Study: Clinton received most negative media coverage by far in 2008/2016

[IceSpear]

http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So add this to the other study...



But remember, if you talk about how the sexist media is biased against Hillary Clinton, you're a conspiracy theorist with a victim complex.

Sorry, but if you deny the media's bias, you're the one who is not in touch with reality.

[This account no longer in use.]

I'm not denying any media bias; I'm not going to get into that right now. What I am denying is that this is solely because of sexism.

[Desroko]

I'm not denying any media bias; I'm not going to get into that right now. What I am denying is that this is solely because of sexism.

Right, it's about ethics in horse race journalism.

[This account no longer in use.]

I'm not denying any media bias; I'm not going to get into that right now. What I am denying is that this is solely because of sexism.

Right, it's about ethics in horse race journalism.

Please do not associate me with the abhorrent people connected to Gamergate.

[IceSpear]

I'm not denying any media bias; I'm not going to get into that right now. What I am denying is that this is solely because of sexism.

I agree it's not solely about sexism, it's just a massive component from the old boys club in the media. They also just hate her as a person for reasons unknown and enjoy tearing her down. Also, the left wing media is always too busy trying to prop up their preferred horse to ever defend her from the attacks of the right wing and "non partisan" media.

[catographer]

Looks like there's a media bias in favor of negative coverage. Does it hurt to say something positive about someone for a change?

[IceSpear]

Looks like there's a media bias in favor of negative coverage. Does it hurt to say something positive about someone for a change?

True as well. And then the same media that churns out mainly negative stories and attacks day in and day out sheds crocodile tears about how "divided" and "polarized" the country has become, and how "trust and favorable feelings toward the government/politicians are at an all time low."

[SillyAmerican]

Well, perhaps we should remember that Clinton is the only candidate currently under investigation by the FBI. Could media coverage of that little problem of hers be construed as negative coverage? If yes, than yeah, boo hoo hoo, all this negative coverage is obviously only because the media is so against her because she's a woman. Two words:  puh leaz.

[Gustaf]

Well, perhaps we should remember that Clinton is the only candidate currently under investigation by the FBI. Could media coverage of that little problem of hers be construed as negative coverage? If yes, than yeah, boo hoo hoo, all this negative coverage is obviously only because the media is so against her because she's a woman. Two words:  puh leaz.

Your reading comprehension is bad. You should practice that, come back, reread the title (which is sufficient to understand why your post was sh*t), the post and maybe even click on the link. Then you can try again.

[IceSpear]

Well, perhaps we should remember that Clinton is the only candidate currently under investigation by the FBI. Could media coverage of that little problem of hers be construed as negative coverage? If yes, than yeah, boo hoo hoo, all this negative coverage is obviously only because the media is so against her because she's a woman. Two words:  puh leaz.

Oh, right. I guess it slipped my mind that she was under FBI investigation in 2007-2008.

[Hermit For Peace]

If you are a female then you know this to be true: that to get ahead in life, you have to do everything twice as good as any male competitor to be considered "better" at something, or "more qualified."

I've been aware of this for most of my adult life. I'm also aware that most men don't believe it, and it's because they haven't experienced it. Doesn't make the situation none the less true, however.

And I'm not talking sports or activities that involve strength, which men are clearly physically constructed to be better at.

Being a female in politics -- where males dominate and have ever since our country was founded -- Hillary has had to climb hills and jump through hoops that no man has had to, simply because she is a female. And put a "Clinton" after her name and it adds dimensions of additional obstacles she's had to overcome that the guys haven't.

On a positive note, it's a testament to how strong, adaptable, resilient, incredibly intelligent, politically savvy and damn good Hillary is at doing something that is important to her.

Great thread and great article!!!

[Hermit For Peace]

If you are a female then you know this to be true: that to get ahead in life, you have to do everything twice as good as any male competitor to be considered "better" at something, or "more qualified."

I've been aware of this for most of my adult life. I'm also aware that most men don't believe it, and it's because they haven't experienced it. Doesn't make the situation none the less true, however.

And I'm not talking sports or activities that involve strength, which men are clearly physically constructed to be better at.

Being a female in politics -- where males dominate and have ever since our country was founded -- Hillary has had to climb hills and jump through hoops that no man has had to, simply because she is a female. And put a "Clinton" after her name and it adds dimensions of additional obstacles she's had to overcome that the guys haven't.

On a positive note, it's a testament to how strong, adaptable, resilient, incredibly intelligent, politically savvy and damn good Hillary is at doing something that is important to her.

Great thread and great article!!!

[Landslide Lyndon]

My favorite media criticism of Clinton is that she is "too ambitious". As opposed I guess to elder statesmen like Rubio and Cruz (or even Obama) who ran for president after many, many years of public service.

[BlueSwan]

B-but the Young Turks told me that the media was in the tank for Hillary and was only giving Bernie negative coverage, if any at all...

[Virginiá]

B-but the Young Turks told me that the media was in the tank for Hillary and was only giving Bernie negative coverage, if any at all...

That's what you get when popular candidates (Sanders, Trump) turn their followers against the media. Sanders has legitimate criticisms, but in his efforts to point it out, he has essentially helped push many of his followers to distrust the corporate media even more. Americans already disliked MSM, and he created an atmosphere where any story/article Bernie supporters didn't like could be attributed to "the biased corporate media".

Now, combine the view among many on the left that Clinton is a corporate Democrat, and the media is the "corporate media", and it becomes easy for them to think that the corporate media is in the tank for the corporate Democrat, because that is CLEARLY the only reason she beat Bernie. Facts and data do not matter here. They see a comparison that at face value makes some sense to them, and they latch on to it because they want it to be true. They want to believe their candidate of choice lost only because the system was rigged against him. That position helps themselves validate their own worldview.

As for Trump, he only scapegoated the media so his followers wouldn't listen to them when they pointed out how absolutely terrible Trump is and how much he lies. It's an excellent scumbag strategy with terrible future consequences.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

My favorite media criticism of Clinton is that she is "too ambitious". As opposed I guess to elder statesmen like Rubio and Cruz (or even Obama) who ran for president after many, many years of public service.

Good point. Perhaps some of this "too ambitious" perception is coming from her being one of the most politically active First Ladies. I wonder if roles were reversed (Hillary being the first female President from 1993 to 2001, and Bill running for President now), perception would be different. It probably would.

B-but the Young Turks told me that the media was in the tank for Hillary and was only giving Bernie negative coverage, if any at all...

Well, they also claimed Armenian Genocide did not occur.

[Curbstomp]

The media have always been pro-Clinton, unfortunately for Hillary Obama was the more electable Democrat. Now he's term barred, they're overwhelmingly with her. And they would have gotten away with it too, if not for those meddling Trumps.

[Higgs]

If you are a female then you know this to be true: that to get ahead in life, you have to do everything twice as good as any male competitor to be considered "better" at something, or "more qualified."

...

Is that why you made that post twice?

[RaphaelDLG]

Media coverage SHOULD be mostly negative, but it should be negative in fair and substantive ways, (i.e., not faux scandals and one set of standards for the Democrats and another, more lenient set of standards for Republicans).

Clinton should receive a lot of negative coverage but it shouldn't be dumb bullsh**t but actual substantive criticism on the issues.  And blatantly incompetent stooges like Trump should not be able to get away with murder if she simultaneously gets tough questions.

[IceSpear]

The media have always been pro-Clinton, unfortunately for Hillary Obama was the more electable Democrat. Now he's term barred, they're overwhelmingly with her. And they would have gotten away with it too, if not for those meddling Trumps.

Your opinion does not trump (no pun intended) multiple objective studies.

Though you are correct they've let up on her significantly since they've discovered they could be responsible for delivering Trump the presidency on a silver platter. Hopefully it's not too late.

[Badger]

If you are a female then you know this to be true: that to get ahead in life, you have to do everything twice as good as any male competitor to be considered "better" at something, or "more qualified."

I've been aware of this for most of my adult life. I'm also aware that most men don't believe it, and it's because they haven't experienced it. Doesn't make the situation none the less true, however.

And I'm not talking sports or activities that involve strength, which men are clearly physically constructed to be better at.

Being a female in politics -- where males dominate and have ever since our country was founded -- Hillary has had to climb hills and jump through hoops that no man has had to, simply because she is a female. And put a "Clinton" after her name and it adds dimensions of additional obstacles she's had to overcome that the guys haven't.

On a positive note, it's a testament to how strong, adaptable, resilient, incredibly intelligent, politically savvy and damn good Hillary is at doing something that is important to her.

Great thread and great article!!!

At the risk of sounding a little patronizingly sexist myself, this is a great post applicable to most successful women in addition to Clinton, and also a clear example of why we need more women on the Forum to give all the basement-dwelling neckbeards here a regular dose of reality.

[Kingpoleon]

84%+28%=112%

Oops.

[Landslide Lyndon]

84%+28%=112%

Oops.

Have you even read the chart before delivering your usual failed snark?

[catographer]

The media has so far treated Trump's attacks as carrying the same weight against Clinton as hers against him. It's just not true!

Whereas Clinton's scathing attacks on Trump are based in facts and supported by fact-checkers, Trump throws at her conspiracy theories and falsehoods sourced from tabloid "journalists."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a0eecb48c6c84aaa9cdad9141fbcd09c/ap-fact-check-trumps-distortions-clinton

[Deblano]

But republicans told me that the media is too soft on Clinton.

The media has been too soft on Saint Bernard Sanders of Vermont, but not on Clinton.