Read on Twitter
4/10/2020 - let's do a thread about the media.
NBC News, 10/2/2017: "Trump's Right: His Media Coverage Is Mostly Negative" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-right-his-media-coverage-mostly-negative-n806681
This is 2017, so the first year of President Trump's first administration. NBC cited a Pew Research Center media content analysis. Focus on this graph: Among outlets where the audience is MIXED, the coverage was only 6% positive and 47% negative.
Fast forward to one sample week in January 2020. A content analysis by @newsbusters (conservative) found that @POTUS lawyers (subject matter experts, not PR flacks) could barely get on the air at the major networks, compared with Democrats invited on.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2020/01/29/evening-news-spin-100-negative-trump-defense-95-positive-dems
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2020/01/29/evening-news-spin-100-negative-trump-defense-95-positive-dems
also found that 90% of Trump coverage was negative in 2018.
So this is a years-long pattern. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2019/01/15/networks-trashed-trump-90-negative-spin-2018-did-it-matter
So this is a years-long pattern. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2019/01/15/networks-trashed-trump-90-negative-spin-2018-did-it-matter
In contrast, Obama was sort of like the Teflon president. "STUDY: Obama Had 740 Percent More Positive Media Coverage Than Trump" https://dailycaller.com/2017/10/06/study-obama-had-740-percent-more-positive-media-coverage-than-trump/
Remember that Pew study? "Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive" (December 27, 2017) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pew-trump-media-three-times-more-negative-than-for-obama-just-5-percent-positive
All stories nowadays are politicized.
All.
All.
"CNN Downplayed Swine Flu Under Obama, Went Gonzo On Wuhan Flu Under Trump"
"In 2009, CNN casually covered the Swine flu pandemic under Obama.
In 2020, CNN started lambasting Trump in its coronavirus coverage." https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/19/cnn-downplayed-swine-flu-under-obama-went-gonzo-on-wuhan-flu-under-trump/
"In 2009, CNN casually covered the Swine flu pandemic under Obama.
In 2020, CNN started lambasting Trump in its coronavirus coverage." https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/19/cnn-downplayed-swine-flu-under-obama-went-gonzo-on-wuhan-flu-under-trump/
It is an all-out war against @realDonaldTrump.
"TV’s Trump News: Three-Fourths Impeachment and 93% Negative"
January 13, 2020 https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2020/01/13/tvs-trump-news-three-fourths-impeachment-and-93-negative
January 13, 2020 https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2020/01/13/tvs-trump-news-three-fourths-impeachment-and-93-negative
"The public now says only 9% of Trump news coverage is 'fair'"
That may be, but what is printed by an "official news source" is still considered by most to be mainstream, true information. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/19/inside-the-beltway-only-9-of-trump-news-coverage-i/
That may be, but what is printed by an "official news source" is still considered by most to be mainstream, true information. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/19/inside-the-beltway-only-9-of-trump-news-coverage-i/
The Boston Globe's Tim Graham states: "Political spin dominates media coverage of health crises."
https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/03/23/political-spin-dominates-media-coverage-of-health-crises/'
https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/03/23/political-spin-dominates-media-coverage-of-health-crises/'
Graham writes: "the media’s coverage of infectious diseases resembles their coverage of every other potentially controversial topic. Verifiable facts are often secondary, and political spin dominates."
Graham: "Liberal media outlets find it boring to merely organize and recite facts. It’s in their nature to nurture and protect the people they locate on “the right side of history."
READ THAT AGAIN.
READ THAT AGAIN.
Pew Research Center, November 18, 2016: "Majority of U.S. adults think news media should not add interpretation to the facts."
However, Clinton supporters were nearly TWICE as likely to want interpretation - 50% vs. 29% for Trump supporters.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/18/news-media-interpretation-vs-facts/
However, Clinton supporters were nearly TWICE as likely to want interpretation - 50% vs. 29% for Trump supporters.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/18/news-media-interpretation-vs-facts/
This 2018 study found that the media actively shape perceptions of politicians' morality through their narratives - on both sides: "Bhatia, S., Goodwin, G. P., & Walasek, L. (2018). Trait Associations for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in News Media: A Computational Analysis."
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(2), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617751584
From the discussion: "The 2016 U.S. presidential election was unusual in many respects, including its acrimony, and the tendency for its two major candidates to focus on the moral failings of their opponent. "
"Such associations were likely reflected in media representations of the political candidates."
"We formally studied these representations using computational theories of semantic memory and social psychological approaches to understanding the dimensional structure of social perception."
"Comparing media outlets favored by Clinton voters against media outlets favored by Trump voters, we found that differences in representations pertained primarily to morality,"
"with Clinton outlets more strongly associating Clinton with moral traits relative to Trump, and Trump outlets more strongly associating Trump with moral traits relative to Clinton."
"We also observed some differences for warmth traits, though these differences disappeared when the positive correlation between warmth and morality was controlled for."
"There were no differences across media outlets for associations with competence traits."
Again, read that closely.
The 2016 election was influenced by differential media portrayals of the candidates' MORALITY.
Their COMPETENCE was not in question.
Again, read that closely.
The 2016 election was influenced by differential media portrayals of the candidates' MORALITY.
Their COMPETENCE was not in question.
"Recent work has argued that moral traits are powerful determinants of person evaluation and that morality is distinguishable from other core dimensions such as warmth. Our results support this conclusion"
"and suggest that the differences in moral associations in news media during the 2016 presidential election could have correlated with voter preferences and subsequently the outcomes of this election."
So the bottom line, based on the above, is that the media chooses for you the political candidate whom they feel is the best steward of the public interest.
And they sell you that candidate based on their moral character, not their ability to do the job.
And they sell you that candidate based on their moral character, not their ability to do the job.
@threadreaderapp unroll
@threader_app compile
Now, what happens when the set appointed stewards of public interest are traitors?
Thought starter for a future thread.
Thought starter for a future thread.
