Study Confirms Trump Has Received Vastly More Negative News Coverage Than Clinton
If you felt like you’ve been seeing way too much Trump in the media, you are absolutely right. You have been seeing untold amounts of coverage of the guy, but as the Media Research Center points out, it’s not necessarily a good thing for him.
According to the MRC, Trump has gotten far more media coverage, especially about his scandals, than Clinton has. In fact, it’s so lopsided, that 91% of the coverage on Trump has been nothing but negative.
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.
So we can clearly see the media has a penchant for hammering Trump for breathing out of the wrong nostril. But what about those negatives about Clinton? As the MRC points out, they’re out there, but even those willing to talk negatively about Hillary do so far more about Trump. Furthermore, the study found that even when they were critical of Hillary, they were more or less respectful.
Our analysts found 184 opinionated statements about Hillary Clinton, split between 39 positive statements (21%) vs. 145 negative (79%). Those same broadcasts included more than three times as many opinionated statements about Trump, 91 percent of which (623) were negative vs. just nine percent positive (63).
Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage.
This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate. Reporters also bluntly called out Trump for lying in his public remarks in a way they never did with Clinton, despite her own robust record of false statements.
For those who say there is no bias in the media, this is a clear cut example of how that statement is a flat out lie. Trump may be awful, but Hillary is just as, if not more, and the media has no intention of calling out Clinton in the same way they do her opponent.