Study: negative media coverage of Clinton soared in the last two weeks of the campaign
Source: Vox
Ten of America’s most prominent media outlets ramped up their negative coverage of Hillary Clinton in the final two weeks of the presidential campaign while also writing fewer positive stories about her, according to a new report released today by Harvard University researchers.
From late September to the middle of October — around the time of the presidential debates — the ratio of critical coverage of Clinton was roughly three positive stories for every two negative ones.
But as the election headed to a close, that gap dramatically widened. In the final two weeks, there were closer to seven negative pieces about Clinton for every two positive pieces, according to the report from Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy.
Of course, part of that change was driven by new facts on the ground — like the revelations about the FBI’s decision to briefly reopen an investigation into Clinton’s private email server, and the WikiLeaks disclosures — that Donald Trump voters may regard as legitimate reasons for more negative stories. But whatever the cause, according to the Harvard report, talk of Clinton’s alleged scandals hit their peak right before Election Day.
Read more: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/7/13872580/media-coverage-presidential-election
New study from Harvard confirms how the election was corrupted by a combination of FBI meddling in the election along with Russian sourced disclosures to wikileaks.
= new reply since forum marked as read
They've covered the Clintons from every angle for 25 years. Now they've got a lot of new players and policies to keep their talkers talking (so they don't have to pay more reporters to go out and cover real news around the world).
