TV news 'most lopsided' ever: Trump 85% negative, Harris 78% positive - Washington Examiner
By: Paul Bedard (Washington Examiner - Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress the President and the Federal Government)
Like that's a surprise
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
ByPaul Bedard October 28, 2024 10:55 am .
The anti-Trumpmedia bias that exudes from cable news has spread to the big three networks, making 2024 the worst ever for TV political propaganda, according to the top conservative media watchdog.
"One week before Election Day, a new analysis from the Media Research Center finds that broadcast evening news coverage of the 2024 presidential race has been the most lopsided in history," the group reported on its NewsBusters website.
"Since July, ABC, CBS and NBC have treated Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris to 78% positive coverage, while these same networks have pummeled former Republican President Donald Trump with 85% negative coverage," according to the report from Contributing Editor Rich Noyes.
The bias is likely not surprising, though the percentages are. What's more, the efforts by network anchors, such as CBS's Norah O'Donnell, to push far past normal criticism of Trump have sparked anger on social media.
For his report, Noyes looked at the number of and the spin in stories that ABC, CBS, and NBC devoted to the candidates. It wasn't hard to discover their hate for Trump and embrace of Harris and her early, though now dead, "joy" campaign.
He found that the negative-positive spread was bigger than in the past two elections, which also featured Trump as the GOP nominee.
In 2016, for example, Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received mostly negative coverage, 91% and 79%. In 2020, then-candidate Joe Biden was treated to 66% positive coverage and Trump to 92% negative coverage.
Noyes said, "Since July, the big three have swamped their audiences with more than 230 minutes of airtime — virtually all of it negative — about an array of personal controversies surrounding the former president, yet provided extremely light coverage or altogether ignored many controversies involving Vice President Harris. Instead, Harris's coverage has been larded with enthusiastic quotes from pro-Harris voters, creating a positive 'vibe' for the Democrat even as network reporters criticize Trump themselves."
Despite all the negative Trump coverage, Harris appears stuck in the polls and Trump has caught up and threatens to pass her with just over a week until Election Day.
"Add it all up, and the media coverage of the past three months is more lopsided than that of any presidential election in the modern media age," Noyes wrote.
"So if Donald Trump regains the White House next week, the media's campaign against him will have accomplished nothing, except the further erosion of their own reputations," he added.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, respond to themselves, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion
No Fascism References, Memes, Source Dissing.
Tags
Who is online
421 visitors
Say it ain't so.........../s
Why the hell do you think there's so much negative coverage on the former 'president'?
He's such a victim, such a martyr.
Right. It's like they're clueless as to how offensive dirtbag Donald is to most Americans and expect everyone to treat the flaming bag of shit on their doorstep like it's a nicely wrapped gift from a neighbor.
That 'rally', that 1939 like rally that he did last night, should have put it to 100% negative coverage, it should have been 100% well before now because there is absolutely nothing positive to post about this traitor since he's creating negative coverage 24/7/365 because that's all he brings.
So bizarre. I've told the media, which is overwhelmingly composed of liberals has been working to elect Trump.
Nope. Not bizarre at all. It's not even a 'conservative' vs 'liberal' thing, it's a "Hey, the Republican candidate is a fucking felon and one of the most repulsive pieces of shit on the planet who praises dictators and had his own former chief of staff admit he praised Hitler and fits the definition of a fascist". Most media companies, if they're being honest, have a hard time giving that kind of candidate "good" press coverage.
That doesn't make any sense. If the media were trying to get Trump elected, Trump's coverage would not be overwhelmingly negative and Harris's overwhelmingly positive.
so yes, it absolutely is bizarre that some people claim the media is trying to help Trump win.
yes but his children love him.
Fox News is overwhelmingly positive for Trump and yes, they are trying to get him elected. Most of the rest of the MSM report on what he says and does, which from an objective point of view, ends up seeming negative even for the most neutral of media companies.
Even this seed is coming from the far-right Washington Examiner which has been overwhelmingly positive in its coverage of Trump, did it calculate its own reporting into the numbers above? Of course not, they didn't even include Fox News which is "TV News", they only reviewed ABC, NBC and CBS to get their skewed headline.
RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information reporting that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
[✘]
[✘]
Similarly, 62% of Walz's coverage was positive, while Vance received 92% negative coverage.
The amazing thing is despite the tsunami of attacks on Vance the minute he was nominated, he's now more popular than Walz. It turns out he's the most normal of the four people on the national ticket and he's front and center of the campaign, appearing on three sunday talk shows for hostile interviews yesterday. Meanwhile, Walz is relegated to playing video games with AOC and the supposed "football teacher" as one of their paid influencers described him, can't even sound like he's actually watched a game of football in his life. "AOC could run a mean pick 6." Lol.
Trump has more negatives than any other nominee in my lifetime (and likely in US history). Any fair treatment will then naturally be reporting on Trump's negatives more than his few positives. It would be a distortion of reality to present the good and the bad of Trump in equal coverage.
When history reflects on Trump, if the vast super majority of Trump's actions and characteristics are negative (which they are), would you expect history to weigh the positives more than the negatives so that equal time can be given to both?
Does history reflect the good aspects of Stalin equally with the bad aspects or is the treatment fair and thus shows a preponderance of negatives?
To some, just reciting Trumps words can be seen as an attack on him.
Did Stalin get good press in Russia or no?
Seems like the fact that media as part of it's overwhelmingly negative coverage of Trump has been allowed to attack Trump and make things up (piss tapes, very fine people etc.) in order to attack him without any punishment other than a loss of credibility, the highly partisan press is just another example of how silly the dictator hysteria is.
Well, considering he would have had any press inside his country murdered if they gave him bad coverage, what press there was from inside Russia at the time was likely 110% positive. I'm sure Trump wishes he could do the same with the American media.
Trump has said that journalists who report on him negatively should be "jailed" and media companies that do the same should have their licenses revoked. Perhaps that's a bit less violent than Stalin, but still about as anti-American as you can get. Very fascist though, it's exactly what he'd do if he was allowed. Hopefully our constitution would be able to suppress him though that's truly in question if he were to win another term.
Do you seriously posit that a fair uniform coverage of Trump would not be predominantly negative because Trump produces predominantly negative news?
Spot the difference? One was an actual dictator and one was not.
Perhaps that's a bit less violent than Stalin
Your willing to concede, that maybe, just maybe, Trump saying stupid things is perhaps less violent than Stalin murdering millions???? That's quite a limb you are out on. Be careful.
Crazy how Vance, despite none of those negatives, saw coverage that was just as negative, while Walz, with all his issues, was greeted with overwhelmingly positive coverage.
It amazing how much we heard about a VP candidate who never lied about his service and some fictional couch and how much deflection and defense for a VP candidate who lied about his rank and abandoned his men before deployment.
You quote a comment about Trump and now shift to Vance.
There is no argument that the Trump-Vance ticket is being unfairly treated by the media compared to Harris-Walz. The opposite is true. The media is being far too timid as evidenced by the fact that they treat Trump at though he were a normal nominee instead of a vindictive, narcissist and traitor who is unfit for the office.
Yes, to show how your argument makes no sense. If Trump was such a unique monster that justifies uniformly negative coverage than Vance should reiceve more balanced coverage, as the most normal person on the tickets.
Yet Vance receives the same negative coverage as Trump..
Well you if so so. Nothing is so convincing as the simplistic assertion that flies in the face of objective evidence. Good one.
by the fact that they treat Trump at though he were a normal nominee instead of a vindictive, narcissist and traitor who is unfit for the office
Right. They are treating him like "normal nominee" who they give uniformly negative coverage to. .
How, exactly, have you measured this remarkable 'fact'?
Denying the obvious, as you continue to do, is pointless.
Why do you continue to (attempt to) defend Trump?
Sure seems that way. I always thought (maybe just wishful thinking) that the news media would report what happens and lets people decide on their own. Now it seems many on the left want them to report what they feel they should (even if it means twisting the facts) which is anything to keep Trump from office.
Why do you continue to (attempt to) defend Trump?
Pointing out the glaringly obvious, that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly anti-Trump, is not defending Trump. If Harris says 3+2=7, it's not defending Trump to show she's wrong. It's just reality and it's impossible to talk about anything else when reality, like the media favors Harris, is disputed.
I think there is an expectation that the media call Trump and all his followers Nazis. Anything less than that and it must be because they are going harder on Harris than Trump. There is nothing logical about it but it does show a feeling of desperation.
This link presumes that equal coverage means equal amounts of negative coverage and equal amounts of positive coverage.
That is stupid if one of the candidate is almost entirely spewing negative crap and the other is predominantly focusing on positives about the future of our nation.
Thinking that the media is overwhelmingly anti-Trump is ignoring the fact that Trump is overwhelmingly bad. The media cuts Trump far too many breaks as it is.
One would have to be disconnected from reality to not see Trump making negative news on a daily basis. What is the media to do ... lie about it, not report on it? Skewing reality in Trump's favor is defending Trump.
Notice they started doing that when the loon left wing media started comparing the 1939 rally to Trump's rally?
Like good little parrots, they started repeating the same narrative over and over, to the point that pretty much everyone is calling bullshit on them.
Democrats know they have zero ideas on how to better this country, so insulting half the country is the best they can come up with.
Smells like Hillary's deplorables all over again and we all remember what happened there.
I wonder how many years Harris will follow in Hillary's footsteps and spend the next decade blaming everyone else besides herself for losing the election.
Exactly. If you don't come to the same conclusion they do it must be because you are not patriotic, illogical, stupid, fascist, Nazi, racist, misogynistic, and any other name they can think of. They somehow figure they can resort to bully tactics to get votes. The whole thing disgusts me.
As it does me, however, this is what many on the left have devolved into.
Of course, it will only ramp up after Trump is elected by more than ten million votes, but only after they once again burn and loot because their feelings were hurt.