Harvard Study Says Media Coverage Built Up Trump, Tore Down Clinton

[MrWendel]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/harvard-study-says-media-coverage-built-up-trump-tore-down-hillary/

by Ken Meyer



The Harvard Kennedy School released an extensive new analysis today, and it’s shedding some interesting light on how media coverage drove the 2016 election.

The Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy was interested in determining how “good” and “bad” press reflected the rise of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to their respective nominations. Though Trump has criticized the media on a more frequent basis than Clinton due to his penchant for controversy, the study concluded that his media coverage has been much more positive for him than it’s been for the former Secretary of State.

Drawing on multiple sources, the study measured the extent to which Trump benefited from the “free media” journalists repeatedly gave his campaign and general antics. Though Trump didn’t raise much money for his campaign and had no real political leg to stand on when he started off, the analysis was that journalistic interest lifted him to the top of the polls fast enough to survive what would have been “political suicide” for other conventional figures:

Although journalists play a political brokering role in presidential primaries, their decisions are driven by news values rather than political values. Journalists are attracted to the new, the unusual, the sensational—the type of story material that will catch and hold an audience’s attention. Trump fit that need as no other candidate in recent memory. Trump is arguably the first bona fide media-created presidential nominee. Although he subsequently tapped a political nerve, journalists fueled his launch.

The study went on to argue that coverage by and large had a positive effect on Trump. This was calculated to give him a media edge of approximately $19 million over his closest competitor in media interest, Jeb Bush.

The study concluded that the Democratic race received much less coverage compared to the GOP. This started to change, however, after Bernie Sanders established himself as Clinton’s viable primary competitor. Indeed, the two candidates both drew attention from several dust-ups as they fought it out for the past few months.

Despite most of Sanders’ coverage seemingly being positive, the analysis concluded that he still was hurt by receiving less coverage than his competition. By contrast, Clinton’s issue-oriented media interest eclipsed both sides of the aisle, but 84% percent of it was negative, as she still observes a tepid relationship with the media.

[mcar]

1. No surprise there

Odd, though, how some people still insist that the media is in HRC's camp.

[Martin Eden]

2. And Trump complains about the media

His campaign would be nowhere without all the free advertising.

[rurallib]

3. the media has spent 25 or more years tearing down the Clintons

good to see someone pointing it out.

I believe Clinton also gets a short shrift simply because she is a woman. Prejudices run deep among journalists.
Put another way, Trump gets a pass on many things because he is male.

[BooScout]

4. The media is looking for who and what gives them the most money...

Money drives the media.... the more sensational the story, the more views and clicks they get and the higher ratings they get. BENGHAZI makes money. A WALL makes money. The most qualified candidate in a lifetime is boring and doesn't.

America has the attention span of a gnat.....and lives on sound bites.

[ucrdem]

5. Yep.

Bernie was the toast of the town all last spring and summer until that fateful day in October . . .



. . . and that was all she wrote!

[anotherproletariat]

6. This seems to be an accurate assessment of reality. nt

[Surya Gayatri]

7. Massive K & R. Thanks for posting.

[orwell]

8. So let me get this straight...

...people constantly rip the "MSM" until it confirms their bias. Then all of a sudden the same "MSM" is held up as the quotable source du jour.

RW media is evil until it rips your opponent, then it becomes the linkable "trustworthy source."

Of course they are in it for the money. If it bleeds it leads.

What's our excuse?

[Maru Kitteh]

10. Well, it's a Harvard study but

aside from that, having trouble following your logic or suggestion here. Do you suggest collectively that we should never quote or link to accepted mainstream sources of media? What superior alternative do you suggest?

[One of the 99]

9. And all this time I thought the media was in the tank for Clinton.

Silly me.

[Maru Kitteh]

11. That's funny.

[stevenleser]

12. No one thinking clearly would have said that. She has been hammered for the last few years

in the media.

She defeated Sanders despite that and will defeat Trump despite it as well.

[One of the 99]

13. You realize that I was joking? nt

[stevenleser]

18. Yes, my comment wasnt really directed at you.

[AgingAmerican]

14. MSNBC is still all Trump, all the time

[eastwestdem]

15. No doubt about this...I think we all saw it unfolding this way.

Does MSNBC cover Donald's every word because it's good for ratings? If so...people need to wake up! (Turn the channel as soon as he comes on!)

[eastwestdem]

16. If you have cable, don't just turn off the TV...as long as your cable box is on and tuned to MSNBC,

that info will be sent to the cable company. My neighbor works for Comcast (the big cable provider around here) and says that the old school "Neilson Households" are being rapidly replaced since the new technology in digital cable sends viewership data directly to the networks.

[Lord Magus]

17. And yet we keep hearing claims that the media is in the tank for Hillary.

Amazing that there are people who actually believe the media has ever been pro-Clinton.