Although we may not already know the outcome of the election, one thing we can for sure be certain is that the election’s media coverage was total garbage. A new study found that Kamala Harris received much more positive airtime than previous president Donald Trump in broadcast evening news coverage than in previous studies. This is the most serious media disparity in the history of presidential campaigns.
Advertisement
The study, released by the Media Research Center, showed “evaluative policy of Harris — excluding” animal competition “assessments— on ABC, CBS and NBC was 78 % beneficial vs. 22 % bad”. As for Trump, he received” just 15 % positive press, vs. 85 % negative coverage”.
” Subtracting Trump’s good push from Harris’s, the benefits to the Democratic nomination was 63 items, the greatest in the modern internet age”.
The worst instance of uneven campaign coverage occurred only four years ago. In 2020, the MRC found former Vice President Joe Biden basked in 66 % positive network coverage, vs. just 8 % positive coverage for then-President Trump, a 58-point imbalance in favor of the Democrats. ( That year’s coverage was also the worst for any presidential nominee, even worse than what Trump received this year and in 2016 ).
The Center for Media and Public Affairs ( CMPA ) conducted comparable studies from 1988 to 2008, while the MRC’s presidential campaign studies only go back in 2016. Using a similar methodology, they found the networks tipped heavily in favor of Illinois Senator Barack Obama in 2008 ( 68 % positive press ), vs. just 33 % positive for Arizona Senator John McCain, a Democratic advantage of 35 points.
[…]
Rounding out the top five worst/most biased campaigns, based on CMPA’s research: in 1992, when the networks championed Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton ( 52 % positive press ) against incumbent President George H. W. Bush ( 29 %, for a gap of 23 points ), and 2004, when Massachusetts Senator John Kerry enjoyed 59 % positive coverage, compared to just 37 % positive for President George W. Bush, a 22 point gap in favor of the Democrats.
Advertisement
In another election years, internet coverage even favored Democrats, according to CMPA, though the differences were less pronounced. In 1996, Bill Clinton garnered 50 % positive coverage, while Republican Bob Dole received just 33 %, creating a 17-point advantage. In 2016, a 12-point gap favored Hillary Clinton, who enjoyed 21 % positive press compared to Trump’s mere 9 %. In 2000, coverage was more balanced, but Democratic Vice President Al Gore still had a slight edge with 40 % positive coverage against George W. Bush’s 37 %, resulting in a narrow three-point lead for the Democrats.
The internet is broken. photograph. twitter.com/KyoncWFcWg— Matt Margolis ( @mattmargolis ) November 5, 2024
Journalists should n’t be ashamed that, according to Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center,” their coverage has consistently favored the Democrats in presidential elections since 1992.” They ought to be concerned that this republican stance has grown significantly over time. And it is definitely shocking that pre-election coverage this year should have been the most absurdly lopsided of all. This is the closest election ever to be held.
Advertisement
