World, Writing, Wealth discussion

8 views
World & Current Events > Harvard Study explores media bias

Comments Showing 1-5 of 5 (5 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2250 comments htthttps://shorensteincenter.org/news-co...

"A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office.

The report is 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 Times and BBC, and Germany’s ARD).

Findings include:

President Trump dominated media coverage in the outlets and programs analyzed, with Trump being the topic of 41 percent of all news stories—three times the amount of coverage received by previous presidents. He was also the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds of his coverage.
Republican voices accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency, compared to only 6 percent for Democrats and 3 percent for those involved in anti-Trump protests.
European reporters were more likely than American journalists to directly question Trump’s fitness for office.
Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president.
Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic."

Now while Trump has to take some responsibility for the tone of his rhetoric, the article breaks down the coverage and points out topics with no connection to the scandals where the press was extremely negative. And funny enough, the only news outlet in the study close to balanced was Fox News where the negativity outpaced the positive 52% to 48%. To put the Fox numbers into perspective, they were negative toward Trump on the topic of health care 78% of the time, on Immigration 81%, and Personnel 72%. In contrast every other outlet was negative on terrorism and trade 75% and 88% respectively.

This falls inline by a previous report from the Media Research Company that also blasted the major news outlets.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/r...

"The networks spent 223 minutes on the battle over the President’s executive orders aimed at temporarily banning immigration from seven (later reduced to six) countries that are either failed states or otherwise safe havens for Islamic terrorism."

"The next-most-covered item (222 minutes) was the continuing probe of Russia’s presumed role in last year’s hacks of Democratic e-mails, and whether individuals connected to the Trump campaign may have participated in the scheme. "

"The GOP effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare received 152 minutes of evening news coverage, with a ridiculously lopsided 94% hostile spin (193 negative vs. 12 positive statements)."

"And the President’s March 4 claim that Trump Tower was “wiretapped” by President Obama drew 97 minutes of coverage"

"Other topics, ostensibly far more important to voters, were pushed far down the network news agenda. The entire process, from nomination to confirmation, of new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch received just 69 minutes of network evening news coverage. The ongoing war against ISIS, including the tragic raid in Yemen that killed a Navy SEAL, was given just 57 minutes of coverage."

The problem isn't that issues with the administration shouldn't be covered. The press claims their 1st Amendment right (rightfully so) and in the backlash they stand behind the age-old argument that a free press is important to a free and open democracy. If they have even the appearance of bias, their importance falls apart. The problem is that the organizations focus too heavily on trying to bring down Trump, that they diminish all other news. I'm seeing a new criticism going around regarding coverage of the Manchester attacks.

Caught wind of this on PBS last night, but this is Fox News' take.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/23...

"Concha said Fox News Channel began breaking coverage of the Manchester, England bombing at 6:48 p.m. ET.

Meanwhile, CNN, MSNBC and others stuck with coverage of Trump-Russia collusion allegations for nearly another hour."


message 2: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14922 comments Deservedly or not, they are out ta get him, it seems. Many things are clearly blown out of proportion, while some serious stuff, initiatives and deeds seem under reported in favor or scandals and allegations...
It's not all fake news, of course, but hardly an unbiased coverage either... Wonder how he manages to withstand all the pressure and function, if he does.
Not sure whether even Bill Clinton's coverage was as strikingly negative before and during the impeachment ..


message 3: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5791 comments There's no unbiased news reporting here. I'm disappointed and amazed that major network news reporters present a story and then comment on it with their opinions. I don't give a crap about their opinions; just tell me what happened and let me draw my own conclusions.


message 4: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2250 comments Scout wrote: "There's no unbiased news reporting here. I'm disappointed and amazed that major network news reporters present a story and then comment on it with their opinions. I don't give a crap about their op..."

That's how I feel about it, but unfortunately we're in the minority. Maybe that's why I favor the PBS Newshour and why they weren't selected in the studies. The Newshour devotes time and supports when there's something to support, they haven't been afraid to call out the media for its slanted reporting, and that gives me a level of trust when it comes to their negative reporting - I feel from them they're reporting a negative story because there is a story, and not because they're trying to influence public opinion or push their own agenda.


message 5: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5791 comments Thanks for that. I watch PBS for many things, but not the news. I'll definitely give it a try.


back to top