Study: The Liberal Media’s Summer of Pummeling Trump

Media Research Center has been tracking the news coverage of President Trump since he took office Jan 20th.

They have the "negatives" and the "positives" ranked by time on the air.

The "coverage" was by the Big3 (ABC, CBS, NBC) and not necessarily their cable counterparts and associates.

Looks like the negative got most of the special time.

Perhaps more than one reason for this, but probably simple political/social agreement-disagreement agendas are in play more than anything else.

Remember the Big3 get something like 10x more viewers than cable (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, Newsmax)

Neat graphs and tables inside the article.
Study: The Liberal Media’s Summer of Pummeling Trump

The broadcast network evening newscasts remain as hostile as ever towards President Trump and his agenda, although the networks appear to be easing up on their obsessive wall-to-wall coverage of the administration.

Since Inauguration Day (January 20), Media Research Center analysts have reviewed every mention of President Trump and top administration officials on ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News, including weekends. As of August 31, coverage of the administration has totaled nearly 74 hours (4,418 minutes) of airtime, or about 39 percent of all evening news coverage.

For comparison purposes, coverage of the Obama administration in all of 2015 and 2016 totaled 59 hours (3,544 minutes), or roughly 10 percent of the available broadcast airtime. In other words, Trump has already received more coverage in his first 224 days in office than Obama received in his final two years as President.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Perhaps more than one reason for this, but probably simple political/social agreement-disagreement agendas are in play more than anything else.

Or it could be he's a complete clown that would rather Twitter than run the country properly.

neat graphics, like this one?

a reply to: xuenchen

It turns out Trump bashing is very lucrative for them. In an odd twist of fate (and schadenfreude), these organizations and their viewership need Trump more than they'd ever admit.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: xuenchen
Perhaps more than one reason for this, but probably simple political/social agreement-disagreement agendas are in play more than anything else.

Or it could be he's a complete clown that would rather Twitter than run the country properly.

*Yawn* Yes that must be it. Idiot post like these make me chuckle, people actually think this, so sad.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: xuenchen
Perhaps more than one reason for this, but probably simple political/social agreement-disagreement agendas are in play more than anything else.

Or it could be he's a complete clown that would rather Twitter than run the country properly.

*Yawn* Yes that must be it. Idiot post like these make me chuckle, people actually think this, so sad.

Ad hominum is all you've got? I see some of his supporters have the same low level of intelligence as he does.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: xuenchen
Perhaps more than one reason for this, but probably simple political/social agreement-disagreement agendas are in play more than anything else.

Or it could be he's a complete clown that would rather Twitter than run the country properly.

*Yawn* Yes that must be it. Idiot post like these make me chuckle, people actually think this, so sad.

Ad hominum is all you've got? I see some of his supporters have the same low level of intelligence as he does.

Lol. Umm, yeah, not laughing with you

originally posted by: intrepid
Or it could be that the media is a complete clown that would rather editorialize than actually report to the country properly.

I fixed it for you.

If you're really going to give the big-three media a pass on this, you've got more bias than "Trump supporters" will ever have.

I especially like how you call out someone for ad hominem attacks in response to your ad hominem attack on Trump. Irony is fun.

But to keep on-topic, it's well established that there is a heavy ideological bias in the media, and in reporting in such a manner, they drive the American perception and opinion of Trump because most people are too lazy to actually research his presidency and what he's doing past what the news producers choose to focus on (which is what will get the best ratings based on emotional responses). I'm not surprised by this study in the least, even if the source is relatively biased as well.

I feel an "I know you are but what am I" coming on.

a reply to: xuenchen

This analysis is rife with problems but that's not surprising considering that it comes from the far-right MRC, a favorite of big money GOP donors, including the Mercers, who have donated several million to them over the last few years.

For comparison purposes, coverage of the Obama administration in all of 2015 and 2016 totaled 59 hours (3,544 minutes), or roughly 10 percent of the available broadcast airtime. In other words, Trump has already received more coverage in his first 224 days in office than Obama received in his final two years as President.

They're comparing the volume of media coverage of Obama at the end of his presidency, during a contentious election season where the incumbent president wasn't up for re-election, to the volume of media coverage of Trump at the beginning of his.

Hardly apples to apples. But that's really the least of the issues. Let's look at what they're considering "spin" :

The Russia investigation was also the source of most of the negative comments about Team Trump — 322 negative vs. 21 positive statements, yielding a 94% bad press score.

Some things — like most any "scandal" — are inherently "negative." Like Flynn getting busted lying about his communications with Kislyak and being canned weeks after the administration became aware of it. Or how about Team Trump having a meeting with a Kremlin operative that they hid and then deliberately lied about? Not much "positive" to be said about it.

The failed attempt to repeal ObamaCare was the second-most frequent topic, with 176 minutes of coverage this summer.

How much "positive" coverage was there to be had in this debacle? The GOP failed to do something unpopular because, despite years of vitriolic rhetoric, they never bothered to come up with an alternative.

Scandals, habitual lying, failures and assorted jackassery don't lend themselves to favorable coverage. Is it disproportionately unfavorable? Perhaps, but what's "fair" exactly? 85% negative? 75%?

It's quite possible Trump brought this on himself.

Obama did not stir up as much controversy as Trump did. Obama also did not say completely stupid things as much as Trump did.

Since when was media supposed to report equally good and equally bad things about the President? If he #s up day in and day out or puts his foot in his mouth all the time then negative press will outnumber positive press just from the nature of the beast without even talking about partisanship yet.

originally posted by: introvert
Obama did not stir up as much controversy as Trump did.

Well, to be fair, Obama had the media in his back pocket, so whether or not he "stirred up" controversy in the same manner, the controversies that were there were focused on with much less vigor and intensity by the media.

Obama also did not say completely stupid things as much as Trump did.

Well, that's absolute biased opinion, there. They may not have been as childish or blunt, but Obama could write a book on the "stupid things" that came out of his mouth.

LEAVE DONALD ALOOOOOOONE

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I especially like how you call out someone for ad hominem attacks in response to your ad hominem attack on Trump.

If you can't differentiate between an attack on a politician and a member my previous post counts doubly.

Irony is fun.

Yeah but stupidity isn't. You should work on that.

Media Research Center - meh. They're almost as bad as the Family Research Council.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: xuenchen
Perhaps more than one reason for this, but probably simple political/social agreement-disagreement agendas are in play more than anything else.

Or it could be he's a complete clown that would rather Twitter than run the country properly.

*Yawn* Yes that must be it. Idiot post like these make me chuckle, people actually think this, so sad.

Ad hominum is all you've got? I see some of his supporters have the same low level of intelligence as he does.

Right, your initial response was just plain stupid, which says a whole lot about you, then the audacity to question why and respond in the same manner, a broad stroke as well nonetheless, good job...and when did intelligence factor in? right, it doesn't, rather a simple reinforcement of your mental insecurities, whoop.

Thanks for playing, try again?

TFW an American President gets this kind of hate from some nobody, sorry our President intimidates you 🙄

Oh well, "Gryphon Shrug"

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: xuenchen

It turns out Trump bashing is very lucrative for them. In an odd twist of fate (and schadenfreude), these organizations and their viewership need Trump more than they'd ever admit.

Couldn't the same be said of Trump? How much of his personal fortune does Trump owe to his celebrity? Without that celebrity, would he have even launched a campaign, much less been elected POTUS?

How much of his popularity with his base stems from his bashing of others? Live by the gun, die by the gun?

a reply to: theantediluvian

He learned how to make bank from being a douche. Jealous?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Couldn't the same be said of Trump? How much of his personal fortune does Trump owe to his celebrity? Without that celebrity, would he have even launched a campaign, much less been elected POTUS?

How much of his popularity with his base stems from his bashing of others? Live by the gun, die by the gun?

No, the same could not be said of Trump.