4 ms·

I beg to differ. A Harvard study confirmed that news sources have been overwhelmingly left-leaning, especially since Trump. Even former President Jimmy Carter

I beg to differ. A Harvard study confirmed that news sources have been overwhelmingly left-leaning, especially since Trump. Even former President Jimmy Carter has said so. So no, there is no unbiased, high quality mainstream media. There is only biased reporting from the right (Fox) and the left (just about everybody else).

pcwalton 9y ago
Which study?
- Mtinie 9y ago
  Probably this one: “News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days”[0] Summary: “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).” ——- https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-fi...
- RickJWag 9y ago
  Here are a few links on the study: https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-fi... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative/article/2623641 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-c... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-coverage-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-...
  - majormajor 9y ago
    So conversative outlets that are much more critical of Trump than they were of Bush are now showing a liberal bias? "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." When you consider this line especially, with everything else, it seems more consistent with "Trump is unusually unpopular and criticized" than "the media is even more liberal now." Maybe you should think about your own biases here, before continuing to equate "negative towards Trump" with "liberal/left"? If I wanted to write a post criticizing Trump I'd have an incredibly easy time doing it from several right-wing perspectives: religious/moral, small government/individual freedom, anti-corruption/pro-transparency, take your pick. It's all fish in a barrel.
    - RickJWag 9y ago
      It's a good point that it could be my own biases, or it could be that Trump really is terrible while Obama was just wonderful. But I don't think those are it. When Jimmy Carter says the media is applying a different standard to Trump, it lends credibility to the idea that they just might be.
      - tempestn 9y ago
        I think it's true that the mainstream media may give too much play to stories about fairly innocuous things that Trump has done. I'm not sure that's much different than with previous presidents though. I recall Obama and Bush being criticized for some fairly silly things too. I honestly believe the difference now is Trump itself. He's uniquely unqualified to be president on every intellectual or moral metric I would consider relevant. Therefore, an objective press would be expected to be far more negative than positive. The other problem (or clever strategy on the right) is to paint mainstream outlets like NY Times or Washington Post as the 'other side', while basically ignoring truly left-leaning media, like Huffington Post or Vox. In doing so, they portray a spectrum where Fox and Breitbart lean to one side, and NY Times / WaPo lean to the other, with the unbiased position somewhere in the center - when in reality, the average of those publications is pretty far on the conservative side of the spectrum. (Even more so for those who actually believe Fox is 'balanced' and other mainstream outlets are in fact far left.) I don't think it's necessarily impossible to do good journalism while being biased; I think Vox does a fair amount of good reporting for instance. It is necessary though to clearly distinguish between fact and opinion.
  - pcwalton 9y ago
    An equally plausible alternate explanation for the results of the study is that Trump's actions by and large have had negative consequences, and the media is accurately reporting them.
Clubber 9y ago
>A Harvard study confirmed that news sources have been overwhelmingly left-leaning, especially since Trump. Have a link? I know Fox is the most watched cable news network. I assume television is still the majority of the way Americans consume the news. http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fox-news-is-basic-cables-most-watched-network-for-the-17th-straight-month/350264 http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fox-news-is-basic-cables-most...
- RickJWag 9y ago
  And here's the link to an article on Carter's quote. Jimmy Carter has been in that seat, and he says the media has been harder on Trump. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/10/22/jimmy-carter-media-has-been-harder-trump-than-predecessors/788558001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017...
  - Clubber 9y ago
    I agree on that part of the assertion, that they have been unnecessarily hard (WaPo mostly) on Trump, and they don't even have to be. It dilutes their credibility. Being overly hard on Trump and being overwhelmingly left-leaning isn't necessarily the same thing though. I mean Lindsay Graham who is fairly conservative went on a Trump slam tour before the election. Mitt Romney did the same thing, as did other conservative leaders.
- citrus1330 9y ago
  While I would also appreciate a source, whether Fox is the most watched network doesn't really affect his statement.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    I agree, but the right wing news companies have been shouting this for 20 years, and I'm not sure if it's any more true today than it was 20 years ago. I mean there is a reason Fox blathers on about being most trusted and all that, just like a used car salesman says, "trust me."
hypersoar 9y ago
Are you talking about this[1] study? Because it doesn't say that the media is "left-leaning". Rather, it says that their coverage of Trump has been more negative than positive (in the first 100 days, the period the study examines). Rather than the result of bias, it could simply be that he's done a bunch of obviously-bad things. Which one can certainly argue. Another point: the article points out that, despite the overwhelmingly negative coverage, most of the time, they're using his own voice: What’s truly atypical about Trump’s coverage is that it’s sharply negative despite the fact that he’s the source of nearly two-thirds of the sound bites surrounding his coverage. Typically, newsmakers and groups complain that their media narrative is negative because they’re not given a chance to speak for themselves. Over the past decade, U.S. coverage of Muslims has been more than 75 percent negative. And Muslims have had little chance to tell their side of the story. Muslims account for less than 5 percent of the voices heard in news reports about Islam.[31] So why is Trump’s coverage so negative even though he does most of the talking? The fact is, he’s been on the defensive during most of his 100 days in office, trying to put the best face possible on executive orders, legislative initiatives, appointments, and other undertakings that have gone bad. [1] https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-fi...
littlestymaar 9y ago
> So no, there is no unbiased, high quality mainstream media. At the same time, the first unbiased & objective human being has yet to be found.

pcwalton 9y ago

Which study?

Mtinie 9y ago
Probably this one: “News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days”[0] Summary: “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).” ——- https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-fi...
RickJWag 9y ago
Here are a few links on the study: https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-fi... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative/article/2623641 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-c... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-coverage-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-...
- majormajor 9y ago
  So conversative outlets that are much more critical of Trump than they were of Bush are now showing a liberal bias? "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." When you consider this line especially, with everything else, it seems more consistent with "Trump is unusually unpopular and criticized" than "the media is even more liberal now." Maybe you should think about your own biases here, before continuing to equate "negative towards Trump" with "liberal/left"? If I wanted to write a post criticizing Trump I'd have an incredibly easy time doing it from several right-wing perspectives: religious/moral, small government/individual freedom, anti-corruption/pro-transparency, take your pick. It's all fish in a barrel.
  - RickJWag 9y ago
    It's a good point that it could be my own biases, or it could be that Trump really is terrible while Obama was just wonderful. But I don't think those are it. When Jimmy Carter says the media is applying a different standard to Trump, it lends credibility to the idea that they just might be.
    - tempestn 9y ago
      I think it's true that the mainstream media may give too much play to stories about fairly innocuous things that Trump has done. I'm not sure that's much different than with previous presidents though. I recall Obama and Bush being criticized for some fairly silly things too. I honestly believe the difference now is Trump itself. He's uniquely unqualified to be president on every intellectual or moral metric I would consider relevant. Therefore, an objective press would be expected to be far more negative than positive. The other problem (or clever strategy on the right) is to paint mainstream outlets like NY Times or Washington Post as the 'other side', while basically ignoring truly left-leaning media, like Huffington Post or Vox. In doing so, they portray a spectrum where Fox and Breitbart lean to one side, and NY Times / WaPo lean to the other, with the unbiased position somewhere in the center - when in reality, the average of those publications is pretty far on the conservative side of the spectrum. (Even more so for those who actually believe Fox is 'balanced' and other mainstream outlets are in fact far left.) I don't think it's necessarily impossible to do good journalism while being biased; I think Vox does a fair amount of good reporting for instance. It is necessary though to clearly distinguish between fact and opinion.
- pcwalton 9y ago
  An equally plausible alternate explanation for the results of the study is that Trump's actions by and large have had negative consequences, and the media is accurately reporting them.

Clubber 9y ago

>A Harvard study confirmed that news sources have been overwhelmingly left-leaning, especially since Trump. Have a link? I know Fox is the most watched cable news network. I assume television is still the majority of the way Americans consume the news. http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fox-news-is-basic-cables-most-watched-network-for-the-17th-straight-month/350264 http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fox-news-is-basic-cables-most...

RickJWag 9y ago
And here's the link to an article on Carter's quote. Jimmy Carter has been in that seat, and he says the media has been harder on Trump. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/10/22/jimmy-carter-media-has-been-harder-trump-than-predecessors/788558001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017...
- Clubber 9y ago
  I agree on that part of the assertion, that they have been unnecessarily hard (WaPo mostly) on Trump, and they don't even have to be. It dilutes their credibility. Being overly hard on Trump and being overwhelmingly left-leaning isn't necessarily the same thing though. I mean Lindsay Graham who is fairly conservative went on a Trump slam tour before the election. Mitt Romney did the same thing, as did other conservative leaders.
citrus1330 9y ago
While I would also appreciate a source, whether Fox is the most watched network doesn't really affect his statement.
- Clubber 9y ago
  I agree, but the right wing news companies have been shouting this for 20 years, and I'm not sure if it's any more true today than it was 20 years ago. I mean there is a reason Fox blathers on about being most trusted and all that, just like a used car salesman says, "trust me."

hypersoar 9y ago

Are you talking about this[1] study? Because it doesn't say that the media is "left-leaning". Rather, it says that their coverage of Trump has been more negative than positive (in the first 100 days, the period the study examines). Rather than the result of bias, it could simply be that he's done a bunch of obviously-bad things. Which one can certainly argue. Another point: the article points out that, despite the overwhelmingly negative coverage, most of the time, they're using his own voice: What’s truly atypical about Trump’s coverage is that it’s sharply negative despite the fact that he’s the source of nearly two-thirds of the sound bites surrounding his coverage. Typically, newsmakers and groups complain that their media narrative is negative because they’re not given a chance to speak for themselves. Over the past decade, U.S. coverage of Muslims has been more than 75 percent negative. And Muslims have had little chance to tell their side of the story. Muslims account for less than 5 percent of the voices heard in news reports about Islam.[31] So why is Trump’s coverage so negative even though he does most of the talking? The fact is, he’s been on the defensive during most of his 100 days in office, trying to put the best face possible on executive orders, legislative initiatives, appointments, and other undertakings that have gone bad. [1] https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-fi...

littlestymaar 9y ago

> So no, there is no unbiased, high quality mainstream media. At the same time, the first unbiased & objective human being has yet to be found.