Study: negative media coverage of Clinton soared in the last two weeks of the campaign

[applegrove]

by Jeff Stein at Vox

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/7/13872580/media-coverage-presidential-election

"SNIP............


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.


..............SNIP"

[marybourg]

1. There is where I see the hand of Russia. nt.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

2. "Comrade Comey" has a nice ring to it

[kimbutgar]

3. It was negative 24/7 negative Hillary about emails on msnbc

Never any positive on daytime tv for her. The "fix"was in.

[pansypoo53219]

5. RATINGS!!!

[riversedge]

6. yes. I muted the tube a lot during last few weeks.

[JCanete]

7. ratings and down-ticket races. It looked like Clinton was a shoe-in at that point so they

overcorrected. That's assuming, and I still mostly think this, that the powers that own the media didn't actually want Trump to win, but that is where I may be greatly mistaken.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Media wanted a horse race.

[HoneyBadger]

13. because that drives ad spending

unless one candidate is Trump

[Igel]

9. Yeah, but what counts as "negative"?

Mentioning the Comey thing and then saying it's not a big deal but a lot of people think that Comey was inappropriately meddling in electoral politics? That's mentioning a negative. And it's a lot of the stories.

Saying that HRC's losing grounds in the polls? That's mentioning a negative. And it's also a lot of the stories.

We hear "negative story" and we assume that it's saying something new and negative about the candidate when it's easily not the case for many of them.

Similar for the "positive stories" about Trump. "Trump's gaining ground, but thankfully the lying sexist bastard is still behind" is a positive story.

[AmericanActivist]

10. K n R nm

[killbotfactory]

11. It was negative for Trump as well

The media made the election into an absolute shitshow, while promising a Clinton victory, and it drove down voter turnout in enough states to matter.

[applegrove]

12. +100