Harvard Study Confirms Anti-Clinton Media Bias.

[beastie boy]

From Daily Kos:

An interesting new study about media bias was conducted recently by Harvard. The results perhaps aren’t all that surprising to those of us who’ve been closely following press coverage throughout the primary process, but go a long way in shedding light on several key issues. Most notable among these are Clinton’s downward trajectory in the “likability” department but also the fact the media has done a disservice to not only Clinton but also Sanders, supporters of both candidates and the party in general.

A new report released this week by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy found Clinton has received far more negative coverage than any other candidate in the race thus far. The study was based on an analysis of news statements from CBS, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, the New York Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.


“Far more negative?” More like insanely more negative! The study found that 84 percent of Clinton’s coverage has been “negative in tone” compared to just 43 percent for Trump and 17 percent for Sanders. Even though many of us would just assume forget about Rafael Cruz at this stage, it’s notable to point out that he received fairly balanced press coverage in comparison to his opponent. So while the media insured their playing field was much more leveled, they didn’t afford us the same luxury.

Judging by the data this study reveals, the media has done a true disservice to the left thus far with highly slanted, selective coverage managing to paint an inaccurate picture of both Clinton and Sanders. Why? Well, apparently it was more important to make the entire primary race more “exciting” by setting up a false “David vs. Goliath” narrative.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/26/1542758/-Harvard-Study-Confirms-Anti-Clinton-Media-Bias

[tallahasseedem]

1. Should read, "Harvard figures out shit DU has known for years."

At least it is in writing.

[underpants]

3. Yep. Hillary's was negative, Bernie's was minimal, and Trump's was HOOG

unfortunately for Trump the old adage that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" isn't true.

[synergie]

18. They didn't figure it out, they documented it and gatherd the data :-)

[cosmicone]

2. kick n/t

[Lil Missy]

4. Another one for the No Shit Sherlock files. n/t

[insta8er]

5. I guess when you get NO coverage it can't be negative or positive.

[bettyellen]

6. Who or what are you taking about?

[synergie]

20. So Martin O'Malley has nothing to complain about. Bernie had plenty of coverage

and it was positive, even the attention he got from RW SuperPACs was very positive and designed to help him.

[Vattel]

7. Already been debunked.

This statement is false: "A new report released this week by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy found Clinton has received far more negative coverage than any other candidate in the race thus far."

The study only analyzed news coverage prior to the primaries, not coverage "in the race thus far."

Also, the definition of negative they used in the study meant that any story about Sanders gaining on Clinton in the polls was a negative story.

During the primaries, the news media was far more positive about Clinton than Trump, as well they should have been.

[baldguy]

8. Link please.

And also please post where they found that water is not, in fact, wet.

[bonemachine]

9. stop it with those pesky facts

troublesome things that they are...

[beastie boy]

10. Debunked by whom?

Some of what you say doesn't seem to make much sense.

This is a comparative study. Equal criteria for "positive" and "negative" were applied to all candidates, Republican and Democratic. The study merely counted the beans, howeveer you define them. Did the study undercount certain instances for some candidates and overcount the same type of instances for the others? That would be the only way to make the statement you quoted false.

And if the study analyzed news coverage prior to primaries, what difference would it make with respect to the findings? And how would Sanders be gaining on Clinton prior to the primaries?

[Vattel]

11. Geez, I already explained why the statement was false.

Contrary to the statement, the report by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy did not find that "Clinton has received far more negative coverage than any other candidate in the race thus far." "Thus far" means "up until now," a time period which would include the primaries. But the report was about a study of news coverage prior to the first primary.

And in response to your question, "And how would Sanders be gaining on Clinton prior to the primaries?" the answer is that he was gaining in the polls.

[beastie boy]

12. That does not, by any means, debunk the study.

It points out an inaccuracy in the Daily Kos article. So let me refer you to the original:

The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.

The Shorenstein Center study is based on an analysis of thousands of news statements by CBS, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. The study’s data were provided by Media Tenor, a firm that specializes in the content analysis of news coverage.

http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

Does this study not confirm anti-Clinton media bias regardless of the period of time it covers?

And if the Sanders popularity poll numbers were to count as a negative stories for Clinton, wouldn't they also count as s positive stories for Sanders? The Sanders numbers don't seem to reflect this. In either event, without any source to confirm this, your suggestion is pure speculation.

[Vattel]

13. I see the problem. You think I was claiming that the study has been debunked.

What has been debunked are claims about the study by incompetent "journalists" like the author of the Daily Kos article.

As for your question, "Does this study not confirm anti-Clinton media bias regardless of the period of time it covers?," the answer is maybe yes, maybe no. The study concludes that there were more "negative" stories about Clinton during a certain time period. But that doesn't mean that there was any media bias. For example, if there were many stories counted as "negative" because they reported Sanders' poll numbers went up, that wouldn't indicate a bias against Clinton. To draw the conclusion that there was a media bias against Clinton, one would need to carefully analyze the results of the study to determine whether it was likely that the source of the higher number of negative stories about Clinton was media bias. The report by itself only tells us that, given a certain definition of "negative story," there were more negative stories about Clinton.

Sorry to be so fact-based. I recognize that journalists these days rarely approach their subject matter scientifically, and so the public is often misled.

[uponit7771]

14. Red Herring, WHEN the study was done doesn't make the claim "debunked" at all and Trump is a racist

... there's not to many ways to be positive about that character

[Igel]

15. Depends on the claim.

If the claim was "in the primaries" then the claim's false because the time frame is part of the claim.

However, some of the negative coverage of HRC vs BS was automatic. If the news had dropped all relationship of HRC to the email or Benghazi issues, to TTIP or others, that would have been too biased. She was involved. If the news concerning them is positive or negative, it's positive or negative.

BS had few chances for negative coverage as his poll numbers rose. That's how the definition used in the research determines at least in part the results. Similarly, reporting that HRC's poll numbers are higher than Trump's would be negative for Trump--however, it's not what most people using their own internal definitions think of as "negative reporting." It's merely reporting a negative, but the reporting itself is neutral and expected.

For much of this, being defensive is partisanship without any real principle.

[uponit7771]

16. The time frame was before the primary

[NJCher]

21. oh wow, really?

I was thinking I had an explanation for why people hate her so much.

The hatred is visceral. I mean people really, really do not like her.

I just don't understand it, 'cuz you would think people would look up to her and all, being such a success and making so much money. She's always smiley and pleasant.

I just don't get it. What's not to like?


Cher

p.s. and one more thing: don't you think people would have some appreciation for the fact that she's shattered the glass ceiling? Now women can go out and make millions and step into big-paying jobs. Can't people see that she's made all this possible?

People are just jerks. That's what I think.

[oasis]

17. K and R

[LAS14]

19. It's always nice to have what we believe...

.... to be true confirmed by a respected authority. Thanks!