Politics Trump’s Right: His Media Coverage Is Mostly Negative

[Denny Crane]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...ht-his-media-coverage-mostly-negative-n806681

President Donald Trump frequently complains about media coverage of his administration, and a study released Monday confirms his suspicion: Most of it has been negative.

The Pew Research Center, in a content analysis of the early days of the Trump presidency, found that 62 percent of the coverage was negative and only 5 percent was positive.

In contrast, President Barack Obama's coverage in early 2009 was 42 percent positive and 20 percent negative, the study said.

Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had higher negative than positive coverage early in their administrations, but not nearly to Trump's degree. Clinton had 28 percent negative coverage and 27 percent positive in 1993, while Bush had 28 percent negative and 22 percent positive in 2001.

Coverage of Trump was primarily focused on “character and leadership” versus policy, according to the Pew Center, a nonprofit based in Washington. The study also showed that only 2 percent of stories from outlets with a right-leaning audience refuted statements made by Trump or his administration, while 15 percent of stories carried by left-leaning outlets questioned the administration.

“It certainly shows that where people turn for news has implications for what they’re hearing about President Trump,” said Amy Mitchell, Pew’s director of journalism research.

The study looked at online general news sites with at least 20 million average unique monthly visitors, according to Pew, as well as the cable networks CNN, Fox News and MSNBC, and the evening news programs from the broadcast networks and PBS. Top talk radio shows and National Public Radio were also included.

The overall study was conducted from Jan. 21 to April 30 and examined 3,000 news stories across 24 media outlets. The portion of the study that measured how positively the media covered Trump was conducted over the first 60 days of the administration and compared a smaller sub-set of outlets to make sure it was comparable with the Clinton era.

 

[Denny Crane]

Significant because: Pew, NBC.

 

[THE HCP]

Do you think it is deserved Denny? Has he done ANYTHING in a negative light that might make people want to cover him a certain way?

 

[THE HCP]

I'll be honest, when he came on TV this morning to make a statement about Vegas, I literally got naucious to my stomach and turned the channel so my kids wouldn't hear what he was going to day. I didn't want them to hear him blame somebody for this tragedy.....or say something disgusting my kids would remember. How sad is that? And thats not on me. That's on HIM.
I don't expect much from politicians, but the fact that I was scared of what our "leader" was going to say in a time of need........ it sucks.

 

[Denny Crane]

Do you think it is deserved Denny? Has he done ANYTHING in a negative light that might make people want to cover him a certain way?

It speaks to the media's ability to do their job. They're not.

 

[andalusian]

When the president spends his time writing thousands of stupid twitter messages - it's hard for the news not to report it.

 

[THE HCP]

It speaks to the media's ability to do their job. They're not.

I can see that. What if he quit giving them fuel or ammo if you will?
What is your opinion as a supporter of his about his tweets? Honestly curious if you feel any of them are ever out of line for somebody who is our leader?

 

[Denny Crane]

When the president spends his time writing thousands of stupid twitter messages - it's hard for the news not to report it.

Report it.

"Trump tweeted this... blah blah blah"

Not, "Trump is an asshole, look what he tweeted!"

One is factual reporting, the other is not.

It's scary that across all media, journalism is failing its core mission.

 

[Denny Crane]

I can see that. What if he quit giving them fuel or ammo if you will?
What is your opinion as a supporter of his about his tweets? Honestly curious if you feel any of them are ever out of line for somebody who is our leader?

I don't support him. I didn't vote for him, and I won't be next time.

I think he's trolling and morons fall for it. Or they act like idiots deliberately.

They aren't reporting all his tweets, just the few they can turn into a constitutional crisis.

 

[Denny Crane]

They're not giving this one the 24/7 treatment.

 

[Denny Crane]

Or this one:

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't follow his twitter, I googled it.

 

[Denny Crane]

"He's a Nazi"

 

[andalusian]

Report it.

"Trump tweeted this... blah blah blah"

Not, "Trump is an asshole, look what he tweeted!"

One is factual reporting, the other is not.

It's scary that across all media, journalism is failing its core mission.

Opinion has always been a part of journalism - that's not a real issue nor the real goal of the 4th estate.

I honestly do not believe all journalists fail their core mission. This, imho, is a clear case of the reality reflected through the 4th estate.

To put in in poetically - Shit should not be upset when people say it stinks.

The problem starts with the administration - not the way it is reported. It is not the journalists who hired a communication chief that discusses the self pleasuring nature of another administration member or the guy that over-charged the public for his flights and the list goes on, the lies about the size of the inauguration, the tone-deaf comments about tragedies and the list goes on.

 

[THE HCP]

I don't follow his twitter, I googled it.

Like I said, you understand why right? If you got a new next door neighbor and he continually treated you and your family like shit and said horrible things to you, you would have an impression of this person. Sure, one day he COULD come over and wish you happy birthday or merry Christmas, but what would it mean to you? Just like with me watching TV today, he could have said the most inspirational message by any president ever, but it wouldn't hold weight with me. It couldn't just erase all the hatred already spewed. You seem like a genuine, caring guy........ amazes me how you give this guy your support. No disrespect intended here.

 

[Denny Crane]

Opinion has always been a part of journalism - that's not a real issue nor the real goal of the 4th estate.

I honestly do not believe all journalists fail their core mission. This, imho, is a clear case of the reality reflected through the 4th estate.

To put in in poetically - Shit should not be upset when people say it stinks.

The problem starts with the administration - not the way it is reported. It is not the journalists who hired a communication chief that discusses the self pleasuring nature of another administration member or the guy that over-charged the public for his flights and the list goes on, the lies about the size of the inauguration, the tone-deaf comments about tragedies and the list goes on.

CNN isn't Cable Opinion Network, it's Cable NEWS Network. It's people are called "News Anchors."

It doesn't matter how awful the president is. The media isn't about stooping to his level. They're failing at their job, which is seriously bad news for society.

 

[andalusian]

CNN isn't Cable Opinion Network, it's Cable NEWS Network. It's people are called "News Anchors."

Oh please, and the President is not the Twitter in chief. News was always laced with opinion, always - sometimes it is just to time to admit that the stench grows - maybe the swamp just grew instead of being drained.

It doesn't matter how awful the president is. The media isn't about stooping to his level. They're failing at their job, which is seriously bad news for society.

The fact that you just said the media is about stooping to his level shows where the real issue is.

 

[Denny Crane]

Like I said, you understand why right? If you got a new next door neighbor and he continually treated you and your family like shit and said horrible things to you, you would have an impression of this person. Sure, one day he COULD come over and wish you happy birthday or merry Christmas, but what would it mean to you? Just like with me watching TV today, he could have said the most inspirational message by any president ever, but it wouldn't hold weight with me. It couldn't just erase all the hatred already spewed. You seem like a genuine, caring guy........ amazes me how you give this guy your support. No disrespect intended here.

So you're saying that we should be OK with the 4th estate (keeping government honest) who aren't honest? They have journalistic standards.

They are not doing at least these four things. It is their duty.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

– Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

– Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.

– Label advocacy and commentary.

– Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh please, and the President is not the Twitter in chief. News was always laced with opinion, always - sometimes it is just to time to admit that the stench grows - maybe the swamp just grew instead of being drained.



The fact that you just said the media is about stooping to his level shows where the real issue is.

That the media is stopping to his level? Yes, that's the real issue.

A journalist does not interject opinion. Op ed columnists, talk show guests, editorials, etc., are the place for opinion.

 

[Strenuus]

Precedence.

It's a hell of a thing.

See, you'll twist that to how you view it. It's CRAZY how that works, isn't it?

 

[Denny Crane]

Precedence.

It's a hell of a thing.

See, you'll twist that to how you view it. It's CRAZY how that works, isn't it?

Pew. NBC.

Not me.

Though I report what I see, too, they're being scientific about it.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

That the media is stopping to his level? Yes, that's the real issue.

I imagine that @andalusian is implying that the problem is the notion that the president is at a level to which one must "stoop" to reach. In theory, the highest office in the land should be held by someone to whose level people should aspire, not "stoop"

 

[Denny Crane]

I imagine that @andalusian is implying that the problem is the notion that the president is at a level to which one must "stoop" to reach. In theory, the highest office in the land should be held by someone to whose level people should aspire, not "stoop"

Leave the "stooping" to the talk shows and editorial pages. That's all I'm saying.

If you're going to report his tweets, report them all - or most. If you're going to report them all, don't spend 23 hours 59 minutes on one, designed to do the presidency harm. The job is to report on the presidency, not drive favorable ratings.

EDIT:

One of the most stunning things I saw on CNN recently was their news anchor going on and on about Trump lying by omissions. That's how CNN works (lying by omission).

 

[Strenuus]

Pew. NBC.

Not me.

Though I report what I see, too, they're being scientific about it.

Almost word for word what I thought the answer would be.

And my study is completed, my findings are accurate. Subject still has no idea.

 

[Denny Crane]

Almost word for word what I thought the answer would be.

And my study is completed, my findings are accurate. Subject still has no idea.

Pew. NBC.

Not my study. Theirs.

 

[Strenuus]

Pew. NBC.

Not my study. Theirs.

You were my study.

 

[Denny Crane]

You were my study.

Not scientific, nor useful, nor credible.

Not NBC or Pew.

 

[Strenuus]

Not scientific, nor useful, nor credible.

Not NBC or Pew.

Mine was a case study.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Leave the "stooping" to the talk shows and editorial pages. That's all I'm saying.

I understand what you're saying. But let's go back to your initial statement about the media and Trump's level.

It doesn't matter how awful the president is. The media isn't about stooping to his level. They're failing at their job, which is seriously bad news for society.

My question to you regarding this is: which is worse for society? The president being awful, or the media being biased?

Or put another way, which would be a better America: one led by a president with unimpeachable character who is continually assaulted by an unscrupulous, agenda-driven media, or one led by a legitimately horrific leader reported on by a pure and virtuous media.

Honestly, I can see the argument for either position.

 

[Denny Crane]

I understand what you're saying. But let's go back to your initial statement about the media and Trump's level.


My question to you regarding this is: which is worse for society? The president being awful, or the media being biased?

Or put another way, which would be a better America: one led by a president with unimpeachable character who is continually assaulted by an unscrupulous, agenda-driven media, or one led by a legitimately horrific leader reported on by a pure and virtuous media.

Honestly, I can see the argument for either position.

The media being biased. Beyond a doubt. If you can't trust them to be telling the truth, there's no way to have any real oversight into what government is doing.

Presidents only serve a relatively short time (4 or 8 years).

I'd be fine if they were reporting on the important issues, like how this administration is cracking down on immigration. And it goes something like this:

Immigration way down. People being rounded up and evicted. Unlimited detention time. Dreamers.

Let the people decide if it's good or bad. If they want to have experts present the benefits and costs, that's fine. Experts are quoted all the time. But stacking the deck so it's cherry picked 8 against and 1 who doesn't present well for, that's a problem.

Instead of focusing on that, they're focused on the kind of shoes the first lady wears.