- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 34,478
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Location
- Southwestern U.S.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
Republicans have begun to build their wall of excuses.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...
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.
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?
.
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.
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.
Golly, I wonder why.
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.
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?
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?