Media Bias?

[racer254]

In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC).

In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump (440 minutes) than about similar controversies involving Clinton (185 minutes). Donald Trump’s treatment of women was given 102 minutes of evening news airtime, more than that allocated to discussing Clinton’s e-mail scandal (53 minutes) and the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play scandals (40 minutes) combined.

For this study, the MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). The networks devoted 1,191 minutes to the presidential campaign during this period, or nearly 29 percent of all news coverage.

Our measure of campaign spin was designed to isolate the networks’ own slant, not the back-and-forth of the campaign trail. Thus, our analysts ignored soundbites which merely showcased the traditional party line (Republicans supporting Trump and bashing Clinton, and vice versa), and instead tallied evaluative statements which imparted a clear positive or negative tone to the story. Such statements may have been presented as quotes from non-partisan talking heads such as experts or voters, quotes from partisans who broke ranks (Republicans attacking Trump or Democrats criticizing Clinton), or opinionated statements from the reporter themselves.

Additionally, we separated personal evaluations of each candidate from statements about their prospects in the campaign horse race (i.e., standings in the polls, chances to win, etc.). While such comments can have an effect on voters (creating a bandwagon effect for those seen as winning, or demoralizing the supports of those portrayed as losing), they are not “good press” or “bad press” as understood by media scholars as far back as Michael Robinson’s groundbreaking research on the 1980 presidential campaign.

The results show neither candidate was celebrated by the media (as Obama was in 2008), but network reporters went out of their way to hammer Trump day after day, while Clinton was largely out of their line of fire.

Our analysts found 184 opinionated statements about Hillary Clinton, split between 39 positive statements (21%) vs. 145 negative (79%). Those same broadcasts included more than three times as many opinionated statements about Trump, 91 percent of which (623) were negative vs. just nine percent positive (63).

Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage.

This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate. Reporters also bluntly called out Trump for lying in his public remarks in a way they never did with Clinton, despite her own robust record of false statements.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2016/10/25/mrc-study-documenting-tvs-twelve-weeks-trump-bashing

[Momorider]

Everything is rigged  the fix is in, they don't even try to cover anymore 

[racer254]

There is a proven media bias against republicans, yet the republican candidate is setting records pulling in the most small donor donations.

Voters are waking up and are sick of the bullshit.  Can they over come the election fraud will be the next issue.

[JEFF]

No bias in the media...

 

 

Source: CNN

Clinton ally speculates why Clinton used private server 02:30

Story highlights

• One email says Clinton "wanted to get away with it"
• Neera Tanden currently helps run the Clinton campaign transition team

Washington (CNN)An email from a WikiLeaks hack revealed that Neera Tanden, who currently helps run the Clinton campaign transition team, suggested Hillary Clinton's top aides never disclosed her use of a private email servers because "they wanted to get away with it."

Tanden, the president of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, emailed Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta in March 2015 after news broke that Clinton used a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.

"Why didn't they get this stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy," Tanden wrote to Podesta in March 2015, referencing Clinton's campaign.

Tanden then referenced Cheryl Mills, one of Clinton's top aides at the time, writing in another email, "This is a cheryl special. Know you love her, but this stuff is like her Achilles heal (sic). Or kryptonite. she just can't say no to this sh--. Why didn't they get this stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy."

Podesta responded to her email, writing "Unbelievable."

Clinton aide in hacked email: Need to 'clean up' Obama answer on email server

"I guess I know the answer," Tanden wrote back. "They wanted to get away with it."

Neither Tanden nor the Clinton campaign immediately responded to requests for comment.

And then in an another email, Tanden wrote, "a thought that I'm sure has occurred to you hours ago: the archives request them and she complies immediately (avoids subpeonas) don't yell at me."

These emails are part of a wider hack of Podesta's emails published by WikiLeaks. The group has released emails hacked from Podesta's private gmail account daily for more than two weeks. The Clinton campaign has refused to confirm or deny specific emails' authenticity and has accused the Russian government of being behind their theft and release -- a claim WikiLeaks and the Russians have denied.

2016 Election

It appears that Tanden was asking why Mills and the other top aide didn't automatically send Clinton's emails to the archives instead of trying to find a way not to hand them over to protect Clinton.

CNN cannot independently confirm the emails' authenticity. But the Clinton campaign has not challenged any emails in other WikiLeaks releases.

Many of the emails released by WikiLeaks have focused on the fallout from Clinton's private email server use. The campaign team and top aides were involved in lengthy email threads gaming out the response, from statements to the media, to responses to congressional inquiries, to even tweets on the topic.

Tanden had also been a frequent character in the emails. As president of CAP and veteran of Obama and Clinton world, Tanden represented a progressive flank of the party and had a close relationship with Podesta, who helped found and lead CAP before stepping down in 2011.

In the emails, she frequently used colorful language to describe opponents of the campaign on the left, right or in the media, and also sometimes had criticisms of the candidate or campaign itself, though she described herself as a "loyal soldier" for Clinton.

CNN's Tal Kopan and Elise Labott contributed this report.

[Skidooski]

And even with ALL of this coming to light, I'm guessing Hillary will still get in. What a sad state our political system and media are in!  

[Highmark]

And who own's the media?

In today's world its media, not journalism, not the press.  Its all about profit and that's fine, nothing unconstitutional about that but please don't tell me you can stop or limit XYZ corporation or Joe Smith for donating to a campaign and let the media corps just do as they fucking wish with endless streams of money.  

[racer254]

13 minutes ago, Highmark said:

And who own's the media?

In today's world its media, not journalism, not the press.  Its all about profit and that's fine, nothing unconstitutional about that but please don't tell me you can stop or limit XYZ corporation or Joe Smith for donating to a campaign and let the media corps just do as they fucking wish with endless streams of money.  

Why do you think so many liberals were against the Citizens United ruling.  They know the media has a bias and are fine with it. 

[Highmark]

Just now, racer254 said:

Why do you think so many liberals were against the Citizens United ruling.  They know the media has a bias and are fine with it. 

I don't give most liberals that much credit.  Sure they were against it because they thought it would hurt their "cause" but most are too stupid to see this deep into it.  They are so anti-rich people they couldn't see that this ruling would have benefited more of the people they claim to despise so much.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Highmark

[racer254]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

I don't give most liberals that much credit.  Sure they were against it because they thought it would hurt their "cause" but most are too stupid to see this deep into it.  

Yes, I agree, but the ones at the top, the ones who set out the talking points are the ones that I worry about.  They have a way of convincing the others it is all for the cause and it prevents them from actually looking deeper.