Donald Trump talks to the media at Trump Tower in New York, Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016. (Albin Lohr-Jones/Pool via Bloomberg)
Depending on who you believe, Donald Trump won the
election because of Russian hackers, last-minute FBI
announcements, fake news, or because Hillary Clinton was a
bad candidate. A new study from the Harvard Kennedy
School pins the blame on the news media—specifically the
“overwhelmingly negative” tone of news coverage and the
“extremely light” coverage of policy issues.
election because of Russian hackers, last-minute FBI
announcements, fake news, or because Hillary Clinton was a
bad candidate. A new study from the Harvard Kennedy
School pins the blame on the news media—specifically the
“overwhelmingly negative” tone of news coverage and the
“extremely light” coverage of policy issues.
The study, from the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics
and Public Policy, examined print editions of the Los Angeles
Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The
Washington Post and USA Today, the main newscasts on
ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as CNN’s The Situation Room
and Fox’s Special Report.
and Public Policy, examined print editions of the Los Angeles
Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The
Washington Post and USA Today, the main newscasts on
ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as CNN’s The Situation Room
and Fox’s Special Report.
The report should be required reading for political journalists
trying to understand Trump’s victory. The study found that
62% of the coverage of Clinton and 56% of the coverage of
Trump was negative in tone. These numbers actually
overstate the amount of positive press the candidates received.
Most of the “positive” stories here were about new poll
numbers. Each one of these horse race stories was “good
press” for one candidate and “bad press” for the other.
trying to understand Trump’s victory. The study found that
62% of the coverage of Clinton and 56% of the coverage of
Trump was negative in tone. These numbers actually
overstate the amount of positive press the candidates received.
Most of the “positive” stories here were about new poll
numbers. Each one of these horse race stories was “good
press” for one candidate and “bad press” for the other.
According to the study’s author, Trump dominated the news
because his behavior met the stories' demands. "The news
is not about what’s ordinary or expected," the study says.
"It’s about what’s new and different, better yet when laced
with conflict and outrage. Trump delivered that type of
material by the cart load.” Trump packaged news into easily
digestible and deliciously controversial bites. As a result,
his message (“make America great again”) was simply heard
more often than Clinton’s (“stronger together”).
because his behavior met the stories' demands. "The news
is not about what’s ordinary or expected," the study says.
"It’s about what’s new and different, better yet when laced
with conflict and outrage. Trump delivered that type of
material by the cart load.” Trump packaged news into easily
digestible and deliciously controversial bites. As a result,
his message (“make America great again”) was simply heard
more often than Clinton’s (“stronger together”).
The “overwhelmingly negative” tone of campaign coverage
also helped normalize Trump. “When everything and
everybody is portrayed as deeply flawed, there’s no sense
making distinctions on that score, which works to the
advantage of those who are more deeply flawed.” Countless
voters viewed Clinton and Trump as equally flawed because
of the media’s bias towards negativity.
also helped normalize Trump. “When everything and
everybody is portrayed as deeply flawed, there’s no sense
making distinctions on that score, which works to the
advantage of those who are more deeply flawed.” Countless
voters viewed Clinton and Trump as equally flawed because
of the media’s bias towards negativity.
In fact, the study argues, “[t]he real bias of the press is not
that it’s liberal. Its bias is a decided preference for the
negative…. The mainstream press highlights what’s wrong
with politics without also telling us what’s right.... Civility
and sound proposals are no longer the stuff of headlined.”
Presidential candidates have been covered in a negative light
since the 1980s, as the graph below shows. After Watergate,
scandal replaced policy and cynicism replaced healthy
skepticism.
that it’s liberal. Its bias is a decided preference for the
negative…. The mainstream press highlights what’s wrong
with politics without also telling us what’s right.... Civility
and sound proposals are no longer the stuff of headlined.”
Presidential candidates have been covered in a negative light
since the 1980s, as the graph below shows. After Watergate,
scandal replaced policy and cynicism replaced healthy
skepticism.
From Shorenstein Center's Report.
This negative bias inadvertently benefits Republicans.
“[T]he media’s persistent criticism of government reinforces
the right wing’s anti-government message.” By highlighting
what goes wrong in government, journalists “create[] a
seedbed of public anger, misperception, and anxiety,
” which savvy politicians like Donald Trump can exploit.
For 30 years, stories criticizing politicians have soured
the public’s view of government. “It’s gotten to the point,
” says Joe Klein, “where the toughest story for a … reporter
to write about a politician is a positive story.”
“[T]he media’s persistent criticism of government reinforces
the right wing’s anti-government message.” By highlighting
what goes wrong in government, journalists “create[] a
seedbed of public anger, misperception, and anxiety,
” which savvy politicians like Donald Trump can exploit.
For 30 years, stories criticizing politicians have soured
the public’s view of government. “It’s gotten to the point,
” says Joe Klein, “where the toughest story for a … reporter
to write about a politician is a positive story.”
PAGE 1 / 2
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.