Depending on who you believe, Donald Trump won the election because of Russian hackers, last-minute FBI announcements, fake news, or because Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate. A new study from the Harvard Kennedy School pins the blame on the news media—specifically the “overwhelmingly negative” tone of news coverage and the “extremely light” coverage of policy issues.
The study, from the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, examined print editions of the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and USA Today, the main newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as CNN’s The Situation Room and Fox’s Special Report.
The report should be required reading for political journalists trying to understand Trump’s victory. The study found that 62% of the coverage of Clinton and 56% of the coverage of Trump was negative in tone. These numbers actually overstate the amount of positive press the candidates received. Most of the “positive” stories here were about new poll numbers. Each one of these horse race stories was “good press” for one candidate and “bad press” for the other.
On top of receiving more positive press than Clinton, Trump received 15% more press coverage overall than Clinton. His policy ideas received more attention than Clinton’s, and Clinton’s scandals received more coverage than Trump’s. The number of stories focused on Clinton’s emails and ongoing investigations peaked in the final two weeks of the campaign.
According to the study’s author, Trump dominated the news because his behavior met the stories' demands. "The news is not about what’s ordinary or expected," the study says. "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.” Trump packaged news into easily digestible and deliciously controversial bites. As a result, his message (“make America great again”) was simply heard more often than Clinton’s (“stronger together”).
The “overwhelmingly negative” tone of campaign coverage also helped normalize Trump. “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.” Countless voters viewed Clinton and Trump as equally flawed because of the media’s bias towards negativity.
In fact, the study argues, “[t]he real bias of the press is not that it’s liberal. Its bias is a decided preference for the negative…. The mainstream press highlights what’s wrong with politics without also telling us what’s right.... Civility and sound proposals are no longer the stuff of headlined.” Presidential candidates have been covered in a negative light since the 1980s, as the graph below shows. After Watergate, scandal replaced policy and cynicism replaced healthy skepticism.
This negative bias inadvertently benefits Republicans. “[T]he media’s persistent criticism of government reinforces the right wing’s anti-government message.” By highlighting what goes wrong in government, journalists “create[] a seedbed of public anger, misperception, and anxiety” which savvy politicians like Donald Trump can exploit. For 30 years, stories criticizing politicians have soured the public’s view of government. “It’s gotten to the point,” says Joe Klein, “where the toughest story for a … reporter to write about a politician is a positive story.”
The report analyzes the week-to-week coverage of the election. Both candidates were covered negatively, but Trump did receive positive press during the Republican primary as electoral victories inspired stories about growing momentum. For Hillary Clinton, negative news consistently outweighed positive, except immediately after the first presidential debate, when she received favorable reviews. In the final three months, Trump’s coverage turned sharply negative, but his best two weeks immediately preceded the election, boosting his chances in the critical final stretch.
Fox News gave Trump his most favorable coverage. Even so, 73% of Fox’s coverage of Trump was negative. Clinton’s most favorable coverage came from The Los Angeles Times, while Fox News covered her the most negatively.
Unsurprisingly, almost half of the media’s coverage focused on the horse race, as seen below. Almost one in five stories dealt with scandals and controversies. Only 10% covered public policy. Polls are easy to cover. They’re “new” and therefore “newsworthy,” while policy plans “lack the novelty that journalists seek.”
Some argue that Hillary Clinton lost because she didn’t adequately reach out to white working class voters. In reality, Clinton “talked about the working class, middle class jobs, and the dignity of work constantly.” But the press didn’t cover it. Her remarkably progressive middle class agenda was ignored for months.
The Harvard study is both a warning and a manual for Democrats seeking a way out of political exile and for journalists seeking to rebuild credibility. Even as we brace ourselves for four tumultuous years under President Trump, negativity should not dominate political coverage. As the author warns, “If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there’s a leveling effect that opens the door to charlatans.” Journalists should be careful not to open that door again.
