Clinton’s Media Coverage Was More Negative

62% to 38%


Ratio of negative to positive media coverage of Hillary Clinton over the full course of the election versus 56% negative to 44% positive for Donald Trump, a new Harvard study finds. Negative coverage was the order of the day in the general election. Not a week passed where the nominees’ coverage reached into positive territory. It peaked at 81% negative in mid-October, but there was not a single week where it dropped below 64% negative.

Majority Find Mainstream News Sources to Be Credible

two-thirds

Of respondents to a Morning Consult poll found ABC, CBS and NBC to be credible news sources, while less than 1 in 5 found Breitbart or Fox News to be credible. Interesting finding: Thirty-one percent said they see fake news stories in their social media feeds more than once a day, and 55 percent said they have started reading a story only to realize it was fake.

The Media Deserves Blame, too

On so many levels, vari­ous parts of the me­dia es­tab­lish­ment should look back at the en­tirety of their cov­er­age with re­gret and in some cases shame, wheth­er it was cable net­works hand­ing over their air­waves to Trump early in the race, or au­gust news­pa­pers tramp­ling on journ­al­ist­ic stand­ards in the fi­nal weeks in a des­per­ate bid to stop him. It was not a pretty sight. Just as it’s hard to get tooth­paste back in the tube, it will be hard for the press to re­store the bright line between re­port­ing and opin­ion.

Charlie Cook