MRC studies negative Trump & Clinton coverage on Big 3 evening news

[Grim17]

I came across this on Drudge and it's a MRC study of the nightly news coverage from ABC, NBC and CBS, of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump from January 1st, through June 6th of this year

TV News Feasts on Trump Controversies While Ignoring Hillary’s Scandals
By Rich Noyes
June 20, 2016
11:02 AM EDT


Excerpt


MRC analysts reviewed all 1,099 stories on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts which talked about the presidential campaign between January 1 through June 7, including weekends. This tally includes 950 full reports and interview segments; 66 short items read by the anchor; plus 83 stories on other topics that included some discussion of one or more of the candidates.


The overall amount of campaign airtime is extraordinary: 2,137 minutes of coverage, or more than one-fourth (26.1%) of all evening news airtime during this period, excluding commercials and teases.


Nearly half of that airtime (1,068 minutes) was spent talking about Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, compared to 583 minutes of coverage for Hillary Clinton. Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination, Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders, came in third, with 366 minutes of coverage, more than any of Trump’s GOP rivals.


Compared to Clinton, a much higher percentage of Trump’s airtime (40 percent, or 432 minutes) was spent discussing the controversies surrounding the Republican’s candidacy. Only 18 percent of Clinton’s coverage (105 minutes) was spent discussing similar controversies, as network reporters paid scant attention to stories that would have garnered far more airtime had Trump been involved.

 

[Redress]

Gotta love that Media Matters source.

Err, I mean MRC, kinda the same thing. All outraged that some one who says outrageous things gets covered for saying outrageous things...

 

[JANFU]

Gotta love that Media Matters source.

Err, I mean MRC, kinda the same thing. All outraged that some one who says outrageous things gets covered for saying outrageous things...

Republicans have begun to build their wall of excuses.

 

[Grim17]

Gotta love that Media Matters source.

Err, I mean MRC, kinda the same thing. All outraged that some one who says outrageous things gets covered for saying outrageous things...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... When it comes to the MRC's media studies, I've been reading them for 15 years now and have found them to be very credible. It's easy to tell they're credible based on the fact that far left websites and blogs like Media Matters (who examine everything they publish), never find anything to dispute their findings, nor do you ever hear any of the networks that they study, dispute their published findings.

To me that speaks volumes... Of course you are free to question their credibility, or continue to insinuate that the MRC's studies should be disregarded, but I expect you have something beside just your word to validate that with?

.

 

[Grim17]

Republicans have begun to build their wall of excuses.

If someone is building some sort of wall, then using facts like these would not only make that wall pretty strong, but it would also mean you could hardly label it "excuses" now could you?

 

[Moot]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... When it comes to the MRC's media studies, I've been reading them for 15 years now and have found them to be very credible. It's easy to tell they're credible based on the fact that far left websites and blogs like Media Matters (who examine everything they publish), never find anything to dispute their findings, nor do you ever hear any of the networks that they study, dispute their published findings.

To me that speaks volumes... Of course you are free to question their credibility, or continue to insinuate that the MRC's studies should be disregarded, but I expect you have something beside just your word to validate that with?

.

So what are we supposed to glean from the MRC study? That Trump sucked all the air away from the other GOP candidates? But that was his plan, wasn't it? Like they say in Hollywood...even bad publicity is better than no publicity at all.

 

[Kobie]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... When it comes to the MRC's media studies, I've been reading them for 15 years now and have found them to be very credible. It's easy to tell they're credible based on the fact that far left websites and blogs like Media Matters (who examine everything they publish), never find anything to dispute their findings, nor do you ever hear any of the networks that they study, dispute their published findings.

To me that speaks volumes... Of course you are free to question their credibility, or continue to insinuate that the MRC's studies should be disregarded, but I expect you have something beside just your word to validate that with?

.

Golly, I wonder why.

 

[Kobie]

Wait, no "left" blogs find anything to dispute the MRC's findings? On what fantasy world?

 

[Grim17]

Golly, I wonder why.

The answer was right there in the very next sentence:

It's easy to tell they're credible based on the fact that far left websites and blogs like Media Matters (who examine everything they publish), never find anything to dispute their findings, nor do you ever hear any of the networks that they study, dispute their published findings.
​

No need to thank me.

 

[Grim17]

So what are we supposed to glean from the MRC study?

Try reading it... That's the best way I know of to answer that question.

 

[Moot]

Try reading it... That's the best way I know of to answer that question.

I already told you what I gleaned from reading it.... "bad publicity is better than no publicity at all".

Am I right?

 

[Hatuey]

Golly, I wonder why.

He has confirmed them using his own at home studies. Serious stuff.

 

[Redress]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... When it comes to the MRC's media studies, I've been reading them for 15 years now and have found them to be very credible. It's easy to tell they're credible based on the fact that far left websites and blogs like Media Matters (who examine everything they publish), never find anything to dispute their findings, nor do you ever hear any of the networks that they study, dispute their published findings.

To me that speaks volumes... Of course you are free to question their credibility, or continue to insinuate that the MRC's studies should be disregarded, but I expect you have something beside just your word to validate that with?

.

Of course you find them credible, they tell you what you want to hear. You consider bias to be anything that is not spun your preferred way, and MRC does the same, so you luvs you some MRC.

 

[Grim17]

Of course you find them credible, they tell you what you want to hear. You consider bias to be anything that is not spun your preferred way, and MRC does the same, so you luvs you some MRC.

So I'm guessing that you have nothing to present, that casts any doubt on the credibility of this, or any other study on the media they've done?

Of course you don't...

.

 

[Redress]

So I'm guessing that you have nothing to present, that casts any doubt on the credibility of this, or any other study on the media they've done?

Of course you don't...

.

Like I did in post number 2 of this thread? But I will give you credit, you have a little bit of a point. It is so incredibly unfair that the Pittsburgh Penguins are getting more media coverage this last month than my beloved Red Wings. Surely it is bias, and not that the Penguins have done more that is newsworthy and would attract viewers/readers. I bet if I did a study like MRC did, I could even prove that bias, at least to those who see bias in everything.

 

[Deuce]

It's interesting that right-wingers think the media should spend more time covering a 20 year old sex scandal committed by someone other than the candidate

 

[Grim17]

Like I did in post number 2 of this thread?

I saw nothing what so ever that discredits this, or any other studies they've done.

 

[Redress]

I saw nothing what so ever that discredits this, or any other studies they've done.

Of course not, just like you saw nothing in my quoted post to discount it, after you cut it out, hoping no one would notice...

 

[Grim17]

Of course not, just like you saw nothing in my quoted post to discount it, after you cut it out, hoping no one would notice...

Cut what out?

All I'm saying is, if you are going to imply that their studies aren't credible, it would be nice if you posted something to corroborate that opinion. Otherwise, your implication has absolutely no merit.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Gotta love that Media Matters source.

Err, I mean MRC, kinda the same thing. All outraged that some one who says outrageous things gets covered for saying outrageous things...

Republicans have begun to build their wall of excuses.

Wait, no "left" blogs find anything to dispute the MRC's findings? On what fantasy world?

He has confirmed them using his own at home studies. Serious stuff.

Of course you find them credible, they tell you what you want to hear. You consider bias to be anything that is not spun your preferred way, and MRC does the same, so you luvs you some MRC.

Of course not, just like you saw nothing in my quoted post to discount it, after you cut it out, hoping no one would notice...

All this talk about how MRC is biased and all of you implying that the number's they're showing isn't accurate...how about instead of just going back and forth why not provide some evidence of your claims? I've yet to see one link to any media news source claiming that what MRC has said is false or not represented accurately. Lot's of talk, but no proof. I'd imagine that if at least ONE of you provided such proof the conversation in this thread would move outside of the "nuh uh!"/"uh huh!" stage.

 

[Redress]

Cut what out?

All I'm saying is, if you are going to imply that their studies aren't credible, it would be nice if you posted something to corroborate that opinion. Otherwise, your implication has absolutely no merit.

Yes, you cut out everything commenting on what the "study" did, since that would kinda defeat your point. Did you think no one would notice?

 

[Kobie]

All this talk about how MRC is biased and all of you implying that the number's they're showing isn't accurate...how about instead of just going back and forth why not provide some evidence of your claims? I've yet to see one link to any media news source claiming that what MRC has said is false or not represented accurately. Lot's of talk, but no proof. I'd imagine that if at least ONE of you provided such proof the conversation in this thread would move outside of the "nuh uh!"/"uh huh!" stage.

MRC studies that "prove" media's "liberal bias" collapse under scrutiny

 

[Redress]

All this talk about how MRC is biased and all of you implying that the number's they're showing isn't accurate...how about instead of just going back and forth why not provide some evidence of your claims? I've yet to see one link to any media news source claiming that what MRC has said is false or not represented accurately. Lot's of talk, but no proof. I'd imagine that if at least ONE of you provided such proof the conversation in this thread would move outside of the "nuh uh!"/"uh huh!" stage.

How about you read the ****ing thread and see the points actually made about the study.

 

[Kal'Stang]

MRC studies that "prove" media's "liberal bias" collapse under scrutiny

Thank you Kobie. Now maybe the conversation can progress.

How about you read the ****ing thread and see the points actually made about the study.

You know, instead of going off like that you could have done the same thing that Kobie just did. There was no reason to be rude about it.

 

[Grim17]

Yes, you cut out everything commenting on what the "study" did, since that would kinda defeat your point. Did you think no one would notice?

I cut out nothing... I posted an excerpt (as per the rules of this forum) from the write up that surmised what the study found. I posted a link to that write up so every member of this forum who might be interested, could read it for themselves.

You on the other hand, imply that the study should be dismissed due to a lack of credibility, yet you have posted no evidence to substantiate your implication.

If you think their studies are bogus, then surely you must have examples of this? The MRC has been doing studies like this for more than 25 years, so if they weren't credible as you say, there must be evidence out there proving this... Right?