Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

[IAMX 3,055]

Quote

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see, Trump was right about the hostile and biased media, and it's funny that FOX News was the most balanced. 

 

Edited May 21, 2017 by IAMX

[IAMX 3,055]

And commentary of this: 

 

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/its-official-the-biased-media-are-incapable-of-treating-trump-fairly/

Quote

Media Bias: For years, the mainstream media have denied their quite obvious left-wing bias. But now, thanks to the major media's unhinged hatred of all things Donald Trump, the denial has been utterly shattered.

No, this revelation doesn't come from some conservative media watchdog, but from a Harvard University study published on Thursday. The study of media coverage of Trump's first 100 days shows what most people already know: The left-leaning mainstream media are overwhelmingly, and dramatically, anti-Trump in their coverage.

 

 

Quote

The media's hatred for Trump knows no recent historical parallel. Though comparable data don't exist, our guess is today's Trump hatred outstrips the deep media loathing of Richard Nixon during his first-term "honeymoon" in 1969. Even the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, often credited with helping to take down Nixon, advised today's reporters to "stick to the reporting" and accused them of "binge-drinking the anti-Trump Kool-Aid."

This is why much of the reporting — even from the leading lights of print journalism — has been so shabby and unfair. Both the Post and the Times, for instance, have used unnamed sources and even the supposed content of documents that they've never viewed as the basis for major revelations about Trump in recent days. They've let their raw hatred get the better of them.

Such a media environment is dangerous for American democracy. We don't expect the big media to show Trump love, but is simple fairness too much to ask?

Apparently so. Instead of fairness, they've colluded with progressive Democrats on the "impeach Trump" movement. Expecting basic professionalism from the media, sadly, seems to be too much.

 

Edited May 21, 2017 by IAMX

[Dashinka 25,911]

Didn't really need a Harvard study to tell us this,but if it helps reform the media,the I am all for it.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The hatred appears quite mutual, such as it exists. And perhaps The Donald might try working a little bit harder to generate good news? To me you would get similar results from studying say media reports on serial killers, then concluding the media is based against serial killers. Negative subjects generate negative news coverage. Who knew?

[IAMX 3,055]

25 minutes ago, ready4ONE said:

The hatred appears quite mutual, such as it exists. And perhaps The Donald might try working a little bit harder to generate good news? To me you would get similar results from studying say media reports on serial killers, then concluding the media is based against serial killers. Negative subjects generate negative news coverage. Who knew?

Ohhh I get it, so serial killer get negative press, Trump get negative press.. coinkidinkle?

 

Yep, Trump is quite relevant to a serial killer. 

 

Edited May 21, 2017 by IAMX

[Boiler 47,533]

Funny but have been reading similar reviews in the UK, but this time about Corbynn being a victim.

 

Quite funny.

 

The Graun is currently twisting itslef as it has spent the last few years denigrating Corbynn but wants to change tack without being shown for hypocrisy.

[Jacque67 7,328]

But isn't CNN, at the top of the list with 93% of its stories deemed negative, clearly biased? InfoWars sure thought so, calling the study proof of "overwhelming anti-Trump media bias," while the American Thinker said the study's results proved "a shocking level of media bias against President Trump...the extreme percentage of negative coverage of the president is absolutely breathtaking."

But breathtakingly negative media coverage doesn't equate to "a shocking level of media bias." Remember, the study looked at tone. Here's how the researchers defined it:

Tone is judged from the perspective of the actor. Negative stories include stories where the actor is criticized directly. An example is a headline story where Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump when the Labor Department’s April economic report showed that fewer jobs were created than had been predicted. Schumer was quoted as saying, in part: “Eleven weeks into his administration, we have seen nothing from President Trump on infrastructure, on trade, or on any other serious job-creating initiative.” Negative stories also consist of stories where an event, trend, or development reflects unfavorably on the actor. Examples are the stories that appeared under the headlines “President Trump’s approval rating hits a new low”and “GOP withdraws embattled health care bill, handing major setback to Trump, Ryan.”

Is it bias to report that the president's approval ratings are historically low, or that Trump's efforts to enact his policies have been delayed and overwhelmed by constant questions about Russia, the firing of FBI Director James Comey and other self-inflicted wounds?

When your company delivers a product that doesn't work, and customers get angry about it, it's not biased for reporters to tell the story--which would clearly be "negative" in tone.

The stories reviewed for the Harvard report weren't exactly slam pieces, as the people interviewed or speaking were almost exclusively Republicans:

Trump did most of the talking. He was the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of his coverage. Members of the administration, including his press secretary, accounted for 11 percent of the sound bites. Other Republicans, including Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, accounted for 4 percent. Altogether, Republicans, inside and outside the administration, accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency.

The simple fact remains that Trump loves media coverage--and the media loves covering Trump. And he's getting exactly what he has worked for: he's the top story day in and day out. As the report details, "reporters are tuned to what’s new and different, better yet if it’s laced with controversy. Trump delivers that type of material by the shovelful."

That Trump--doing most of the talking himself, or through his surrogates--manages to produce such negative coverage may speak more about the man than it does the media.

"The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising," the Harvard report says. "The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever."

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2017/05/19/trumps-getting-killed-in-the-media-but-not-because-of-bias/

#tone

Edited May 21, 2017 by Jacque67

[Dashinka 25,911]

44 minutes ago, Jacque67 said:

But isn't CNN, at the top of the list with 93% of its stories deemed negative, clearly biased? InfoWars sure thought so, calling the study proof of "overwhelming anti-Trump media bias," while the American Thinker said the study's results proved "a shocking level of media bias against President Trump...the extreme percentage of negative coverage of the president is absolutely breathtaking."

But breathtakingly negative media coverage doesn't equate to "a shocking level of media bias." Remember, the study looked at tone. Here's how the researchers defined it:

Tone is judged from the perspective of the actor. Negative stories include stories where the actor is criticized directly. An example is a headline story where Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump when the Labor Department’s April economic report showed that fewer jobs were created than had been predicted. Schumer was quoted as saying, in part: “Eleven weeks into his administration, we have seen nothing from President Trump on infrastructure, on trade, or on any other serious job-creating initiative.” Negative stories also consist of stories where an event, trend, or development reflects unfavorably on the actor. Examples are the stories that appeared under the headlines “President Trump’s approval rating hits a new low”and “GOP withdraws embattled health care bill, handing major setback to Trump, Ryan.”

Is it bias to report that the president's approval ratings are historically low, or that Trump's efforts to enact his policies have been delayed and overwhelmed by constant questions about Russia, the firing of FBI Director James Comey and other self-inflicted wounds?

When your company delivers a product that doesn't work, and customers get angry about it, it's not biased for reporters to tell the story--which would clearly be "negative" in tone.

The stories reviewed for the Harvard report weren't exactly slam pieces, as the people interviewed or speaking were almost exclusively Republicans:

Trump did most of the talking. He was the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of his coverage. Members of the administration, including his press secretary, accounted for 11 percent of the sound bites. Other Republicans, including Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, accounted for 4 percent. Altogether, Republicans, inside and outside the administration, accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency.

The simple fact remains that Trump loves media coverage--and the media loves covering Trump. And he's getting exactly what he has worked for: he's the top story day in and day out. As the report details, "reporters are tuned to what’s new and different, better yet if it’s laced with controversy. Trump delivers that type of material by the shovelful."

That Trump--doing most of the talking himself, or through his surrogates--manages to produce such negative coverage may speak more about the man than it does the media.

"The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising," the Harvard report says. "The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever."

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2017/05/19/trumps-getting-killed-in-the-media-but-not-because-of-bias/

#tone

Is it bias to create stupid stories like Trump and his two scoops of ice cream?  How would you know the product doesn't work based on the reporting.  Historically, most presidents (even Nixon) received a honeymoon period in a first term to effect the transition to a new administration.  No Administration transitioned without hiccups, but the press is looking for anything to hammer Trump with, regardless as to how trivial it might be.  Sure Trump brought a lot of this on himself with his attacks on the media which quite honestly is one of the reasons he was elected as those of us in the middle are fed up with the media bias no matter how much anyone tries to justify it.

 

if the Left and their allies in the media get their way, Trump will be impeached in the near future which is quite sad in a way.  Administrations, all administrations, deserve a chance to get off the ground, but this one has been under attack since November.  The entire Russian narrative and its ever changing nuances are the main item, but then we get all the stupid stuff too.

 

Some may call it good reporting, but others will see it as obvious bias, and quite honestly appearances are everything.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

1 hour ago, IAMX said:

Ohhh I get it, so serial killer get negative press, Trump get negative press.. coinkidinkle?

 

Yep, Trump is quite relevant to a serial killer. 

 

From the campaign trail Trump boasted he could shoot someone and not lose any support. Trumps' abysmal performance, combined with his school yard bully and petty toddler personality, his frankly stated declaration the press is the enemy of the American people, his Cabinets carefully crafted dodges for sketchy behavior overridden in hours or minutes by direct statements from Trump. All of this combines to generate negative press, bad people get bad press, it is hardly indicative of bias. 

 

The example of serial killers was just an example. 

 

The worst President ever gets overwhelming bad press. Water is wet. Trump supporters are still crying Dear Leader isn't beloved.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

5 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Is it bias to create stupid stories like Trump and his two scoops of ice cream?  How would you know the product doesn't work based on the reporting.  Historically, most presidents (even Nixon) received a honeymoon period in a first term to effect the transition to a new administration.  No Administration transitioned without hiccups, but the press is looking for anything to hammer Trump with, regardless as to how trivial it might be.  Sure Trump brought a lot of this on himself with his attacks on the media which quite honestly is one of the reasons he was elected as those of us in the middle are fed up with the media bias no matter how much anyone tries to justify it.

 

if the Left and their allies in the media get their way, Trump will be impeached in the near future which is quite sad in a way.  Administrations, all administrations, deserve a chance to get off the ground, but this one has been under attack since November.  The entire Russian narrative and its ever changing nuances are the main item, but then we get all the stupid stuff too.

 

Some may call it good reporting, but others will see it as obvious bias, and quite honestly appearances are everything.

Don't kid yourself. Trump brought it all on himself. 

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, ready4ONE said:

From the campaign trail Trump boasted he could shoot someone and not lose any support. Trumps' abysmal performance, combined with his school yard bully and petty toddler personality, his frankly stated declaration the press is the enemy of the American people, his Cabinets carefully crafted dodges for sketchy behavior overridden in hours or minutes by direct statements from Trump. All of this combines to generate negative press, bad people get bad press, it is hardly indicative of bias. 

 

The example of serial killers was just an example. 

 

The worst President ever gets overwhelming bad press. Water is wet. Trump supporters are still crying Dear Leader isn't beloved.

You're the ones bashing Trump for labeling the press as enemies of the American people.

 

American people voted for Trump.

 

Clearly they don't see the same thing the press does.

 

As for "worst President ever", it's like children saying they "hate" everything. All fit throwing and no substance.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Didn't really need a Harvard study to tell us this,but if it helps reform the media,the I am all for it.

You pretty much posted what I was going to reply 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I am sure the squirrels are hunting the glass pipe and s lighter 

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Trump has pretty much brought it all on himself. He's petulant, childish, and egotistical. There has been only one occasion in his time of office where he's looked presidential and that was the State of the Union address. He deserves the negative press attention because he's the fuel for it.

 

The bar is set so low for him. Bush got extremely criticized for checking his watch during his presidential debate with Clinton. I think Trump is getting off lightly.

Edited May 21, 2017 by JimandChristy

[jg121783 3,921]

Don't give me this nonsense that Trump brought it on himself. We all know the corporate media has been out to get him since day one. Its no surprise that their ratings are plummeting across the board. A local talk radio show in a big city has many more listeners than CNN has viewers on their biggest prime time shows. Most intelligent people don't watch the corporate media anymore.  They are imploding because most people realize they are nothing more than a bunch of liars and pharmaceutical drug pushers (where a majority of their revenue comes from). In the age of the internet their monopoly on information is falling apart. That is why they desperately attack anyone who isn't part of their club.