4 ms·

Here are a few links on the study: https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald

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.
    - tempestn 9y ago
      Just noticed my "Trump itself" there. Wasn't an intentional slight; chalk it up to either a typo or a Freudian slip, as you like.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > When Jimmy Carter says the media is applying a different standard to Trump, it lends credibility to the idea that they just might be. Not really. Carter is a qualified expert in some things, but analyzing media bias is emphatically not one of them. Now, as a statement that seems at odds with Carter's assumed partisan bias, him saying it may be more credible as a genuine statement of belief than of a source said the same thing with either no obvious partisan bias or consistent with obvious partisan bias, but that's not the same as lending credibility to the claim itself.
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.

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.
  - tempestn 9y ago
    Just noticed my "Trump itself" there. Wasn't an intentional slight; chalk it up to either a typo or a Freudian slip, as you like.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > When Jimmy Carter says the media is applying a different standard to Trump, it lends credibility to the idea that they just might be. Not really. Carter is a qualified expert in some things, but analyzing media bias is emphatically not one of them. Now, as a statement that seems at odds with Carter's assumed partisan bias, him saying it may be more credible as a genuine statement of belief than of a source said the same thing with either no obvious partisan bias or consistent with obvious partisan bias, but that's not the same as lending credibility to the claim itself.

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.