cover some of those events to the extent that other events might get covered,” Spicer said. “Like a protest gets blown out of the water, and yet an attack or a foiled attack doesn’t necessarily get the same coverage.”

The White House prefaced its Monday evening release with a statement saying that, since the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) declared its caliphate in 2014, “There has been a major attack targeting the West executed or inspired by the group more than once every two weeks.”

“Most have not received the media attention they deserved,” the White House added, although many of the attacks were covered by the media.

CBS News covered, in some cases heavily but at least to some extent, more than 74 percent of the attacks on the list.

You see Spicer making the same point we just did. Followed by this justification:

CBS News covered, in some cases heavily but at least to some extent, more than 74 percent of the attacks on the list.

You don’t have to be a math major to see the corresponding fact.

If they DID cover ‘more than’ 74%, that would mean that they did NOT cover ‘nearly 26%’, wouldn’t it?

Doesn’t that line up with the point he’s been making?

Then look it in light of… just to pick one example of many… news agencies playing along with the ‘workplace violence’ angle for the Fort Hood massacre?

No bias there? Nice try, chuckleheads.

Next question?

Share if they media look like they’re on a desperate witch-hunt.

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.