If you have been watching Hillary Clinton and her work over the years, you sure wouldn’t recognize the political press’ “narrative” Hillary Clinton caricature presented by the media, even today. Only you, person to person, can counter that false, unfair impression they created. All hands on deck! Please volunteer! (go to www.hillaryclinton.com Click on “More” see “Events” and put in your zip to find ways to volunteer)
Some authors have looked into and tried to explore how this all came to be. In a new Rolling Stone article, Hillary vs. the Hate Machine: How Clinton Became a Vessel for America's Fury, Janet Reitman digs into it. But stalwart Hillary hater Matt Taibbi whines there is no bias, as kay dub has diaried.
A newfound spine regarding Donald Trump’s lies, poor ethics and scandals, from some corners of the press, is welcome. But, as you already know, we are fighting to undo 25 years of relentless anti-Hillary “narrative” from the political press. So much of what the public “just knows” about her is wrong. Because of our vapid, lazy, “narrative” reinforcing political press, that seem to be utterly without introspection or responsibility.
Their embarrassment should be complete with today’s release of a third academic report confirming their lack of context, less coverage and outright negative bias toward Hillary Clinton. Will it matter?
Harvard’s Shorenstein Center report, 9.21.16: News Coverage of the 2016 National Conventions: Negative News, Lacking Context
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of the 2016 Republican and Democratic national conventions, and whether this coverage, which was overwhelmingly negative, best served the needs of the public.
Clinton’s coverage differed markedly from Trump’s. As noted previously, she received significantly less news attention than Trump during the convention period. The mix of her coverage also differed from his (see Figure 9). Horse race topics—polls and projections—were a somewhat larger part of her coverage while the substance of her campaign got significantly less coverage.
Negative news reports about Clinton during the convention period outpaced positive ones by 56 percent to 44 percent, continuing the pattern of her coverage earlier in the campaign.
snip
Only during the last two weeks did the tone of her coverage shift and, even then, she received roughly as much negative press as positive press.
Finally, in the last 2 weeks of the Convention period, and for the first time since January 2015, the press treated Hillary Clinton just evenly in the tone of their coverage.
Study author Thomas Patterson explained in an L.A. Times Op-Ed: If Clinton loses, blame the email controversy and the media
While Trump declared open warfare on the mainstream media — and of late they have cautiously responded in kind — it has been Clinton who has suffered substantially more negative news coverage throughout nearly the whole campaign.
More below, including media contacts and the the prior two reports
Harvard’s Shorenstein Center report, 6.13.16 Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle
The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part,Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin,contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.
The Shorenstein Center study is based on an analysis of thousands of news statements by CBS, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. The study’s data were provided by Media Tenor, a firm that specializes in the content analysis of news coverage. ###
Harvard’s Shorenstein Center Study 7/11/16 covering January-June 2016: News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences
“Even then, however, Trump was the headliner, receiving more coverage than either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in each of the last five weeks of the primary campaign.
The media’s obsession with Trump during the primaries meant that the Republican race was afforded far more coverage than the Democratic race, even though it lasted five weeks longer. The Republican contest got 63 percent of the total coverage between January 1 and June 7, compared with the Democrats’ 37 percent—a margin of more than three to two.
snip
A persistent theme of Clinton’s coverage was that voters couldn’t relate to her—she was pictured as too remote to reach them emotionally. “Her inevitability,” said one news report, “has dissolved because of her campaign’s inability to connect with voters.” References to Clinton’s issues and character, though only a small part of her coverage during this stage of the campaign, also contributed to her negative coverage. Such references were 8 to 1 negative to positive, by far the most negative of any candidate during this period.
snip
For her part, Clinton received marginally more negative press than positive press, continuing a string of fourteen straight months in which her press coverage was unfavorable in tone. As in previous stages of the campaign, her character and policies were a source of bad press.” ###
Sour old DC Villagers still angry about Bill Clinton, the “newspaper of record” determined to prove they didn’t waste years, millions and their reputation flogging non-scandals long after they were proven non. The “old hands” indoctrinating willing younger faces. No one even questioning the “received wisdom:” She’s secretive; not transparent; a known liar; too ambitious … etc.
Well, WE have to be the correctors for our neighbors and friends. And, your calls/letters/tweets to the press DO matter.
Media critics are gathering steam. “Clinton Rules” and anti-Clinton bias in the vacuous political press corps have been exposed. Continued defensiveness, ridiculed.
The well-deserved scorn heaped on major outlets by comparison to the work of Eichenwald, Fahrenthold and, I would add, David Cay Johnston, stings.
Keep after them and reward reporters doing their jobs well. When you give a pat on the back, cc their editor. That’s always appreciated.
@KurtEichenwald (Newsweek, Vanity Fair) @DavidCayJ (David Cay Johnston, (columnist Daily Beast, Investopedia, USAToday)
Washington Post 202-334-7410 @washingtonpost @Fahrenthold David Fahrenthold @TheFix @DanBalz @RuthMarcus @PostBaron (Editor, WaPo) EJDionne
AP 212-621-1500, write info@ap.org , tweet @ap @AP_politics @Kathleenatap
NY TIMES 212-556-1234, DC bureau 202-862-0300, letters@nytimes.com, public@nytimes.com, Tweet @NYTPolitics @ nytopinion @maggieNYT @jmartNYT (Politics editor) @amychozick
USA Today @SusanPage (DC bureau chief) @HeidiPrysbyla @bjonesusat (Brent Jones-standards ed.) @USATODAYmoney @USATODAY @usatodaylife
Wall St Journal 212-416-2000 @WSJ
NPR 202-513-2000 @nprpolitics @tamarakeithNPR @npratc @drshow (Diane Rehm) @CokieRoberts
ABC 212-456-7777 @ABCpolitics @ABC @ThisWeekABC
CBS 212-975-4321 @CBSpolitics @CBSnews @FaceTheNation
CNN 404-827-1500 @CNN @CNNPolitics @CNNPoliticsdesk @jeffzeleny @danmericaCNN
NBC/MSNBC 212-664-4444 @NBCpolitics, @NBCNews @TODAYshow @hardball @ MitchellReports, @Maddow @chrislhayes @lawrence @TamronMSNBC @KatyTurNBC @JoyAnnReid @kwelkernbc @morning_joe @MattLauer
PBS 703-998-2150 @NewsHour @gwenifill @JudyWoodruff
Bloomberg @jeneps (Jennifer Epstein) @MarkHalperin @jheil (John Heilemann)
@UnivisionNews @hispanic411 @TelemundoNews
Rolling Stone @mtaibbi @janetreitman
Politico @politico , Stat News @rickberke , @HuffPostPol , @KurtEichenwald (Newsweek, Vanity Fair)