Harvard's Shorenstein Center's study of the media coverage of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton found that in 2015 Trump received far more "good press" than "bad press; also, in 2015, the GOP race received twice the coverage of the Democratic race. In 11 of the 12 months in 2015, Clinton's "bad news" outpaced her "good news," usually by a "wide margin." From January 1 through December 31, 2015, only 28% of Clinton's media coverage revolved around her stance on key issues and 84% was negative. In contrast, 43% of Trump's coverage was negative.
The Shorenstein Center also found that Hillary Clinton's coverage was "substantially more negative" than that of Bernie Sanders, although Sanders got "much less" coverage than Clinton.
Hillary's e-mails were deemed important by the media but it didn't help news consumers make sense of the issue, what harm was caused and how her e-mails compared with those of other high elected officials.
Thomas Patterson of the Los Angeles Times found in his analysis that 91% of the Clinton e-mail-related news reports were negative in tone.
Since I watched both CBS and ABC evening news virtually every night during the presidential campaign, it was very clear to me that their reporters had instructions to root through that day's release of Clinton e-mails and find one or two that were damaging to Clinton. Even when the e-mails were not damaging when seriously examined, they were handled, as Thomas Patterson notes, in a negative tone. One example of this occurred when CBS's anchor, Scott Pelley, ran a clip supposedly exposing a quid pro quo between a F.B.I. official and a Clinton staffer, a dog-whipped Pelley had to retract the report the following evening.
A classic of the negative spin applied to coverage of Hillary Clinton was when CBS did a negative piece on Donald Trump and then did the teaser: "But it wasn't such a good day for Hillary Clinton either." Zounds! I thought. Hold the presses! Another damaging Hillary e-mail. No, the news was of a poll showing Hillary with an unfavorable rating of 59%. And what was Trump's unfavorable rating in the same poll? It was 60%.
Jeffrey Toobin nails down Donald Trump in one economical sentence; then relates faults of Hillary Clinton; followed by a description of how the deck was stacked against Hillary. "Trump is a serial liar, a shady businessman, a bigot, and a self-proclaimed abuser of women; Clinton has a sometimes unsteady relationship with the truth and a faulty devotion to information security. Media attention focused almost exclusively on these traits, rather than on, say, what either might actually do as president. That was followed by a cascade of leaks from the F.B.I., which was a rich irony, since the whole controversy supposedly involved Clinton's inability to keep secrets."
Toobin describes the letter from F.B.I. Director James Comey, informing relevant committees of Congress of an investigation of Anthony Weiner's e-mails, a third party not involved in national security matters, "as a much appreciated gift to the Trump campaign." Toobin says the letter was "outrageous for many reasons, starting with the fact that Comey violated Department of Justice policy by sending it. As a rule, prosecutors and investigators are supposed to refrain from offering updates on pending investigations."
"As Michael McCaul, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee put it, 'Assuming she wins and the investigation comes forward, and it looks like an indictment is pending, at that point in time, under the Constitution, the House of Representatives would engage in an impeachment trial." Jeffrey Toobin concludes: "A politics based on pursuit and accusation, rather than on reason and compromise, will address none of these problems." (Source: Jeffrey Toobin, "Another Round," The New Yorker, November 14, 2016.)
Showing posts with label Shorenstein Center. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shorenstein Center. Show all posts
Thursday, December 1, 2016
Thursday, September 29, 2016
How CBS and ABC Distorted Their First Presidential Debate Coverage
Both CBS and ABC evening news have resorted to distortion in their coverage of the first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I am referring to CBS Evening News on Tuesday, September 27th. and ABC World News on the evening of Wednesday, September 28th.
I. CBS Evening News
Scott Pelley opened the newscast by referring to the race as a dead heat. This was a rather curious opening because most of the pre-debate media coverage had described the first debate as likely to be a decisive event in the presidential campaign, and all of the post-debate published polls had found Hillary Clinton to be the clear winner. The CBS coverage made no mention of the polls, the disparaging remarks Trump had made about women, his constant interruptions of Clinton, his talking over the moderator, his insistence that he was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, and his general demeanor during the debate.
Scott Pelley made no mention that Trump initially lavished praise on the moderator and then blamed him for being biased in favor of Clinton; also, Pelley had no criticism of Trump contending that he was given a defective mike -- Trump even suggested that the defective mike was a deliberate act to make him look bad. After first going to a Trump rally clip, Pelley went to a Clinton rally, but that was introduced by a reference to Clinton's high unfavorable rating. Aha! but Michelle Obama had ridden to the rescue, because she had a high standing among millennials. Then, to sink the point home, if it had not already been done, a reporter had gathered three or four young men together, who were wearing Clinton buttons, and recorded one of them telling how unenthusiastic he was about supporting Clinton.
The CBS coverage concluded with interviews with a few people, whose views did not in any way reflect the overwhelming conclusion of all of the focus groups that Clinton was the clear winner in the debate. One of these forums was conducted by the GOP forum guru, Frank Luntz. The final image was of an unidentified man, with no known expert credentials on debate outcomes, declaring that the debate to have changed no minds.
These are the focus group results: Pennsylvania - 16 Clinton; 5 Trump; Florida - 18 Clinton; 2 Trump; Ohio - 11 Clinton; Trump 0; and 18 neither. A CNN/ORC flash pool found that 61% declared Clinton the winner, versus 27% for Trump.
CBS frequently mentions the unfavorable ratings of Hillary Clinton but I have yet to hear any reference to her favorable ratings. With the notable exceptions of President Obama and Bernie Sanders, Clinton has the highest favorable ratings, based on aggregate polling, when compared to several other major politicians: Clinton - 42%; Trump - 34%; Paul Ryan - 33%; Nancy Polisi 24%; Harry Reid - 22%; and Mitch McConnell - 16%. For the record: the latest poll gives the media a 32% favorable rating.
Finally, Scott Pelley and team made no mention of what may have been the most reprehensible action of Donald Trump: he said he could have told a very damaging story about Bill and Hillary Clinton but he was not going to tell it , because Chelsea was in the audience. Trump surrogate, Rudy Guliani, even had the gall to contend that Trump was being magnanimous.
II. ABC World News
Some of what has been said about Scott Pelley and team above can also be said about the David Muir and team evening broadcast of Wednesday, September 28th: the reference to Clinton's unfavorable ratings on trust and honesty; the depiction of Michelle Obama coming to counteract Clinton's low standing among young people; his reference to a damaging story he could tell and then allowing his surrogates to describe that action as praiseworthy, because he was protecting the sensibilities of a young woman; his many interruptions of Clinton and his talking over the moderator. The Muir team made no reference to the ludicrous urging by Trump to make calls to Shawn Hannity to verify that Trump privately opposed the invasion of Iraq. When Trump said that he was "smart" to not pay income taxes, couldn't David Muir have observed that this supposed savior of the working class was implicitly saying that working people who pay taxes are ignorant suckers?
But the most serious failing of Muir and team, with the possible exception of the damaging story not told, is that one would not have known that there was flaming rage in the country about Donald Trump's denigration of the former Miss Universe, coupled with the resurrection of many other derogatory remarks Trump has made about women.
Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Medias, Politics and Public Policy found that in 2015, Hillary Clinton received a far higher proportion of negative coverage than any other candidate. Do the managements of both CBS and ABC believe that they are exempt from that finding of biased coverage?
A news gathering thought: in the wake of the first debate, a poll has found that Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings are now nearly on a par with her unfavorable ratings. Will you verify that and if found to be the case, will you publish the result?
This blog is being treated as an open letter to the managements of both CBS and ABC.
I. CBS Evening News
Scott Pelley opened the newscast by referring to the race as a dead heat. This was a rather curious opening because most of the pre-debate media coverage had described the first debate as likely to be a decisive event in the presidential campaign, and all of the post-debate published polls had found Hillary Clinton to be the clear winner. The CBS coverage made no mention of the polls, the disparaging remarks Trump had made about women, his constant interruptions of Clinton, his talking over the moderator, his insistence that he was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, and his general demeanor during the debate.
Scott Pelley made no mention that Trump initially lavished praise on the moderator and then blamed him for being biased in favor of Clinton; also, Pelley had no criticism of Trump contending that he was given a defective mike -- Trump even suggested that the defective mike was a deliberate act to make him look bad. After first going to a Trump rally clip, Pelley went to a Clinton rally, but that was introduced by a reference to Clinton's high unfavorable rating. Aha! but Michelle Obama had ridden to the rescue, because she had a high standing among millennials. Then, to sink the point home, if it had not already been done, a reporter had gathered three or four young men together, who were wearing Clinton buttons, and recorded one of them telling how unenthusiastic he was about supporting Clinton.
The CBS coverage concluded with interviews with a few people, whose views did not in any way reflect the overwhelming conclusion of all of the focus groups that Clinton was the clear winner in the debate. One of these forums was conducted by the GOP forum guru, Frank Luntz. The final image was of an unidentified man, with no known expert credentials on debate outcomes, declaring that the debate to have changed no minds.
These are the focus group results: Pennsylvania - 16 Clinton; 5 Trump; Florida - 18 Clinton; 2 Trump; Ohio - 11 Clinton; Trump 0; and 18 neither. A CNN/ORC flash pool found that 61% declared Clinton the winner, versus 27% for Trump.
CBS frequently mentions the unfavorable ratings of Hillary Clinton but I have yet to hear any reference to her favorable ratings. With the notable exceptions of President Obama and Bernie Sanders, Clinton has the highest favorable ratings, based on aggregate polling, when compared to several other major politicians: Clinton - 42%; Trump - 34%; Paul Ryan - 33%; Nancy Polisi 24%; Harry Reid - 22%; and Mitch McConnell - 16%. For the record: the latest poll gives the media a 32% favorable rating.
Finally, Scott Pelley and team made no mention of what may have been the most reprehensible action of Donald Trump: he said he could have told a very damaging story about Bill and Hillary Clinton but he was not going to tell it , because Chelsea was in the audience. Trump surrogate, Rudy Guliani, even had the gall to contend that Trump was being magnanimous.
II. ABC World News
Some of what has been said about Scott Pelley and team above can also be said about the David Muir and team evening broadcast of Wednesday, September 28th: the reference to Clinton's unfavorable ratings on trust and honesty; the depiction of Michelle Obama coming to counteract Clinton's low standing among young people; his reference to a damaging story he could tell and then allowing his surrogates to describe that action as praiseworthy, because he was protecting the sensibilities of a young woman; his many interruptions of Clinton and his talking over the moderator. The Muir team made no reference to the ludicrous urging by Trump to make calls to Shawn Hannity to verify that Trump privately opposed the invasion of Iraq. When Trump said that he was "smart" to not pay income taxes, couldn't David Muir have observed that this supposed savior of the working class was implicitly saying that working people who pay taxes are ignorant suckers?
But the most serious failing of Muir and team, with the possible exception of the damaging story not told, is that one would not have known that there was flaming rage in the country about Donald Trump's denigration of the former Miss Universe, coupled with the resurrection of many other derogatory remarks Trump has made about women.
Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Medias, Politics and Public Policy found that in 2015, Hillary Clinton received a far higher proportion of negative coverage than any other candidate. Do the managements of both CBS and ABC believe that they are exempt from that finding of biased coverage?
A news gathering thought: in the wake of the first debate, a poll has found that Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings are now nearly on a par with her unfavorable ratings. Will you verify that and if found to be the case, will you publish the result?
This blog is being treated as an open letter to the managements of both CBS and ABC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)