The coverage of the 2016 general election was marked with overwhelming negativity, according to a new report from The Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center, released on Dec. 7.
The study, which analyzed news reports on the main newscasts from the major cable and broadcast networks along with major daily newspapers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, slammed the press for what it concluded was the “corrosive effect” of mostly negative news throughout the general election.
“Negative news has partisan consequences,” the study’s author, Thomas Patterson, wrote. “Given that journalists bash both sides, it might be thought the impact would be neutral. It’s not … If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there’s a leveling effect that opens the door to charlatans. The press historically has helped citizens recognize the difference between the earnest politician and the pretender. Today’s news coverage blurs the distinction.”
According to the analysis, both candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump “received coverage that was overwhelmingly negative in tone and extremely light on policy.” Trump was covered slightly more negatively than Clinton over the course of the general election, with coverage being 77 percent negative to 23 percent positive compared to Clinton coverage running 64 percent negative to 36 percent positive coverage. But over the course of the entire campaign, Clinton was covered more negatively than Trump, with 62 percent negative and 38 percent positive coverage compared to Trump’s coverage, which was 56 percent negative and 44 percent positive.
Both candidates received equally negative coverage on reports related to the candidates’ fitness for office, including stories about their leadership abilities, ethics, policy positions and personal qualities. Coverage for both candidates on those issues ran at about 87 percent negative to 13 percent positive. The press paid more attention to Clinton’s controversies than to Trump’s, and the tone of that coverage, which made up at least 7 percent of all Clinton coverage every week, was more than 90 percent negative.
“The mainstream press highlights what’s wrong with politics without also telling us what’s right,” Patterson wrote. “It’s a version of politics that rewards a particular brand of politics. When everything and everybody is portrayed as deeply flawed, there’s no sense making distinctions on that score, which works to the advantage of those who are more deeply flawed. Civility and sound proposals are no longer the stuff of headlines, which instead give voice to those who are skilled in the art of destruction.”
Patterson wrote that the negative coverage throughout the general election was beneficial to the right.
“Although conservatives claim that the press has a liberal bias, the media’s persistent criticism of government reinforces the right wing’s anti-government message. For years on end, journalists have told news audiences that political leaders are not to be trusted and that government is inept … The news creates a seedbed of public anger, misperception, and anxiety- sitting there waiting to be tapped by those who have a stake in directing the public’s wrath at government.”
Overall, Trump received more press attention than Clinton, with Trump receiving an average of 15 percent more coverage than Clinton did. Patterson slammed reporters who have defended their coverage of Trump by citing his availability to the press, accusing them of taking the bait on Trump’s words and actions, which he said were tailor-made for easy stories.
“Trump’s dominant presence in the news stemmed from the fact that his words and actions were ideally suited to journalists’ story needs,” he wrote. “The news is not about what’s ordinary or expected. It’s about what’s new and different, better yet when laced with conflict and outrage. Trump delivered that type of material by the cart load.”
