Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent Of Anti-Trump Media Bias

anatta

100% recycled karma
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

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.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive. - "Fair and Balanced" indeed.

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:

20170519_bias2.jpg


The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 days got a good write-up overall – with 59% of reports positive.

Bill Clinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:

20170519_bias3.jpg


Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility.
This study suggests that, at least when it comes to recent history, he’s right.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-19/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-anti-trump-media-bias
 
The Harvard report merely confirms what any objective observer could plainly see: the media has effectively declared war on a president.

Trump isn't far off in declaring them enemies of the people.
 
So the way to cover Trump fairly, even though 99% of his actions are negative and shit-ridden, is to cover the 1% he does good at least 50% of the time?
 
it shows what is obvious about the coverage. Media coverage is slanted or heavily biased to show and amp up anything negative about an issue where Trump is concerned.

So if you are talking about "the wall" for ex - you'll hear about costs, eminent domain, and splitting up families.
You will not hear about keeping recidivist border crossers with felony records out -like Kate Steinle's killer for ex.

The media is so heavily invested in spinning the negative, the distorted reportage is essentially fake news
 
and we didn't need a Harvard study to know this.

Using the same strategy to bring down Trump that you used to try and defeat him at the ballot box seems a bit foolish to me, but it's all liberals have right now. So they continue.
 
There is no spinning, except by the Trump supporters and associated media. All of Trump's wounds are self-inflicted.
you are not understanding. look at the issues in the OP. when they are reported on, they are spun with high negative coverage.
In many cases because of an utter lack of balance they are hit pieces. Or the negative factors are so emphasized,
the positive features are muted towards the background

This isn't up for debate, the Harvard study shows this
 
and we didn't need a Harvard study to know this.

Using the same strategy to bring down Trump that you used to try and defeat him at the ballot box seems a bit foolish to me, but it's all liberals have right now. So they continue.

its different now. Before they banked on sjw culture. If you called Trump enough cists people would not vote for him. Today they are banking on the credibility of the media. i.e. you dont actually need evidence all you need to do is trust our word because we are credible therefore do not support Trump.

The left has many centers of power. SJW culture was broken in 2016. In 2017 we are up against the media. Different stage with a different final boss : )
 
Back
Top