Tag: mainstream media

Evening News 150 Times More Negative Of Trump Than Biden

As every press conference indicates, the mainstream media and President Trump have a rancorous relationship, but how deep does the press’ antipathy go? A recent study says lopsided coverage of the two presidential candidates is pervasive among all major media outlets.

According to the conservative Media Research Center, which tracks media bias, evening newscasts, which are some of the highest-rated programs on television today, have given President Trump 150 times more negative coverage than Joe Biden throughout this presidential campaign so far.

“From June 1 through July 31, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts focused 512 minutes of airtime on the President, or nine times more than the 58 minutes allotted to Biden,” reported Newsbusters. “This is an even wider gap than the spring when Trump received seven times more coverage than Biden (523 minutes vs. 75 minutes).”

“During these two months, our analysts documented 668 evaluative statements about the President, 95% of which (634) were negative, vs. a mere five% (34) that were positive,” the report continued. “Using the same methodology (fully described at the end of this article), we found very few evaluative statements about Joe Biden — just a dozen, two-thirds of which (67%) were positive.”

In those same two months, virtually every negative story about Biden — from Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations to his sharp leftward shift, to his apparent racial gaffes — was all swept under the rug or dramatically under-reported, even as the newscasts continued to negatively cover President Trump. The former vice president’s own policy platform, which includes massive expansions of government health care, education, and environmental programs, received just “a meager 5 minutes, 22 seconds of airtime, not one second of which included any critical analysis from any journalist.”

Keep reading

The Russia-Obsessed Media Does Its Best to Ignore Clinesmith’s Guilty Plea

As news broke Friday that John Durham’s criminal probe into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation had resulted in a former FBI lawyer being charged with doctoring FISA evidence used against the Trump campaign, the formerly Russia-obsessed mainstream media did its best to look the other way.

Kevin Clinesmith, who first worked on the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team and then under special counsel Robert Mueller — only to be fired in February 2018 after it was revealed he sent anti-Trump messages — will plead guilty to one count of making false statements. Clinesmith’s admission came after Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz faulted him in a December report for doctoring an email to state that former Trump-campaign national security adviser Carter Page was “not a source” for the CIA — when in fact the email from a CIA official stated the opposite.

Clinesmith’s plea is not an indictment, but a “criminal information,” in which the defendant seeks to avoid being charged by a grand jury. As National Review’s Andy McCarthy has pointed out, such a move is often made under a cooperation agreement, suggesting that Clinesmith could be working with Durham.

Despite the plea’s status as the first major development in Durham’s investigation, the media barely batted an eye, abandoning the Russia saga after providing wall-to-wall coverage of Michael Flynn’s plea deal with Robert Mueller in December 2017.

Keep reading