It’s not your imagination: study finds Trump reporting predominantly negative

You might have gotten the impression that the coverage of the President Trump is a bit of sorta is pretty negative.

This is not quite correct: It is overwhelmingly negative. Amazing negative. Head-shakingly negative.

This is according to a new study from Harvard – shore stone Center, a widely recognized operation, the Chronicles coverage in the media.

And in addition to the strongly negative tone of the sheer volume. It’s not your imagination—Donald Trump the most covered President ever.

The center examines the coverage of Trump ‘ s firs 100 days in the three major Newspapers—the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post—and the main news broadcasts of CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox News.

The top-line figure: about 80 percent of these stories and segments had a negative tone, 20% positive (of those that were neutral). This is bad. In fact, it is twice as negative as the coverage of Barack Obama’s first 100 days, and a lot more negative than it is for George W. Bush and Bill Clinton as well.

And the differences are clear if you drill down through the news organization.

In the case of CNN and NBC, 93 percent of the stories are negative in tone compared to Trump, the study says. Otherwise, their main news programs could find words, only 7 percent of the stories that are of value, positive in the direction of the President.

CBS was not far behind, with 91 percent negative. Then it was the New York Times (87 percent) and Washington Post (83 percent).

The Wall Street Journal, clocked in at 70 percent negative.

And Fox News was, well, fair and balanced. The study found out Bret Baier’s “Special Report” will be a negative 52 percent and 48 percent to Trump positive. The network, often ridiculed by the rest of the media to pro-Trump was actually the most beautiful, according to Harvard researchers.

What’s more, the themes is important. It is significant that 96 percent of the coverage of immigration was negative, with 87 percent reporting on health and Russia’s influence on the election. About 81 percent of the reporting on trump-fitness for the office was negative. These are all issues with a fairly clear media narrative. In contrast, “only” 54 percent of the stories on the economy were negative.

Also in the President’s best week of the viewing period, when his coverage was ordered air strikes against Syria, 70 percent negative.

Overall, say the researchers, reporting to the President trump “was negative even by the standards of today’s hyper-critical press.”

And all of this resonates in a very loud echo chamber. On the national networks studied, 41 percent of the stories involved Trump. This means, that says it all, what in the world, more than four out of 10 stories dealt with these presidents—three times the usual level, shore stone.

And Trump was the main speaker in almost two-thirds of these reports, talk or tweet. So, if Trump seems inevitable, he is.

Why? He drives ratings, pure and simple. Boring President do not assess how much of the airtime. And whether you like or hate trump, it is fair to say, he is never boring.

Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and host of “MediaBuzz” (Sundays 11 p.m.). He is the author of five books and has its headquarters in Washington. You can follow him at @Howard Kurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular