(91%) has been hostile - Trump

[jimnyc]

MRC Study: Documenting TV’s Twelve Weeks of Trump Bashing

In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC).

In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump (440 minutes) than about similar controversies involving Clinton (185 minutes). Donald Trump’s treatment of women was given 102 minutes of evening news airtime, more than that allocated to discussing Clinton’s e-mail scandal (53 minutes) and the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play scandals (40 minutes) combined.

For this study, the MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). The networks devoted 1,191 minutes to the presidential campaign during this period, or nearly 29 percent of all news coverage.

Our measure of campaign spin was designed to isolate the networks’ own slant, not the back-and-forth of the campaign trail. Thus, our analysts ignored soundbites which merely showcased the traditional party line (Republicans supporting Trump and bashing Clinton, and vice versa), and instead tallied evaluative statements which imparted a clear positive or negative tone to the story. Such statements may have been presented as quotes from non-partisan talking heads such as experts or voters, quotes from partisans who broke ranks (Republicans attacking Trump or Democrats criticizing Clinton), or opinionated statements from the reporter themselves.

Additionally, we separated personal evaluations of each candidate from statements about their prospects in the campaign horse race (i.e., standings in the polls, chances to win, etc.). While such comments can have an effect on voters (creating a bandwagon effect for those seen as winning, or demoralizing the supports of those portrayed as losing), they are not “good press” or “bad press” as understood by media scholars as far back as Michael Robinson’s groundbreaking research on the 1980 presidential campaign.

The results show neither candidate was celebrated by the media (as Obama was in 2008), but network reporters went out of their way to hammer Trump day after day, while Clinton was largely out of their line of fire.

Rest here - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich...-trump-bashing

[OCA]

And this is news how? Man it's part of the deal here in good ol'Murica. He should be or should've factored this into his game plan. Everybody knows the media is left and will heap neg attention on the R candidate, not front page news.

[OCA]

Imo though much of it has been self inflicted, he simply can't shut his piehole.

[Drummond]

MRC Study: Documenting TV’s Twelve Weeks of Trump Bashing

In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC).

In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump (440 minutes) than about similar controversies involving Clinton (185 minutes). Donald Trump’s treatment of women was given 102 minutes of evening news airtime, more than that allocated to discussing Clinton’s e-mail scandal (53 minutes) and the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play scandals (40 minutes) combined.

For this study, the MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). The networks devoted 1,191 minutes to the presidential campaign during this period, or nearly 29 percent of all news coverage.

Our measure of campaign spin was designed to isolate the networks’ own slant, not the back-and-forth of the campaign trail. Thus, our analysts ignored soundbites which merely showcased the traditional party line (Republicans supporting Trump and bashing Clinton, and vice versa), and instead tallied evaluative statements which imparted a clear positive or negative tone to the story. Such statements may have been presented as quotes from non-partisan talking heads such as experts or voters, quotes from partisans who broke ranks (Republicans attacking Trump or Democrats criticizing Clinton), or opinionated statements from the reporter themselves.

Additionally, we separated personal evaluations of each candidate from statements about their prospects in the campaign horse race (i.e., standings in the polls, chances to win, etc.). While such comments can have an effect on voters (creating a bandwagon effect for those seen as winning, or demoralizing the supports of those portrayed as losing), they are not “good press” or “bad press” as understood by media scholars as far back as Michael Robinson’s groundbreaking research on the 1980 presidential campaign.

The results show neither candidate was celebrated by the media (as Obama was in 2008), but network reporters went out of their way to hammer Trump day after day, while Clinton was largely out of their line of fire.

Rest here - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich...-trump-bashing

Left-wing media are utterly determined to see Trump demonised. That is clear.

Since it's your election, not ours, our media can take a more leisurely approach .. a less intensive one, than your own. Here ... they DID demonise Trump as a racist, bigoted extremist (possibly unhinged), utterly unfit for high office, much less the US Presidency.

With the more recent scandals, of course, the UK media have run with it. But it's more to try and build upon his 'unfitness' for high office than anything else.

The scandals involving Hillary Clinton have gone largely unreported (though there's been mention of them of late). But I think that's only because our media feel they can do it with her 'integrity comparatively intact', since such a good job has been done to marginalise Trump in our minds.

If Clinton wins, I think our own people will actually see her as a respectable figure, and think that the world has 'dodged the bullet' over Trump.

It'll be a triumph of dirty dealings and smearing, if Trump loses with the current climate still in force. We all know that. Our media will probably castigate Trump should he do the right thing and contest a loss which will have been engineered through smears and the obscuring of REAL issues, such as, America's future !!!

[Drummond]

Imo though much of it has been self inflicted, he simply can't shut his piehole.

Having been comprehensively demonised and smeared, he must now start to be 'silent' about it ?

Lefties really don't believe in fair play, do they ? I hate to break it to you .. but ... people have RIGHTS. Trump, 'very naughtily', is exercising his.

It's called 'free speech' ....

[Abbey Marie]

Just saw a CNN clip of Trump answering a couple of questions about Obamacare. When it came back to the anchor, she gave a condescending smirk so obvious it was absurd. It's not just negative coverage of Trump's words, it's outright derision from news folks.

[OCA]

Just saw a CNN clip of Trump answering a couple of questions about Obamacare. When it came back to the anchor, she gave a condescending smirk so obvious it was absurd. It's not just negative coverage of Trump's words, it's outright derision from news folks.

Do you think it's deserved or undeserved? For me personally i can't look or listen to him without laughing, he's that much of a joke.

[Abbey Marie]

Do you think it's deserved or undeserved? For me personally i can't look or listen to him without laughing, he's that much of a joke.

I think our news people have no business inserting their personal politics into simple news coverage. If they want to editorialize, there are plenty of outlets to do so.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just saw a CNN clip of Trump answering a couple of questions about Obamacare. When it came back to the anchor, she gave a condescending smirk so obvious it was absurd. It's not just negative coverage of Trump's words, it's outright derision from news folks.

YET, ALL OF THIS OBVIOUS BIAS,DERISION AND OUTRIGHT LYING GOING ON IN ORDER TO DISCREDIT AND DEMONIZE TRUMP IS IGNORED BY SO MANY ATTEMPTING TO PLAY THE PART OF IMPARTIAL CRITIC, WHILE THEY DO SO MERELY TO AID THE HILDA-BEAST.
I see such blatant displays of dishonesty, treachery and hypocrisy and think--what low scoundrels these people are.
And that is with my total disregard of the lying media-hyped reputations these so-called great people..
Most of them live a moral life that even a poor starving peasant in the 14th century would be ashamed of.
Repugnant disgust, does not adequately describe my feelings for these so-called enlightened ingrates.... --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Do you think it's deserved or undeserved? For me personally i can't look or listen to him without laughing, he's that much of a joke.

Really?
So how does that equate with the judgment of the Hillary you surely must have as well.
For what matters, if when you judge him , you erroneously choose not to truly and intelligently judge and compare with her?-Tyr

[OCA]

I think our news people have no business inserting their personal politics into simple news coverage. If they want to editorialize, there are plenty of outlets to do so.

I thin that is a tall order when it is Humans who cover and deliver the news. I think in the case of Trump and especially the ones who pool with him daily and have to hear the absolute travesties he spews......they are being rather patriotic.

[OCA]

Really?
So how does that equate with the judgment of the Hillary you surely must have as well.
For what matters, if when you judge him , you erroneously choose not to truly and intelligently judge and compare with her?-Tyr

Compared to her? Still an absolute joke.

[OCA]

Anybody who speaks well of Drumpf i automatically question their intelligence and integrity.

[OCA]

I've often thought lately of being a door to door salesman and targeting only homes with Drumpf yard signs because i know they will buy anything i sell.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Compared to her? Still an absolute joke.

How so?
Care to elaborate his negatives over her positives(that is if you can find any positives for her)??
Sure, its your opinion and you have every right to it but as it was given its quite broad and lacking in depth IMHO.
FOR ITS A CONCLUSION -(he is a joke)- TO A COMPARISON IN WHICH YOU'VE GIVEN NO LOGICAL OR RATIONAL SPECS/DETAILS ON, IMHO.
WHICH WOULD BE JUST FINE -IF ONE IS DISCUSSING PERSONAL FEELINGS BASED ENTIRELY UPON PERCEIVED CHARACTER
FLAWS AND/OR STRENGTHS OF BOTH PARTIES.
Yet somehow I do not see that being represented by any substantial facts, as is the case in your reply.. -TYR