Is anyone surprised to learn that there is now documentation that the “media” has taken a remarkably negative attitude toward President Trump. Who documented it, ask you? Was it some right-wing blogger walking in lockstep with Mr. Trump? Surprisingly, answer I, it was none other than Harvard University. One can hardly accuse Harvard University of being a “right-wing” institution.
[Sources: News coverage of Donald trump’s first 100 days, by Thomas E. Patterson]
This paper examines Trump’s first 100 days in office, not through the lens of what he said about the news media, but what they reported about him (footnote).
While most presidents feel they are unfairly treated by news media, Mr. Trump is correct when he says he has been targeted more than any president in recent history. According to the Harvard study Trump’s first 100 days were a landmark. The graph below is actually hard to believe! The news was “all Trump, all the time.” If one adds in Trump’s administration officials nearly 3/4th of the news was about Trump.
Well, say you, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Wow! Is that ever wrong in the case of our new President. Mr. Trump has stated that no recent president has had the negative coverage he has had. It turns out he is correct by a wide margin. Obama – the WORST president in the history of the Republic – got only half as much negative coverage from the fawning press.
And it never let up even for a minute! In the best week the President had the imbalance was 70/30! In his very first week in office – how much could he have done “wrong” – the negative/positive imbalance was 72% to 28%!
I have written several times that I can no longer even look at the Washington Post or the New York Times. But the Washington Post, while writing negative stories or opinions 83% of the time, was a 5th place finisher! CNN and NBC reported negatively about the President 93% of the time!
Further, it appears that no matter what our President did it was WRONG! Is that even possible? Despite the fact that Obamacare is going down in flames, even the coverage of health care reform was 87% NEGATIVE!
Of course, when it comes to opining on Mr. Trump’s fitness for office, Pravda on the Potomac (i.e., the Washington Post) rarely said a kind word (96% negative opinions).
The left-wing media is scaring me as an American citizen.
[From the Patterson article] The research is based on news coverage in the print editions of three U.S. daily papers (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post), the main newscasts of four U.S. television networks (CBS Evening News, CNN’s The Situation Room, Fox’s Special Report, and NBC Nightly News), and three European news outlets (Financial Times, based in London; BBC, Britain’s public service broadcaster; and ARD, Germany’s oldest public service broadcaster). The president’s role as a global leader, and Trump’s pledge to redefine that role, prompted the inclusion of European news in the study.
The newspaper analysis covers all sections except sports, obituaries, and letters to the editor. Op-eds and editorials are included, but letters from the public are not. For television, the analysis covers the full daily content of each network’s major newscast. Network talk shows are not included. Except where individual news outlets are identified, the U.S. percentages presented in this paper are the combined averages for the seven U.S. news outlets whereas the European percentages are the combined averages for the three European news outlets.
The data for our studies are provided by Media Tenor, a firm that specializes in collecting and coding news content. Media Tenor’s coding of print and television news stories is conducted by trained full-time employees who visually evaluate the content. Coding of individual actors (in this case, Trump) is done on a comprehensive basis, capturing all mentions of more than five lines (print) or five seconds (TV) of coverage. For each report, coders identify the source(s), topic(s), and tone. Tone is judged from the perspective of the actor. Negative stories include stories where the actor is criticized directly.