One Chart Exposes How The Media Bashes Hillary Clinton While Promoting Donald Trump

[TomCADem]

I can only imagine how this would look if they were to update this June story with the media's recent efforts to reform Trump by covering his numerous non-existent pivots to the center and so-called outreach to minorities and women.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/18/chart-exposes-media-bashes-hillary-clinton-promoting-donald-trump.html

A single chart from a study at Harvard reveals the depth and degree of the media’s bias against Hillary Clinton and promotion of Donald Trump.

A study by Thomas E. Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press, at Harvard University, showed that while Donald Trump received nearly universally positive coverage in the year leading up to the primaries, media coverage of Hillary Clinton was more negative than that of any other candidate.

Here is a chart that every mainstream journalist should answer for:



While Clinton was getting a mountain of negative coverage, here was Trump’s coverage:

[misterhighwasted]

1. Makes me want to vomit. They have censored her since day one.

The only way they could invent candidate Trump and pass him off as Presidential, was to spend 24/7 tearing Hillary Clinton down.
This is exactly what she has dealt with since she announced her candidacy.

[Egnever]

2. Would need to see the breakdown to buy this

What classified a story as positive and negative.

Might be totally accurate no idea but I have yet to se a story on trump I would call a positive story. He deserves any negativity he gets but I have yet to see a single story where they said anything positive about him. Of course I don't watch TV so it is entirely possible I am only seeing the negative clips.

[TomCADem]

3. I Think The Innumerable Pivot Stories Qualify As Positive

They herald some sort of pivot to the middle suggesting that Trump's prior statements were just for the primaries. Look at the repeated coverage over softening his stance on immigration. Trump did not actually change anything, but he got a lot of positive press for moderating his stance, even though he did no such thing.

[Egnever]

4. Would make it work I guess

but if that is what classifies as a possitive story what does it have to be to be negative?

Really doesn't matter just struck me as odd since I have yet to see anything on him that is possitive for good reason. I have also yet to see him do anything possitive. So maybe it is my own internal bias against him that makes me see all his coverage as negative.