It doesn't mean its true either, esp. w/ every journalist having wet dreams about being the next Woodward & Bernstein.
That does not mean it is inaccurate or biasedhttps://twitter.com/profbainbridge/status/866406201780613120 …
-
-
-
So it means nothing
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I like Gasparov's reaction: how negative is their coverage of Ebola?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Bad men get bad press.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Though it's pretty hard to imagine how the remaining 7% could have been accurate.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How was the coverage on Ebola? Or the BP spill in the gulf?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Actually, it does cupcake
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nope, simply stating facts. That's their job.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm sure the '73 Nixon coverage was 40% Watergate, 60% Vietnam Puff Pieces.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If anything, 93% is on the low side.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Exactly Rick. The headline "Arsonist loose in the city" may be negative, but it is simply a fact.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
one sided = 100% and 93% is close
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.