Donald Trump dominates the elite media's news coverage, with much of
the coverage negative, "setting a new standard for unfavorable press
coverage of a president," according to a new study of the press via Harvard University.
The study from the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public
Policy exhibits a firm if still intriguing grasp of the obvious when it
comes to a certain slice of press coverage.
Indeed, as tends to be the case with such dissections, it analyzes
coverage by those media that academia (and the press itself) tend to be
most drawn to: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The
Washington Post, the primary newscasts of CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC. It
includes Europe's Financial Times, BBC and Germany’s ARD.
There's nothing about a vast array of other outlets, especially news
outlets, that tend to have far greater audiences, especially in local
markets. How much time have they devoted to Trump and what's been the
editorial thrust?
Still, to the extent that a narrow slice sets influential news
agendas, the report is useful as it scrutinizes coverage of Trump's
first 100 days and finds he was "the topic of 41 percent of all news
stories — three times the amount of coverage received by previous
presidents."
"Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his
presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on
balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for
unfavorable press coverage of a president," reads the report by Thomas Patterson, a respected government and press analyst.
"Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving
Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the
tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic."
Patterson's larger historical analysis offers the helpful reminder
that bashing the media is not a new phenomenon for a president. There's a
long history and, while the report argues that Trump is different by
being so public and so obviously relishing a fight, it notes how others,
notably Richard Nixon, threatened the press with serious injury (in
Nixon's case, the never-executed threat of yanking broadcast licenses).
The report portrays a media that was initially solicitous to Trump,
later more critical and, now, distinctly combative. And, all along, he
was fascinating and clearly a positive influence on ratings and
circulation, especially on the digital side of elite newspapers.
"Our studies of 2016 presidential election coverage found that Trump
received more news coverage than rival candidates during virtually every
week of the campaign. The reason is clear enough. Trump is a
journalist’s dream."
"Reporters are tuned to what’s new and different, better yet if it’s
laced with controversy. Trump delivers that type of material by the
shovel full. Trump is also good for business. News ratings were slumping
until Trump entered the arena. Said one network executive, '[Trump] may
not be good for America, but [he’s] damn good for [us].'"
The report serves as a window, too, onto the mentality of journalists
— in ways that might ruffle Fox News and other exemplars of
conservative conventional wisdom in portraying the "mainstream" press as
driven by liberal bias.
"Although journalists are accused of having a liberal bias, their real bias is a preference for the negative."
Patterson harkens to the Vietnam War and Watergate eras in arguing
that an anti-political mindset overrode personal political ideology and
has remained in place.
"Journalists’ incentives, everything from getting their stories on
the air to acquiring a reputation as a hard-hitting reporter, encourage
journalists to focus on what’s wrong with politicians rather than what’s
right."
And there's this interesting empirical tidbit: "Of the past four
presidents, only Barack Obama received favorable coverage during his
first 100 days, after which the press reverted to form."
Trump coverage has accelerated what had been a norm, it appears,
setting what the report deems "a new standard for negativity." And
that's despite the disproportionate amount of the time that Trump
himself is quoted, which is seemingly unusual in a world in which
politicians tend to bitch that their low esteem partly reflects the
press not airing or giving space to their own declarations.
Reliance on Trump's own comments aside, "Of news reports with a clear
tone, negative reports outpaced positive ones by 80 percent to 20
percent. Trump’s coverage was unsparing. In no week did the coverage
drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its
peak."
The report also takes subject categories, such as immigration and the economy, to assess how they've been handled.
There are some differences — immigration was overwhelmingly harsh,
economic coverage not nearly as much — but one common denominator is
that while most of the elite press was negative, Fox News was less so
(interestingly, The Wall Street Journal resembled the others more than
it did Fox).
At the same time, the elite media caricature of Fox as unremitting
Trump shill gets its comeuppance under this more empirical lens (that
also includes interesting results on the dominance of Republican
newsmakers in commenting upon Trump).
Yes, Fox gave Trump favorable coverage but not overwhelmingly so. By
this analysis, the "split was 52 percent negative to 48 percent
positive." Liberals' assumption that Fox is handmaiden to the White
House Press Office needs more than one asterisk.
No surprise, Fox coverage differed as a function of the topic at
hand, with some very negative, some very positive. And, "As was true at
the other outlets, Fox’s reporters found few good things to say about
the public and judicial response to Trump’s executive orders banning
Muslim immigrants or the collapse of the House of Representatives’ first
attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare."
"Fox’s reporting on Trump’s appointees and Russian involvement in the election was also negative in tone."
The report ultimately demurs from concluding if the press has been
unfair. But it seems to strain to straddle a fence that includes its own
deep suspicions (perhaps typical in academic halls these days) about
Trump and the arguable implication that negative coverage is warranted.
"If a mud fight with Trump will not serve the media’s interests,
neither will a soft peddling of his coverage. Never in the nation’s
history has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the
facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential
office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy."
Yes, it agrees, the credibility of the press is low. But, it also
underscores, "the Trump presidency is not the time for the press to pull
back" even while conceding, "the sheer level of negative coverage gives
weight to Trump’s contention, one shared by his core constituency, that
the media are hell bent on destroying his presidency."
It concludes with brief reference to one seeming legacy of 2016
campaign coverage: the press missing the concerns of "Main Street."
"The lesson of the 2016 election has been taken to heart by many
journalists. Since Trump’s inauguration, the press has been paying more
attention to Main Street. But judging from the extent to which Trump’s
voice has dominated coverage of his presidency, the balance is still
off."
Of course, that might also apply to elite academics, too.