Is Trump Correct in Calling the Media Biased? Harvard Study Says . . . .
. . . you betcha.
And yes, the study was by that Harvard: the university in Cambridge, MA. The East Coast liberal academic Mecca.
A group at Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy recently looked at media reporting concerning President Trump during his first 100 days in office. They categorized stories in the mainstream media concerning President Trump in two ways: first by primary subject (e.g., economy, immigration, health care), and second by the article’s overall tone. The stories’ were “binned” into multiple subject categories; the stories’ tone was assessed as either positive or negative towards the POTUS.
The group conducting the study then did the same for Trump’s last three predecessors. Stories from 10 mainstream media organizations were used – 3 foreign, and 7 US.
What the study found was IMO quite telling. This Heatstreet article has more details – but here’s the study’s “bottom line” at a glance:
Based on how they’ve reported on the first 100 days of the Trump Administration, the US mainstream media appears to be biased as hell against the POTUS. The US media has consistently used far more negative “spin” regarding his Administration than was the case with any of his 3 immediate predecessors during their first 100 days in office.
It’s been normal over the past 25 years for a new POTUS to get somewhat more negative coverage than positive during his first 100 days. (The SCoaMF that occupied 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC, before Trump was an exception to this rule.) However, the degree of unfavorable “spin” being according President Trump is exceptional – and possibly unprecedented.
Even more revealing are the actual “splits” for the seven US mainstream media outlets studied:
- CNN and NBC – 93% negative coverage, 7% positive
- CBS – 91% negative coverage, 9% positive
- New York Times – 87% negative, 13% positive
- Washington Post – 83% negative, 17% positive
- Wall Street Journal – 70% negative, 30% positive
- Fox – 52% negative, 48% positive
In fact, four of the US mainstream media organizations studied – CNN, NBC, CBS, and the NYT – were each more negatively biased against President Trump than 2 of the 3 foreign mainstream media organizations included in the study. Since Trump has a clear “America first” public persona, one would expect US media organizations to be more favorable towards him than the European ones. That’s not the case at all.
Two things stand out when looking at those “splits”. First, based on the study’s results Fox may well be quite accurate in its “Fair and Balanced” claim. They’re the only mainstream media outlet, US or foreign, of the 10 studied to treat President Trump anywhere near evenhandedly during his first 100 days in office.
And second: if there’s any “vast conspiracy” in the mainstream media, that conspiracy sure as hell isn’t some kind of “vast right-wing conspiracy”. If anything, the media is skewing even more to the “hard left” today than usual.
No, the mainstream media doesn’t control the facts behind events they report. (Well, unless they engage in outright MSU –AKA “Making Sh!t Up”, or creating false or misleading news – though the mainstream media indeed seems to do exactly that as well on occasion.) However, they do control what facts they choose to report and omit, along with how those facts are presented – AKA “spun”. And based the media “spin” found by the Harvard study group, the degree of negative bias shown by most of the mainstream media against the Trump Administration during its first 100 days is shocking.
Indeed, it almost appears as if the news media is actively trying to overturn the recent US Presidential election. I guess they must only believe in our Constitution and our form of representative democracy when their preferred candidate wins.
Then again, the US mainstream media has been overwhelmingly politically liberal since at least the Eisenhower administration (and almost certainly well before then). Given that fact, the media regarding themselves as our “betters” – as well as them believing that “the media knows what is best for the country; the public should just ‘shut up and color’ and take our word for it” – should be no great surprise.
The Heatstreet article linked above is IMO worth a read. An online copy of at least a short form of the actual study appears to be available here.
Trump certainly has his flaws. But based on this Harvard study’s results, falsely accusing the media of being “out to get him” doesn’t seem to be one of them. That accusation certainly appears to have a basis in fact.
It took a Harvard study to figure this out?
No – it’s obvious to anyone with working eyes and brain who isn’t wearing ideological blinders.
But the Harvard study documents it in a form that’s harder for libidiots to disavow.
They’ll still have excuses, they are leftist libtards after all, and facts are NEVER an impediment to their ideology…
Exactly. Thanks for this. I downloaded the PDF and will be using it on targets of opportunity (mainly certain family members).
We need allegedly smart people to tell us this?
Cue SJW protests and takeover of the administrative offices at Harvard in 3, 2, 1…
This is not a surprise, but I am glad that it’s a documented study that the public can access. Yes, people in the media whose agenda is to unseat a duly elected president have a hair up their backsides. They will do anything to unseat him.
Have you wondered at all just how long they’d be wallowing in their little hog troughlets if the other side had won and things went sour in an irreversibly harmful way?
Is that a hair or a hare?
The only thing that surprises me about these data is how negative they were on Clinton during his first 100 days.
And now that FNC is 3rd during prime time and Madcow heading up the ratings race, don’t expect the negative tone to change anytime soon.
I like the Obama numbers…the press was so busy sucking the farts out of his underwear each and every fucking day of his presidency I wouldn’t be surprised to see those numbers fluctuate only slightly for the entire 8 years…
Of course Trump doesn’t have to help the media so much either, it might be nice if he could avoid stepping on his pecker every time he thinks it important to tweet something inane…
Imagine how bad it would be with a real non biased study.
Well, this will certainly be ignored by the MSM, I betcha.
Cue up the Berzerkley Bumbler to dispute this.
Yeah, I can’t wait to see the application of Poodle Logic to this one.
Is “Poodle Logic” a synonym for “Poodle Crap”? (In deference to the ladies present, I purposely did not use the ‘S-word’.
I’m sure it will be along the lines of “he deserves it” or “because everything he does is negative”.
Looks like ya called it, Twist. See LC’s magnum opus apologia for the media’s bias below.
I’ll offer my take on it: Is media coverage of ISIS ‘biased’ because it doesn’t give a pro/con take on ISIS? Of course not. They’re a bunch of murderous assholes, so the coverage is deservedly negative. If some kid makes a lemonade stand and raises $10K for charity, should there be ‘negative’ coverage of that to ensure that things are ‘fair and balanced‘? Hell no. Balance isn’t what the media should aim for – accuracy is. Now, I recognize that accuracy is a can of worms since everyone has a subjective view of politics, but before anyone can claim President Trump’s numbers are liberal bias, they need to explain President Clinton’s numbers in the same chart. And let’s not lose sight of the fact that President Trump’s first 100 days have been full of some pretty crazy headlines. I mean, having to fire your pick for National Security Advisor because of possible ties to foreign governments is a pretty big story, is it not? Also, whether we like it or not (and I most certainly do not), the media is after ratings these days – I long for the day when we just get back to reporting stories and not having a panel of imbeciles, each with their given allegiances, to blabber on incessantly about how, when their guy kicked a puppy, he did it because that puppy was a terrorist or something. We are lacking objectivity and simple, factual reporting, no question. But again, the media is after ratings now, and ratings are going to chase what people want to hear. And President Trump came in with incredibly low approval ratings, so of course the media would go after him in the first 100 days. Coincidentally, President Clinton also had low ratings at the beginning, which explains the question above about his coverage. President Obama, on the other hand, had the second highest approval ratings in the past 30 years — second to Reagan, that is. So it stands to reason that following a really unpopular President, one coming in with very high approval -and, notably, no major scandals-… Read more »
Ah, how short the liberal selective memory.
BJ Clintoon’s negative coverage during his first 100 days was skewed by a few items of his own making: Jennifer Flowers, Rose Law, Travelgate, DADT, and “I didn’t inhale” for starters. Plus 5 additional major scandals during the 1st year.
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/09/30/happy-20th-clintons-top-10-first-year-scandals
With that kind of start out of the gate, it’s surprising Clintoon’s press coverage wasn’t worse. It’s not surprising that his numbers are worse than Bush(43)’s first 100 days – and the media absolutely detested Bush(43) because he beat “their boy” Gore. Had the media not been on Clintoon’s side, he’d have received Nixonian or Vietnam-era LBJ-style coverage.
Other than Flynn, Trump’s first 100 days have nothing comparable in terms of scandal to the beginning of Clintoon’s administration – and Trump cut that one short by firing Flynn immediately after finding out he’d been lied to by the man. And yet, Trump’s getting far worse press “spin” than Clintoon.
The US media has been documented to be 80+% registered Democrats since the roughly the Eisenhower Administration – and outside of Fox, it’s probably 90+% today. It’s completely unsurprising that they’re biased to the left. The surprise today is that the media is so blatant. In the past, they at least tried to preserve the appearance of being unbiased. They don’t even try to do that today.
When even a liberal bastion like Harvard calls them out on their bias, you know it’s truly obvious.
Hondo, they didn’t get the One They Wanted. That’s the whole problem.
You’re making a hasty generalization. The facts say nothing to bias. All the data shows is the percentage of negatively to positively toned news stories.
You conclusion of obvious bias would need to be based on the assumption that all news must have a 50/50 split of positive and negative. That’s just not reality. LC’s example of ISIS or a children’s charities are good examples of why your assumption is incorrect.
If CNN reports a story about a tornado destroying homes in Kansas, are they then bias against natural disasters?
Ah, another leftist chimes in – and is out to lunch. No, I’m not making any hasty generalization.
You could conceivably have a point if the Harvard study’s analysis of coverage was (a) based on content vice tone, and (b) Trump’s coverage was the only coverage analyzed. However, neither of those is true.
The analysis was based on tone – which the media controls lock stock and barrel. (Even a negative story can be presented in a positive manner – e.g., the firing of Flynn could easily have been portrayed as a decisive act vice a slam at the POTUS). So constant negative tone is indeed a possible indicator of bias.
Further, Trump is receiving far worse coverage than Clintoon – who had multiple scandals hit during his first 100 days. Trump’s had precisely one: the aforementioned Flynn case, which he handled properly (fired the man when he found out he’d been lied to).
So yes, the combination does indicate bias. Add the fact that the US news media is highly politicized (80+% registered Democratic and leaning liberal as hell for the last 60 years or so), and the picture is crystal clear for anyone (1) having half a brain, and (2) not wearing ideological blinders.
Plenty more newsworthy things happened within President Trump’s first 100 days (an it could also be argued he didn’t handle that situation very well either).
Your affirming the consequent with your argument. While you may perceive bias because what is being reported doesn’t align with your world view doesn’t mean that it is actually happening. And, while it doesn’t mean that it is NOT happening, at the very least, this study doesn’t show either way.
In terms of scandals? Pray, other than the Flynn firing name ONE incident in the first 100 days of the Trump Administration that’s anywhere near as bad as the White House Travel Office issue. Or Jennifer Flowers. Or the “I didn’t inhale” fiasco. Or Rose Law. Those were actual scandals, with real dirt, not stories deliberately slanted by the press. If anything, the press went easy on Clintoon.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to come up with an equivalent from earlier this year.
Again: the press has control over how a story is “spun”. And even Clintoon – who God knows gave the press plenty of ammo regarding spinning stories about his administration negatively – didn’t get anywhere near the bad press as has Trump.
Trump is dead on target in saying that the press is deliberately trying to undermine his Administration. Just because you don’t wish to believe the evidence in front of you regarding that point has no bearing on the fact that the numbers are real – and show bias against Trump on the part of the press.
Now you’ve switched to a red herring argument.
The information presented in this study does not support your conclusions. There just isn’t any evidence.
Just because news is negative does not mean it isn’t accurate. This study didn’t research the accuracy of the articles, just their tone.
They also point out that while almost all politicians complain about their media coverage and how they feel they are portrayed. The paper also makes note about how atypical it is that President Trump is the main source of most of the direct quotes in regards to the negativity. Even when given the chance to “explain his side” things seem to go off the rails.
You’re obsession with the bad press that President Clinton received has led your views on this subject to the verge of dogmatism. Step back and actually look at the evidence that the article reports, not through the rose hued glasses of Heatstreet where you undoubtedly first stumbled across this information.
Red herring? Hardly.
You indicated the following: “Plenty more newsworthy things happened within President Trump’s first 100 days . . . .” I asked you to give an example, and provided suitable examples for comparison from Clintoon’s first term.
You then declined to do so – and began an ad hominim attack (speciffically, the attack the messenger’s methodology via false accusation variant).
Further, your logic here is faulty. Nowhere do I assert that “fair” coverage must be completely balanced in terms of tone – you’re the one assuming that. However, neither should you expect to see a gross unexplained variance from historical norms. And when you see such a gross variance from historical norms in an otherwise similar group – and that gross outlier is in terms of something (presentation tone) that the press itself controls completely – then you have a strong indication of possible bias. Couple that with the media’s well-known liberal political preference and known hatred of President Trump, and an obvious explanation suggests itself. To wit: “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it just might actually be a duck.”
There was never an ad hominem. I started with pointing out you were making a hasty generalization. There is no way to ascertain bias (either for or against) from the data that was presented in the report. The report never looked into anything like that. All that was researched was the tone of an article. The Heatstreet article was jumping to conclusions.
Every time after that you just changed your argument for one reason or another. Nobody is saying there isn’t bias, but this Harvard and its findings cannot be used to prove that there is. The data just doesn’t support it. Asking me to show examples of other things is a classic Red Herring. It has nothing to do with what was being discussed.
“…are they then bias against natural disasters?”
What kind of person would be FOR natural disasters? And these days there are people and media who claim tornados are a result of global warming, so obviously anyone who doesn’t fight global warming likes natural disasters.
There’s no such thing as tornadoes. Chuck Norris just hates trailer parks.
I’m going to be tied up most of today so I won’t get a chance to reply to this in full until later, but it’s worth pointing out that your conclusions don’t necessarily match those of the study, which is linked below in full. For example, the study also points out:
Ah, but what about President Obama? Here’s another tidbit about the ‘liberal media’:
So if the media is 80+% Democrats and so liberally biased, … how come they gave Obama more negative than positive coverage in that second 100 days? How many people believe that Obama received more negative than positive coverage from the media in that time? I’d guess very few.
The media chases ratings, which they get via scandal / negativity. Full link to the Shorenstein study:
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/
Yeah, that second link is a good one. But it looks familiar. Now, where have I seen it before?
Oh, yeah: it’s the second link in the article. That’s where I remember seeing it. (smile)
The “focus on the negative” you mention doesn’t explain the extreme disparity between Trump and his three immediate predecessors. But when he’s getting a third again as much negative coverage as the most scandal-ridden of his three predecessors did – without having any actual scandals – that in and of itself should make you go, “Wait a minute – something’s wrong.”
It’s true there is no “‘secret cabal of liberal Illuminati that control the media.’” This is because the cabal of liberal Illuminati makes no secret of itself at all. Clay Shirky, one of the more perceptive observers of news media– and not a conservative– once called them the “Chardonnay-sipping East Coast media elite.” The majority of them live in New York City, know each other, and go to the same Upper West Side parties.
An irony is that the same group of Chardonnay sippers, which tends to think of itself as cosmopolitan, in reality is probably more parochial than the most backward up-hollow redneck. The group also, similar to feral dogs, likes to hunt in a pack. Donald Trump now being the current prey du jour.
One interesting aspect of the Harvard study is that a large part of the anti-Trump coverage involves immigration. It can be argued that the reason for this is the national news media wants to become primarily international. There are now an estimated 1.5 Billion English-language speakers in the world. Most of them, it might also be argued, would prefer that the U.S. have open borders. If you’re a news media dependent on advertising at scale, there’s a natural tendency to cultivate the larger audience.
Without putting too fine a point on it, the nasty little actual secret is that the American news media now, for the most part, no longer has the best interests of the majority of the American people in mind.
See also ‘Journolist”.
“..they need to explain President Clinton’s numbers…”
Glad to help.
The white House travel office, where they fired everyone and tried to get the head of the office convicted of embezzlement. They were replaced by Clinton cronies. Even the press expressed dismay at that one since they had extensive dealings with the office.
The volunteers who handle White House mail. Mass firing, replaced by good Clintonites.
The performance of the White House Press Office. They would put out a statement in the morning, clarify and amend it in the afternoon, and declare the statement ‘no longer operative’ in the evening. Georgie Stefanopoulos, who held press conferences with a super-cool, ultra macho two-day beard, was eventually kicked upstairs.
That’s just off the top of my head. All in all, I rather enjoyed the first year of Slick Willy’s reign. I got a lot of laughs out of it.
Oh, and let’s not forget the Clintons’ personnel choices. The head of White House Security, for one, whose only security experience was as a nightclub bouncer in, of course, Arkansas.
The misuse of FBI security-clearance files.
Etc……
So you do not think media coverage is caused by approval ratings? Do you realize what you are saying?
How do you think people get the information on which to approve or disapprove?
You look at the “fair and balanced” part much differently than I have always understood it to be.
There is a reason that the media has a lower approval rating than Congress.
Bingo.
I think its a rather sad testament that media rates even lower than the criminal justice system, Unions, and public Schools in terms of confidence.
Dare I even say that Fox was the most “fair and balanced” in the neg/pos stat? The left is going to choke on their own spittle!!
Re-read the article, DefendUSA. I believe I mentioned that above. (smile)
So you did! I only looked at the graph…I did pass the link on over and over…As we see, last night, Fox called out the rest of the MFMC for NOT reporting on Trump’s speech after the terror attack in Manchester.
The fact that Harvard did this study and published their results at least suggests that there is some hope that even the far left has a few members that aren’t goose-stepping assholes. Who would’ve expected any segment of academia to admit this?
Ran this past a rather liberal friend and his response was essentially “they are reporting negatives because the administration has done nothing right.” I think that ranks up there with self fulfilling prophecies. Make everything sound negative and everything is a fault, nicht wahr?
[…] No Dogs Or White People Allowed, also, Europe’s Magical Migrant Fairy This Ain’t Hell: Is Trump Correct In Calling The Media Biased? Survey Says…, also, Average NCO, Stealing Valor, And The GI Film Festival War Is Boring: Despair And Broken […]
So which came first – the chicken or the egg? Does Trump’s low polling result from negative press? Did Obama’s high polling result from a lack of negative press?
IMHO the only time the mainstream mess media had its collective nose anywhere other than up the previous POTUS’s ass was when they were at his feet sniveling and drooling.