Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent Of Anti-Trump Media Bias

[Danke]

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent Of Anti-Trump Media Bias

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 (https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=ab6d830a9d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085), significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/05/14/20170519_bias1.jpg (http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/05/14/20170519_bias1.jpg)

The academics based their study on seven US outlets and three European ones.

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

More: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-19/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-anti-trump-media-bias

[TheTexan]

They're just jealous.

[Zippyjuan]

Article also notes:


Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? That question cannot be answered definitively in the absence of an agreed-upon version of “reality” against which to compare Trump’s coverage. Any such assessment would also have to weigh the news media’s preference for the negative, a tendency in place long before Trump became president. Given that tendency, the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. 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.

Compared to 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.[29] Trump can’t top that string of bad news but he could take it to a new level.

Who gets quoted the most?


On national television, Trump was the topic of 41 percent of all news stories—three times the usual amount.[15] It was also the case that Trump did most of the talking (see Figure 1). 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.

https://i0.wp.com/shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/figure-1.png?resize=768%2C450&ssl=1

[merkelstan]

ARD! German socialist state media wins!

Oh watch the footage of Trump in Saudi Arabia

changed man.

But I saw it already during the inauguration. Someone got the message to him .

[tod evans]

MSM doesn't like +1

Kops do like -1

= Wash

[eleganz]

BREAKING : Harvard Campus now Russian spy cell.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Harvard attacking the traditional media. Like a mother eating its young.

[merkelstan]

Even Dershowitz cannot countenance it any more...

[Brian4Liberty]

Article also notes:


The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted

Must have heard this 100 times in the media the past few days. How are these talking points distributed? I need to get in the loop on these so I don't miss out.

[CPUd]

Must have heard this 100 times in the media the past few days. How are these talking points distributed? I need to get in the loop on these so I don't miss out.

They are self-evident. The stories literally write themselves every time he opens his mouth.

Example:
866676207445835778
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/866676207445835778

[Brian4Liberty]

They are self-evident. The stories literally write themselves every time he opens his mouth.

Example:
866676207445835778
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/866676207445835778

Self-evident, like all of the stories from the Washington Post?

[AZJoe]

How the MSM could defeat Trump: (https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/media-defeat-trump/)

"Trump isn’t going to lose his base over tweets, complimenting reporters’ smiles, or sensationalized spin on policy issues ... I.e. “Everyone is going to die!”

If the media wants to defeat Trump, they need to expose his failure to deliver on campaign promises. They could start by covering the “unnecessary wars” ... an obvious failure in Trump’s implementation of the “America First” agenda. But that would require MSM to actually be against our imperialist foreign policy instead of operating as the propaganda machines that perpetuate it.

Every time the left loses their mind over “nothing burgers” they push Trump’s base back into his corner. If they want to defeat Trump they need to make it less fun to root against his opposition."