Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent Of Anti-Trump Media Bias
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Holy shit, you don't need Harvard to tell you that. Look on here, it is a constant litany of bullshit and bollocks.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
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:
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%:
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
Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
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
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:
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%:
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
liberals can't see this or understand it because of their culture privilege.
Tell me what Trump has done that is good for the people.....if you can?
That truly is the only thing though, isn't it?
Trump has done a single praiseworthy thing.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
He knows that very well, but is deliberately queering the pitch that's what he does! Truly odious man.the "blog" was an easy format to c/p - that link is full of methodology ,and a difficult read
(I looked for coverage on WaPo and unsurprisingly could not find it..an hysterical irony for sure)
CYPRESS link to the study shows the same results -but being the full study is very difficult to speak to
Negative on All Counts
Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days was not merely negative in overall terms. It was unfavorable on every dimension. There was not a single major topic where Trump’s coverage was more positive than negative (see Figure 7)..etc
++
you can read the conclusion, but even that is biased. What's remarkable about it is this is HARVARD
and even a liberal bastion is forced to admit the coverage is unrelentingly negative
Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
cancel2 2022
Canceled
It is becoming hard to tell the difference between you and Desh, I shall have to call you the Tourette Twins!!
Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Canceling TPP
Putting us at the front of the queue for a trade deal
Telling the EU that they will be consequences if they try to screw us
Scaring illegals so much that traffic across the border has diminished to a trickle.
Scaring the crap out of Fat Kimmy
Showing Assad that he isn't going to let him use chemical weapons
Signing a huge trade deal with Saudi Arabia
Making McMaster the national Security Adviser
Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
Last edited:
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Isn't that enough lol?
I'm not going to list his accomplishments because you won't read them, being so full of hate the way you are lol.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Putting a originalist on the Supreme Court.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
See post 52
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
the dope WROTE the list.....
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I mean, it's been said a few times on this thread I'm sure - but what does this prove? Why should the media cover negative actions in a positive way?
Comparisons to previous admins are meaningless. This reminds me of someone watching an NBA game and saying the officiating was unfair if both teams don't have the exact same # of fouls.
Comparisons to previous admins are meaningless. This reminds me of someone watching an NBA game and saying the officiating was unfair if both teams don't have the exact same # of fouls.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
When you attack the media, the Intelligence Community, and courts and judges .. guess what happens?
You don't get it. Trump is an idiot, a buffoon, a carnival barker, who has neither the intelligence nor character to fit the job that people like you put him in.
That's not debatable .. it's a fact .. a GLARINGLY OBVIOUS FACT.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I know you're "sort of" kidding, but there was a great editorial by Charlie Sykes (a conservative) about this a few weeks back. Much of what Trump supporters latch onto is that he drives liberals crazy; they figure he must be doing something right if that's the case.
It's a weird standard, and a pretty low one. Though I know people who voted for Hillary who would have felt the same way, intelligent people should set a higher bar for POTUS.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Intelligent people sometimes like to troll less intelligent people, and my example did just that. lol
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Why are you unable to escape the narrative?