"If you want something more objective, how about this:"
Please either pay more attention to what you are reading or stop willfully ignoring what I write. 

wait. wait. wait. The approval rating being reported by the same people currently being outed as knowingly pushing fake news? Those approval ratings.

I look for more concrete things. Such as Georgia 6th District congression election. The democrats dumped a record amount into that race at a point when the fake media insued Trump was at his lowest... and guess what. Osteen lost by the exact same percentage in that distract as Hilary lost to Trump in that district.

So at the least he is where he was back on Nov 8th. You know... when he won the election.

There are plenty of polls that aren't run by news channels.  Why don't you look at them? 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx

Oh, they don't agree with your preconceived notions?  Well I guess that company is just run by lying libtard NWO conspirators then. 

Are you serious? Do you really think they have just as many as before the President of the United states hissed his fans on them on national television and twitter?

Good joke.

Gallup stopped doing election polls because the final results showed their numbers were shit. Great thing for them about approval numbers is there really is no way to prove whether it is right or wrong. Where as election polls have to be compared to the actual result.

Ok. It's new because he's a member of congress right?

Alright I get you. That is indeed a more refined criteria to "prove" your point I guess.  

Disclaimer though. It's wikipedia. It's not all related to assault.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_the_United_States

Also highly doubt this list is even substantially near to how many journalists have experienced violence or was killed. Because to actually do that, we have to do some real "research". By we it means the both of us. But I'm not going to such lengths because my claim is simple. Feel free to do so if you want to prove your point so bad.

Also this entails only to those who have died not those who have been threatened only nor was attacked/assaulted personally but survived.

But yeah. It didn't exist before right?

Here's something to humor your thought, if whistle blowers like Snowden can get threats by exposing things what makes you think media/journalists won't have those?

Good job moving goalposts. Quantity or frequency is irrelevant. The point is that it's been there even since so stop making it out to be some new Phenomenon.

If you wanna talk about quantitative comparison go show some solid proof since you're so sure about your claim. Give me data or back off.

Here's the thing:  the incident I described illustrates that among some (not all) Trump supporters there has developed a culture that "the media" is evil and they deserve whatever they get.  They literally praised the fact that the man they were in the process of electing to Congress physically attacked a reporter for the crime of asking a question about his policy position on the new health care bill.  I'm not going to say that our country has never seen politics get this bad before.  It was extremely nasty in the mid-1800s, for example.  But I think we are in a period of time when things are getting worse in that area, and I think we need to fight against that trend.  

You're right that whistleblowers and people doing investigative journalism have always been attacked, verbally, politically, physically, etc. by the people they are exposing or accusing or by their allies.  But it's a different situation entirely when there's a cultural indifference to whether people should be allowed to exercise their right to speak freely, question government officials, etc. without being beaten up or jailed.  That's a bad path to go down for this country.  You can see around the world places where that happens.  

As a last point, you have a good argument if you say, "Because we don't have enough data on the question of whether death threats to media reporters are rising, you can't say your position is correct:  we don't know."  But that's a completely different thing from saying, "Because we don't know, my position that death threats are not rising must be accepted as the default position."  That is wrong.  [edit:  And maybe you were never trying to say that, but I just needed to put that out there.]  "We don't know" means "we don't know".  I would argue that there is circumstantial evidence that makes it a lot more likely that it's rising than that it's not rising, but I would agree that based on the information presented in this thread it's not "beyond a reasonable doubt".  I think there's been a lot more evidence here on my side, even if it's circumstantial, than you have presented for your side.  Even if we don't know, that doesn't mean all possibilities are equally likely.  

P.S.  Please remember that the question of "death threats rising?" is different from, although related to, the question of "public acceptance of repression of free speech & freedom of media inquiry rising?"

Here's the thing:  the incident I described illustrates that among some (not all) Trump supporters there has developed a culture that "the media" is evil and they deserve whatever they get.  They literally praised the fact that the man they were in the process of electing to Congress physically attacked a reporter for the crime of asking a question about his policy position on the new health care bill.  I'm not going to say that our country has never seen politics get this bad before.  It was extremely nasty in the mid-1800s, for example.  But I think we are in a period of time when things are getting worse in that area, and I think we need to fight against that trend.  

You're right that whistleblowers and people doing investigative journalism have always been attacked, verbally, politically, physically, etc. by the people they are exposing or accusing or by their allies.  But it's a different situation entirely when there's a cultural indifference to whether people should be allowed to exercise their right to speak freely, question government officials, etc. without being beaten up or jailed.  That's a bad path to go down for this country.  You can see around the world places where that happens.  

As a last point, you have a good argument if you say, "Because we don't have enough data on the question of whether death threats to media reporters are rising, you can't say your position is correct:  we don't know."  But that's a completely different thing from saying, "Because we don't know, my position that death threats are not rising must be accepted as the default position."  That is wrong.  [edit:  And maybe you were never trying to say that, but I just needed to put that out there.]  "We don't know" means "we don't know".  I would argue that there is circumstantial evidence that makes it a lot more likely that it's rising than that it's not rising, but I would agree that based on the information presented in this thread it's not "beyond a reasonable doubt".  I think there's been a lot more evidence here on my side, even if it's circumstantial, than you have presented for your side.  Even if we don't know, that doesn't mean all possibilities are equally likely.  

P.S.  Please remember that the question of "death threats rising?" is different from, although related to, the question of "public acceptance of repression of free speech & freedom of media inquiry rising?"

Maybe moved your goal posts.

My goal post is simple: Trump is a danger to the USA and to the world and everyone should be made aware of it.

You can also give me data that it's still the same. Give me data or back off. See? I can ask you to bring information you can't have to make my point. Doesn't make you right.

It is logical it is more when the message reaches more people. So, you just don't see that cause you don't want to.

Oh btw and for the Nothing burger, it appears that it had some jiuce on Donal trump Jr and friends. Shocking! It was just everyone making stuff up was it not? Right.