Donald Trump has made no secret that he thinks the American media is in the pocket of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
The Guardian of London on Tuesday cited Trump’s statements that the media are part of a “rigged system” that is “trying to undermine his candidacy.”
The sarcastic piece by Ben Jacobs pointed out that Trump said “the press he described as being composed of ‘thieves and crooks,’ may be even more corrupt than the rival whom he has repeatedly derided as ‘Crooked Hillary.'”
It turns out, according to a new study, that whatever ethical lapses may be present in the gamut of media entities, they certainly are one-sided.
In fact, “hostile” to Trump, according to a study by the Media Research Center.
“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 percent) has been hostile,” the report said.
“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.”
MRC’s Rich Noyes commented, “Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton – for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her email server – network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage.
“That was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying ‘the politics of fear,’ or ‘dangerous’ and ‘vulgar’ ‘misogynistic bully’ who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate,” he said.
The bias of the media perhaps shouldn’t surprise anyone.
After all, the Center for Public Integrity recently reported 96 percent of the donations to presidential politics coming from journalists went to Clinton.
For example, Carole Simpson, a former ABC “World News Tonight” anchor, gave Clinton $2,800. And New York Times television critic Emily Nussbaum, who spent the Republican National Convention “pen-pricking presidential nominee Donald Trump as a misogynist shyster,” gave $250 to Clinton.
Nearly 430 reporters gave a total of $400,000 to Clinton, while 50 donated about $14,000 to Trump.
Further, Gateway Pundit pointed out that the WikiLeaks emails reveal that “at least 65 MSM reporters were meeting with and/or coordinating offline with top Hillary advisers.”
“They were invited to top elitist dinners with Hillary campaign chairman John Podesta or chief campaign strategist Joel Benenson,” the report said. “The Clinton campaign sent out invites to New York reporters in April 2015 on their off-the-record meeting on how to sell Hillary Clinton to the public.”
The names include dozens from ABC (Cecilia Vega and David Muir), CBS (Norah O’Donnell and Vicki Gordon), CNN (Brianna Keilar, David Chalian and John Berman) MSNBC (Alex Wagner and Beth Fouhy), the New York Times (Gail Collins and Pat Healy) and many more, including Julie Pace of Associated Press.
MRC analyzed “all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20.”
The report said the networks devoted 1,191 minutes to the campaign, not quite one-third of all coverage.
Trump got 785 minutes and Clinton 478 minutes. The candidates’ controversies consumed 440 minutes for Trump and 185 minutes for Clinton.
The report reveals 623 negative (91 percent) and 63 positive (9 percent) statements about Trump, and 145 negative (79 percent) and 39 positive (21 percent) statements about Clinton.
The MRC’s chart shows the subjects of the comments:
MRC’s Newsbusters report explained: “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.”
The mask is off, the game over, the pretense all but abandoned. As revealed in October’s stunning pre-election Whistleblower issue – titled “HILLARY’S ULTIMATE WEAPON: America’s biased and abusive news media finally abandon all pretense of fairness” – the mainstream media are now falling over one another in a frenzied campaign to put the Clintons back in the White House.
It continued: “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 report pointed out “network reporters went out of their way to hammer Trump day after day, while Clinton was largely out of their line of fire.”
“Network reporters have consistently painted Clinton as the most likely to win, but they have inexplicably spent most of their time trying to dismantle the underdog in the race while giving the frontrunner much lighter scrutiny.”