…immigration coverage received 96 percent of negative coverage. (NEWSBUSTERS)
For this study, MRC analysts looked at all 505 evening news stories that mentioned President Trump or his administration in January and February. Out of 851 total minutes of airtime devoted to the administration, the networks spent almost one-fourth of it (204 minutes, or 24%) on the Russia investigation, eclipsing other major topics such as the economy, immigration reform, and even the gun debate.
Since Trump took office on January 20, 2017, the three broadcast evening newscasts have spent a combined 1,438 minutes on the Russia investigation, accounting for more than one out of every five minutes (21%) of coverage of the Trump presidency….
It’s no secret that the media are not President Trump’s loudest cheering section, but a new study released Thursday by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy lends a certain amount of credence to President Trump’s recent claim that “No politician in history” has been “treated worse or more unfairly” by the media.
The report, based on an analysis of “news reports in the print editions of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the main newscasts of CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC, and three European news outlets (The UK’s Financial Timesand BBC, and Germany’s ARD),” found that media coverage of Trump’s first 100 days “set a new standard for negativity” at 80 percent negative coverage.
Clinton received 60 percent negative coverage during his first 100 days, George W. Bush had 57 percent negative coverage, and Obama had just 41 percent negative coverage.
“Trump’s coverage was unsparing,” the report found. “In no week did the coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its peak.”
“CNN and NBC’s coverage was the most unrelenting—negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks,” the study found. “Trump’s coverage on CBS also exceeded the 90 percent mark. Trump’s coverage exceeded the 80 percent level in The New York Times (87 percent negative) and TheWashington Post(83 percent negative). TheWall Street Journal came in below that level (70 percent negative).”
“Fox was the only outlet where Trump’s overall coverage nearly crept into positive territory—52 percent of Fox’s reports with a clear tone were negative, while 48 percent were positive. Fox’s coverage was 34 percentage points less negative than the average for the other six outlets.”
“Studies of earlier presidents found nothing comparable to the level of unfavorable coverage afforded Trump,” the study’s authors noted, “Should it continue, it would exceed even that received by Bill Clinton. There was not a single quarter during any year of Clinton’s presidency where his positive coverage exceeded his negative coverage, a dubious record no president before or since has matched.”
“Trump can’t top that string of bad news but he could take it to a new level,” they add. “During his first 100 days, Clinton’s coverage was 3-to-2 negative over positive. Trump’s first 100 days were 4-to-1 negative over positive.”….
…For example, President Trump’s push to invigorate the economy and bring back American jobs received a mere 18 minutes of coverage (less than one percent of all airtime devoted to the administration), while his moves to renegotiate various international trade deals resulted in less than 10 minutes of TV news airtime.
Eight years ago, in contrast, the broadcast networks rewarded new President Barack Obama with mainly positive spin, and spent hundreds of stories discussing the economic agenda of the incoming liberal administration.
For this study, MRC analysts reviewed all of ABC, CBS and NBC’s evening news coverage of Trump and his new administration from January 20 through April 9, including weekends. Coverage during those first 80 days was intense, as the networks churned out 869 stories about the new administration (737 full reports and 132 brief, anchor-read items), plus an additional 140 full reports focused on other topics but which also discussed the new administration.
Five big topics accounted for roughly two-fifths (43%) of the whopping 1,900 minutes of total network airtime devoted to the Trump administration. But those five topics accounted for a much larger share (63%) of the negative coverage hurled at the administration, as the networks covered each with an overwhelmingly hostile (more than 90% negative) slant….
In a discussion on Facebook, a person noted the following:
…That said, I also know that the first step in indoctrination of a population is to demonize the press. Look at any fascist, communist, autocratic, dictatorial government and you will find the same element.
All of the far-right Trump supporters love to scream “fake news” whenever they hear something they don’t like. That’s not how the world works: Truth is truth, whether we like it or not.
If the only “sources” these people consult are Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars, er. al, then they are simply getting a reinforcement of their narrative.
— Robin HB
(Notice how broad brush strokes are used, no examples given… you will see that I give examples of why often times the label “Fake News” should be used. But if one needs approval by “specialists,” the ATLANTIC says it’s okay to use the term. I would like to say as well that Robin used ad hominem attacks in describing anything that veered off of a Leftist point of view.)
Here is my response specifically to her statement I posted, some of the above may be repeated. Note as well that the idea here is that there really is #FakeNews, and that Pulitzer Prizes are won because of it:
Firstly, “FAKE NEWS” as a term was used by Hillary before Trump used it… so its etymology predates Mr. Hotel. Second, states like those of Communists and Fascists (Italy) and the neo-Pagans in Germany use the media. And in fact, many Leftists that visited Venezuela praised Hugo in “federalizing” the media.
Here is another example of the bias in media, and so, #fakenews in what it omits and admits (I can show hundreds):
★ EXHIBIT ONE ★
Of 141 stories on the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening and morning shows that mentioned the efforts of the House Freedom Caucus and their Senate counterparts during the ObamaCare repeal/replacement debate, and discovered that while congressional conservatives were overwhelmingly given ideological labels, those that opposed them were rarely, if ever, labeled by journalists.
“There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be.” –New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1
“Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.” –New York Times, August 23, 1933
“Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin’s program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding.” –New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6
“You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” –New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18
“There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition.” –New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13
PBS’s American Experience documentary About Clinton
In a great example of how the media guides it’s listeners down a path full of narratives they [said media] wish were true… we find in a touted “honest” Clinton documentary many lies and missteps (Clinton | American Experience). Larry Elder is in his element here as he excoriates the depths of this false narrative. His article is a must read for those interested. Near the back-half of the audio Larry offers other media silence on issues surrounding Democrats. They [Democrats] apparently have a no fly zone in regard to honest reporting.
★ EXHIBIT FOUR ★
Chuck “Sleepy Eyes” Todd admits to using “Alternative Facts.” [Hear him say as much!]
★ EXHIBIT FIVE ★
A week from the 2000 Presidential Race
Rush Limbaugh discusses journalistic “parroting” talking points. He takes us back to June of 2000 when “Dubya” announced Dick Cheney as his VP — the montage is from 2:00-to-2:55, and the voices heard in it are listed on Rush’s site as well as belolw. Great stuff, I missed this montage from soo many years ago, even Conan O’Brian used it (January 2014). See more at NEWSBUSTERS.
Here are the montage voices:
AL HUNT: He meets all of George W’s weaknesses, lack of gravitas.
JUAN WILLIAMS: We see the son, who is seeking some gravitas.
CLAIRE SHIPMAN: They were looking at candidates with gravitas.
STEVE ROBERTS: But he has the gravitas and you can sum it up in one word, stature.
VIC FAZIO: It may go to the gravitas.
JEFF GREENFIELD: We’re to use the favorite phrase, gravitas.
LESTER HOLT: This is a vice president who brought gravitas.
WOLF BLITZER: This will give some gravitas, add some credibility.
ED ROLLINS: I think the gravitas that Cheney brought to the ticket.
JONATHAN ALTER: What he gets is gravitas, a sense of weight.
BOB KERREY: He does not need anybody to give him gravitas.
MARGARET CARLSON: It means that, you know, gravitas.
MIKE MCCURRY: I think he also needs some gravitas.
SAM DONALDSON: To give gravitas.
ELEANOR CLIFT: Well, he brings gravitas.
WALTER ISAACSON: He does seem to bring some gravitas.
AL HUNT: It’s called gravitas.
MARK SHIELDS: A little gravitas!
JUDY WOODRUFF: You certainly have gravitas tonight.
SAM DONALDSON: He displayed tonight a certain gravitas.
MARIO CUOMO: I think gravitas is the word. Unfortunately for the Governor, you can’t graft gravitas. … He has gravitas.
Dennis Prager discusses a recent example of bias in how the media reports issues, here is an example from the article, “… becoming the second candidate from the city’s political right to launch their candidacy Monday. Swain, outspoken and polarizing…” (TENNESSEAN)