bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,297
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
Pew study on media coverage
http://www.weeklystandard.com/how-donald...le/2009920
Interesting read. A couple quotes:
“One of the things that was interesting to see was that, while the topic of the news media was not a huge percentage of overall coverage, journalists were both the second most common source type as well as the second most common ‘trigger’ of the stories,” says Amy Mitchell, director of the Pew Research Center.*
That might go some way in explaining the elite media feedback loop.<I've noticed how often a story, even insignificant or poorly sourced ones, by one media source gets cited over and over>
In the first 60 days of the Trump presidency, 62 percent of the stories about him were negative—three times the amount of negative coverage received by Barack Obama from the same sources over the same period of his first term, and more than twice that of Clinton and Bush (28 percent).
And, positive coverage? For Clinton, it was 27 percent, for Bush, 22 percent. Barack Obama’s positive coverage in the first 60 days—42 percent. And Donald J. Trump? Five percent. So, those sources—to some, the very definition of the mainstream media—were eight times more positive about Obama’s early presidency than they were about Trump’s.
Pew makes clear that its studies do not attempt to detect bias in the news media’s presidential coverage. And, of course, it didn’t really need to. The coverage speaks for itself.
|
|
10-04-2017 08:05 AM |
|
bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,297
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
RE: Pew study on media coverage
Also this:
"The Pew researchers categorized media outlets according to the politics of their audiences—liberal, conservative, or in the middle. Not surprisingly, outlets with liberal audiences (NYT, Politico, and NPR among them) were the most negative in their reporting on Trump, reporting unfavorably 56 percent of the time. Conservative outlets (Fox News, Breitbart, talk radio) were the most positive, reporting favorably 31 percent of the time. Pew found that liberal outlets tended to use more sources than conservative outlets, but that conservative news sources produced far more stories (55 percent of them) that were neutral in tone."
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2017 08:07 AM by bullet.)
|
|
10-04-2017 08:07 AM |
|
stinkfist
nuts zongo's in the house
Posts: 68,369
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6859
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
|
RE: Pew study on media coverage
the more they run their mouths, the better I feel about things moving forward....the dippos cannibalize their own.....
|
|
10-04-2017 08:58 AM |
|
DavidSt
Hall of Famer
Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
|
RE: Pew study on media coverage
(10-04-2017 08:05 AM)bullet Wrote: http://www.weeklystandard.com/how-donald...le/2009920
Interesting read. A couple quotes:
“One of the things that was interesting to see was that, while the topic of the news media was not a huge percentage of overall coverage, journalists were both the second most common source type as well as the second most common ‘trigger’ of the stories,” says Amy Mitchell, director of the Pew Research Center.*
That might go some way in explaining the elite media feedback loop.<I've noticed how often a story, even insignificant or poorly sourced ones, by one media source gets cited over and over>
In the first 60 days of the Trump presidency, 62 percent of the stories about him were negative—three times the amount of negative coverage received by Barack Obama from the same sources over the same period of his first term, and more than twice that of Clinton and Bush (28 percent).
And, positive coverage? For Clinton, it was 27 percent, for Bush, 22 percent. Barack Obama’s positive coverage in the first 60 days—42 percent. And Donald J. Trump? Five percent. So, those sources—to some, the very definition of the mainstream media—were eight times more positive about Obama’s early presidency than they were about Trump’s.
Pew makes clear that its studies do not attempt to detect bias in the news media’s presidential coverage. And, of course, it didn’t really need to. The coverage speaks for itself.
Obama did not create much chaos like the three did. It was later on in his Presidency that chaos erupted because the queen witch Hillary. If he just stayed away from her, and never let her be Secretary of State.
|
|
10-04-2017 07:16 PM |
|
olliebaba
Legend
Posts: 28,100
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation: 2149
I Root For: Christ
Location: El Paso
|
RE: Pew study on media coverage
You can't create chaos if you don't do squat. It's so simple. But, you are also right, much of it was because of Killary. Just shows how bad she would have been as president.
|
|
10-04-2017 07:34 PM |
|
bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,297
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
RE: Pew study on media coverage
(10-04-2017 07:34 PM)olliebaba Wrote: You can't create chaos if you don't do squat. It's so simple. But, you are also right, much of it was because of Killary. Just shows how bad she would have been as president.
The more she talks, the more it should become obvious to everyone that she was an unbalanced, incompetent, delusional nut. The US dodged a bullet.
|
|
10-05-2017 07:59 AM |
|
bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,297
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
RE: Pew study on media coverage
|
|
10-05-2017 09:09 AM |
|