Current Events > Harvard Study on election coverage media consumed by liberals and conservatives

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33759251/2017-08_electionReport_0.pdf?sequence=9

Abstract:

In this study, we analyze both mainstream and social media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election. We document that the majority of mainstream media coverage was negative for both candidates, but largely followed Donald Trump's agenda: when reporting on Hillary Clinton, coverage primarily focused on the various scandals related to the Clinton Foundation and emails. When focused on Trump, major substantive issues, primarily immigration, were prominent. Indeed, immigration emerged as a central issue in the campaign and served as a defining issue for the Trump campaign.

We find that the structure and composition of media on the right and left are quite different. The leading media on the right and left are rooted in different traditions and journalistic practices. On the conservative side, more attention was paid to pro-Trump, highly partisan media outlets. On the liberal side, by contrast, the center of gravity was made up largely of long-standing media organizations steeped in the traditions and practices of objective journalism.

Our data supports lines of research on polarization in American politics that focus on the asymmetric patterns between the left and the right, rather than studies that see polarization as a general historical phenomenon, driven by technology or other mechanisms that apply across the partisan divide.

The analysis includes the evaluation and mapping of the media landscape from several perspectives and is based on large-scale data collection of media stories published on the web and shared on Twitter.

I do not find this surprising.
---

Why did you delete the other topic?
---

Zaltera posted...

Why did you delete the other topic?

My title was misleading. It was election coverage being studied not all media. This topic is more accurate. As with liberals' preference in election media coverage, I prefer to be as objective as possible when I present new information.
---

Harvard wasting money on the most obvious study ever. Did they forget that America lived this shit?
---

lilORANG posted...

Harvard wasting money on the most obvious study ever. Did they forget that America lived this shit?

their endowment is measured in the tens of billions, they can spare it to document and confirm what we all think we know. it is very important to act in response to facts and not beliefs.
---

If I'm understanding it correctly, essentially it highlights the failures of both sides of the divide; the left gave Trump's campaign platform its wings without him really needing to try through an obsessive focus outshining anything put towards proactive democrat campaigning, and the right just continues to publish what is essentially propaganda.
---

Been saying this forever, it's why we need a REAL left wing foil to Fox News and a stronger liberal media.

pinky0926 posted...

If I'm understanding it correctly, essentially it highlights the failures of both sides of the divide; the left gave Trump's campaign platform its wings without him really needing to try through an obsessive focus outshining anything put towards proactive democrat campaigning, and the right just continues to publish what is essentially propaganda.

more or less, yes. trump was viewed as a sort of spectacle by objective media which let his campaign set the dialogue. clinton's platform was largely ignored by them. and the more partisan conservative media had no interest in giving her a voice.
---

Darkman124 posted...

As with liberals' preference in election media coverage, I prefer to be as objective as possible when I present new information.

This election cycle proved that liberals cannot be objective when it comes to media coverage.
---

darkjedilink posted...

This election cycle proved that liberals cannot be objective when it comes to media coverage.

the data in the study i linked suggests you are wrong.
---

Really interesting, thanks for posting this.
---

Darkman124 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

This election cycle proved that liberals cannot be objective when it comes to media coverage.

the data in the study i linked suggests you are wrong.

gotta hand it to him though for rushing in here to provide further reinforcement to the outcome of the study
---

The Admiral posted...

Really interesting, thanks for posting this.

i was particularly pleased to discover that the full text was available. glad to provide useful content here.
---

I hadn't really put together before that Trump's negative coverage included negative coverage of some of his policy issues as opposed to just scandal.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

This is slightly unrelated, but at the time of the election I was heavily involved in some Republican political campaigns (more on the state-level) and was chest-deep working on some projects for the Bush Foundation and Library. As a result, I was working closely with a lot of 1990s Republican political advisors, politicians, etc.

Point is, every single one of them told me that Trump didn't have a chance in hell to get the presidency. I was sincerely shocked when I learned Trump won because so many politically-active Republicans I was working with at that time had told me differently.

yeah, from what i understand his own campaign's internal models only put him at 30% and that was because they were focusing on the lost popular vote/won electoral vote scenario that most thought was improbable

nate silver also had said that was probably trump's best path to victory. it always seemed remote, and it rested on a series of statistical anomalies

also, i had no idea you worked with republican campaigns on any level. it makes some sense to me, given your background as a small business owner, just never had thought about that. was this your first campaign, or have you done it before?
---

Frolex posted...

Darkman124 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

This election cycle proved that liberals cannot be objective when it comes to media coverage.

the data in the study i linked suggests you are wrong.

gotta hand it to him though for rushing in here to provide further reinforcement to the outcome of the study

Are you really suggesting that giving Hillary Clinton advance debate questions, and having her campaign ghostwrite articles about her, are examples of journalistic objectivity? Or that their working with the DNC to get Trump nominated so Hillary had an 'easy win' was them being objective?
---

on a purely semantic note, the conflation of "liberal" with "left" never ceases to bother me

interesting study aside from that though.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Are you really suggesting that giving Hillary Clinton advance debate questions, and having her campaign ghostwrite articles about her, are examples of journalistic objectivity? Or that their working with the DNC to get Trump nominated so Hillary had an 'easy win' was them being objective?

the study provides evidence that the amount of media attention placed on such events (negative coverage of clinton)--even within liberal-preferred sources--greatly outstripped the amount of media generated by these actions.

you should really at least read the abstract. the whole study is quite interesting, though, if you go into it without your shields up desperate to find a way to cling to the conclusions you drew before you clicked the topic.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Frolex posted...

Darkman124 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

This election cycle proved that liberals cannot be objective when it comes to media coverage.

the data in the study i linked suggests you are wrong.

gotta hand it to him though for rushing in here to provide further reinforcement to the outcome of the study

Are you really suggesting that giving Hillary Clinton advance debate questions, and having her campaign ghostwrite articles about her, are examples of journalistic objectivity? Or that their working with the DNC to get Trump nominated so Hillary had an 'easy win' was them being objective?

Just read the damn study
---

averagejoel posted...

on a purely semantic note, the conflation of "liberal" with "left" never ceases to bother me

Same. I don't know when exactly liberal changed from meaning "classical liberal" to meaning "leftist". In the US at least, since I don't think it's as widespread here in Europe, for example.

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Frolex posted...

Darkman124 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

This election cycle proved that liberals cannot be objective when it comes to media coverage.

the data in the study i linked suggests you are wrong.

gotta hand it to him though for rushing in here to provide further reinforcement to the outcome of the study

Are you really suggesting that giving Hillary Clinton advance debate questions, and having her campaign ghostwrite articles about her, are examples of journalistic objectivity? Or that their working with the DNC to get Trump nominated so Hillary had an 'easy win' was them being objective?

Just read the damn study

I did. It's flawed, due to the reasons I listed that it conveniently ignores.
---

Darkman124 posted...

yeah, from what i understand his own campaign's internal models only put him at 30% and that was because they were focusing on the lost popular vote/won electoral vote scenario that most thought was improbable

The biggest thing that should come from this election, at least in terms of polling, is the general inaccuracy of state polling, especially in smaller and more rural areas. While I do tend to blame stuff like gerrymandering and the purging of registered voters(Specifically in Wisconsin and Michigan), the fact is that most of the state polling was off somewhere around 6-9% points in the those two that flipped and gave him the election, as well as the rest of the rust belt. But places like PA or Florida were within the MoE, IIRC

I do wonder how much this is a result of Trump and the campaign in general and the whole "lying to pollsters/FAKE NEWS!" stuff that was impossible to measure. S
---

This should be a good read, though it might take a bit of time to digest. I'm curious if it provides any foreshadowing of the next election.
---

luigi13579 posted...

averagejoel posted...

on a purely semantic note, the conflation of "liberal" with "left" never ceases to bother me

Same. I don't know when exactly liberal changed from meaning "classical liberal" to meaning "leftist". In the US at least, since I don't think it's as widespread here in Europe, for example.

my best guess: US politics have shifted really far to the right. Democrats are right-wing; Republicans are far right. even Bernie Sanders is barely left of center
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

This should be a good read, though it might take a bit of time to digest. I'm curious if it provides any foreshadowing of the next election.

My guess is any future election will be decided by whoever is able to target the right voters at a higher resolution using social media and big data.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

This should be a good read, though it might take a bit of time to digest. I'm curious if it provides any foreshadowing of the next election.

My guess is any future election will be decided by whoever is able to target the right voters at a higher resolution using social media and big data.

which helps us see why the electoral college remains unchallenged by existing authorities on either side, despite its unpopularity: it reduces the total number of necessary targets to a fraction of the whole. with CA and Texas predetermined, little money and effort need be spent targeting voters there. instead it all can be poured into FL.

the idea of empowering small states has been a soundbyte, but pretty much all small states lose power in the EC, since a voter from their state has almost no chance of influencing an election, whereas a voter in FL/PA/OH/MI/WI has a great deal of power, and those states would already have significant influence in a popular vote system; in the EC they have all the power. which is why we really only see trolls repeating that mantra here now
---

Darkman124 posted...

which helps us see why the electoral college remains unchallenged by existing authorities on either side, despite its unpopularity: it reduces the total number of necessary targets to a fraction of the whole. with CA and Texas predetermined, little money and effort need be spent targeting voters there. instead it all can be poured into FL.

the idea of empowering small states has been a soundbyte, but pretty much all small states lose power in the EC, since a voter from their state has almost no chance of influencing an election, whereas a voter in FL/PA/OH/MI/WI has a great deal of power, and those states would already have significant influence in a popular vote system; in the EC they have all the power. which is why we really only see trolls repeating that mantra here now

I wonder how costs scale, though, with access to such high granularity in their marketing. A significant amount of the work will be done by clever networks and decision support systems.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

The first campaign I worked on was for a Republican senator out of Louisana. Since then I've worked on the most recent Houston Mayoral campaign, a few more state senators, a congressman, and I still continue to work for the Bush Foundation as a social media consultant.

This all came about from the company I used to work for. I left that job and got another job (my current job), but still consult on the side.

For some reason it's always with Republicans. But I will say that I've liked every politician I've worked with, despite me not being Republican.

what kind of work were you doing, if you don't mind me asking? or, if you don't prefer to be specific, is this purely for social media management stuff?

edit:

Darkman124 posted...

the idea of empowering small states has been a soundbyte, but pretty much all small states lose power in the EC, since a voter from their state has almost no chance of influencing an election, whereas a voter in FL/PA/OH/MI/WI has a great deal of power, and those states would already have significant influence in a popular vote system; in the EC they have all the power. which is why we really only see trolls repeating that mantra here now

I would argue that voters in small swing states like NV and NH have as much influence as voters in larger, less swing-y states like WI or MI but that doesn't change your argument really
---

Balrog0 posted...

I would argue that voters in small swing states like NV and NH have as much influence as voters in larger, less swing-y states like WI or MI but that doesn't change your argument really

i am referencing 538's voter power index, and you are correct that NV/NH/NM are the top 3 on that.

but after them? it's all big states for the next 10-ish spots, then alaska and NE-2, then more big states.

ultimately, the marketed intent of the EC is for 'individual voter power' to be roughly comparable state-to-state with a statistically significant advantage to most smaller states, balancing their lesser population. instead, the ten states at the top of the power index have more than the rest combined, and the lower half have almost no power at all.
---

its also probably worth pointing out that those are pretty moderately sized states when compared to truly tiny states like Vermont or Wyoming
---

Balrog0 posted...

its also probably worth pointing out that those are pretty moderately sized states when compared to truly tiny states like Vermont or Wyoming

also true.
---