Harvard study: Extraordinary media bias against Trump

A study prepared by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard reveals a shocking level of media bias against President Trump.  This comes as no surprise to anyone – friend or foe of the president.

But the extreme percentage of negative coverage of the president is absolutely breathtaking.

 

I'm amazed that the New York Times had 13% "positive" coverage of Trump, although Harvard academics may have a different definition of "positive" from yours or mine.

Trump coverage was slightly more positive when it came to individual issues:

 

Heat Street:

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:

The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

It won't surprise you that other recent administrations' coverage in the first 100 days was far more positive:

The Lightbringer got three times more positive coverage than Trump.  Maybe he could walk on water.

I wonder what kind of coverage Trump will receive during his next 100 days.  While the old adage, "When you hit bottom, there's no place to go but up," comes to mind, in the case of Trump versus the media, all bets are off.

A study prepared by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard reveals a shocking level of media bias against President Trump.  This comes as no surprise to anyone – friend or foe of the president.

But the extreme percentage of negative coverage of the president is absolutely breathtaking.

 

I'm amazed that the New York Times had 13% "positive" coverage of Trump, although Harvard academics may have a different definition of "positive" from yours or mine.

Trump coverage was slightly more positive when it came to individual issues:

 

Heat Street:

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:

The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

It won't surprise you that other recent administrations' coverage in the first 100 days was far more positive:

The Lightbringer got three times more positive coverage than Trump.  Maybe he could walk on water.

I wonder what kind of coverage Trump will receive during his next 100 days.  While the old adage, "When you hit bottom, there's no place to go but up," comes to mind, in the case of Trump versus the media, all bets are off.

RECENT VIDEOS