Without having read the article, I assume the gist of it is Fox exists, and not 100% of coverage of Trump is negative, therefore it's biased in his favor because obviously he's ultra-Hitler.
From comments of those who did read the propaganda article it's saying that because Trump, any mention of Trump, even if it's negative, even if it's incorrect, even if it's a malicious lie, in fact counts as a "win" for Trump.
It's an argument that could only possibly not indicate bias if, for instance, one's preferred candidate had dropped off the face of the Earth and decided to not generate any press by comparison. But that would be a stupid thing to do in the middle of a presidential campaign, would it not?
Without having read the article, I assume the gist of it is Fox exists, and not 100% of coverage of Trump is negative, therefore it's biased in his favor because obviously he's ultra-Hitler.
From comments of those who did read the
propagandaarticle it's saying that because Trump, any mention of Trump, even if it's negative, even if it's incorrect, even if it's a malicious lie, in fact counts as a "win" for Trump.It's an argument that could only possibly not indicate bias if, for instance, one's preferred candidate had dropped off the face of the Earth and decided to not generate any press by comparison. But that would be a stupid thing to do in the middle of a presidential campaign, would it not?