Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage - VOX.com

[Bill USA]

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-bernie-sanders

The biggest news outlets published more negative stories about Hillary Clinton than any other presidential candidate — including Donald Trump — from January 2015 to April 2016, according to an analysis of hundreds of thousands of online stories.

Clinton has not only been hammered by the most negative coverage but the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her, reports Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company based out of Boston.



Data from Crimson Hexagon; graphic by Vox's Javier Zarracina

An analysis from Crimson Hexagon shows Hillary Clinton getting the most negative coverage of the presidential candidates. The data is based on hundreds of thousands of online news stories published since January 1, 2015.

Of course, these numbers are just one way of looking at media bias in the presidential campaign. For instance, while the press has hit Clinton more frequently, Crimson Hexagon also found that it's paid much more attention to her than to Bernie Sanders. And, by design, this kind of analysis may overlook other ways the press can hurt a candidate — like Sanders — by downplaying or dismissing his or her chances.

Still, Sanders's supporters have widely accused the media of being in the tank for Clinton. And these numbers suggest that perception may not square with reality.
(more)

[CrowCityDem]

1. That's been obvious.

I don't know how the Bernie people actually make the argument that the media has been unfair to him with a straight face. Hillary has always faced an unprecedented amount of negative press, and it's been going on for twenty-five years now. Seeing the way he and his supporters reacted to the few days of press that came from Burlington College and Nevada convention stories, they obviously have had precious little experience dealing with a truly negative media.

[Bill USA]

4. I think their definition of 'negative coverage' is anything less than enthralled rapturous praise of

their candidate.... LOL!

[eastwestdem]

2. No one can seriously say that the glass ceiling does not still exist.

Everything about this election brings up more double standards regarding women than some of us even realized were there.

[grossproffit]

11. Yes, and those saying it would be different for another women are either delusional, lying or both.

[Cosmocat]

3. No shit

I truly get that she is FAR too tight with big money, too much of a hawk, I get what puts people off her and all ...

But, I get fed the fuck up with the way people talk about her.

[apcalc]

5. The media boys make sure of it.

[AtomicKitten]

6. The so-called negative media coverage is coverage of her corruption, and that's on her.

[Xyzse]

9. That, is unfortunately true.

The focus is on the investigations, and since the story has not been ended/stonewalled, it will of course breed rampant speculation.

[Skwmom]

7. That is pure propaganda about Clinton and Bernie.

[catnhatnh]

8. As long as we are showing percentages

Why not show total numbers as well? If Bernie is only covered z number of times and Hillary is covered z x 6, well that's a pretty bad problem for a candidate starting a campaign with low name recognition....

[mikehiggins]

10. What a crock.

No one who has been paying attention to what the media has been doing would believe this for a New York minute.

Is this some more "poor Hillary" stuff intended to justify the fact that Sanders has had such an impact on the general population even without all the advantages his opponent started out with?

She is a weak candidate and Trump might very well expose that early on.

[betsuni]

12. Oh, I hate the "media are in the tank for Clinton" nonsense.

But of course that's Bizarro World.