As the dying advertising continue moaning about losing seats project privileges in the White House press lecture room, they might consider: The main three TV network media channels devoted seven times the insurance to the hyped-up” Signalgate” discussion than they did to exact U. S. military airstrikes on Islamic terrorists in Yemen, according to a new research.
Even if they’re good little girls and find their objectives in order, they’ll find to sit next to their besties in the front row again.
The Media Research Center gave The Federalist statistics showing that, in five times, ABC, NBC, and CBS collectively produced nearly 100 hours of airtime on” Signalgate”, the false controversy last week wherein a bizarrely anti-Trump magazine editor was mistakenly added to a group chat with high-level management officials. That figure dwarfs the less than 15 minutes over a similar time frame that the networks used to cover military attacks against the Houthis, the launch of which was discussed in that very chat.
The attacks were launched on Saturday, March 15. From that day to March 19, ABC aired just under 10 minutes on strikes against the Houthis, according to the media watchdog’s analysis. From the day that Atlantic magazine broke the” Signalgate” news, March 24, through March 28, the network aired almost 32 minutes on that story, more than triple the coverage.
In those same time periods, CBS aired just over two minutes on the airstrikes vs. 35 minutes on” Signalgate”. NBC ran about two minutes on the airstrikes vs. more than 32 minutes on” Signalgate”.
” The corporate media believe they have a responsibility to prioritize any news story that could potentially embarrass President Trump”, Media Research Center Senior Analyst BillD’Agostino told me. ” That’s why the broadcast networks have been salivating over this Signal chat. If they were seriously interested in the national security angle, as they would have us believe, then they’d have paid a similar amount of attention to the actual airstrikes discussed in the leaked messages”.
That the dying media genuinely find it more compelling to trifle with the very stupid mistake of letting Jeffrey Goldberg view would-be private conversations over literally anything else, let alone a military operation against a global menace that’s been terrorizing commercial ships and interrupting international trade, is telling.
It tells you this is not a media serious about what’s in the public’s interest, but first and foremost in derailing the president they failed to deny reelection.
