The Media Research Center’s Rich Noyes appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources on Sunday to discuss his recent study, in which he discovered that an overwhelming 91 percent of network evening news coverage of Donald Trump was hostile to the candidate. “Tell us about how you came to that conclusion,” inquired host Brian Stelter, “What does that 91 percent number represent?”
Noyes described to Stelter the methodology of his study:
Well, we looked at all the evaluative statements. We stripped out the campaign rhetoric. We didn't count Trump sound bites about Hillary Clinton or about himself or vice versa. This is the reporter statements. The nonpartisan experts they’d bring in, the voters they would bring in. Partisans who broke the partisan mold that would then get attention on the news. Things that really lent a spin.
From that sample, Noyes found 700 statements about Trump with 91 percent of them being negative while finding 200 of Hillary Clinton with 79 percent being negative. “But my conclusion, looking at that, is she's really out of the line of fire in the news media up until, I guess, this past weekend,” he explained, with a reference to the FBI’s announcement on Friday of the discovery on new e-mail pertinent to their investigation of Clinton.
Stelter wondered if the difference was due to Trump being the cause of more controversies than Clinton was. Noyes noted that Clinton does have a lot of controversies herself, but they only receive roughly 40 percent of the air time compared to Trump’s. He also brought attention to how the media is eager to cover Trump’s problems while declaring Clinton’s as “old news” and moving on:
Now, you could argue that the e-mail controversy, which is now back in the news, the Clinton Foundation pay for play, those are potentially very significant controversies about her time in public office going right to questions of ethics and competence. And yet, those were getting far less coverage than say Trump and his behavior towards women, which is certainly a valid issue, Trump's taxes.
Eventually, the CNN host wanted to talk about recent polling data that documents a 10-1 split in the public’s belief that the media wants Clinton to win the election. Stelter said “It feels like a problem” to him and tried to lay it at Trump’s feet, “When you look at the polls that show that, do you think that it has a lot to do with Trump's anti-media rhetoric, which he has toned down in recent days?” But Noyes concluded that the public’s feeling is evidence that his study was correct:
When the press wants to get in there and take sides because it's too important to lead to the voters to make up the decision themselves, you know, they're basically playing to Trump's hand and saying it is a rigged game, and they're demonstrating that with their coverage every night being much more adversarial against Trump than against Hillary Clinton.
Transcript below:
CNN
Reliable Sources
October 30, 2016
11:16:30 AM EasternBRIAN STELTER: Rich, your study this week got a lot of attention, including from Trump and Mike Pence. You said 91 percent of media coverage on the nightly news of Donald Trump was hostile in the 12 weeks that were after the conventions and leading up until now. Tell us about how you came to that conclusion. What does that 91 percent number represent?
RICH NOYES: Well, we looked at all the evaluative statements. We stripped out the campaign rhetoric. We didn't count Trump sound bites about Hillary Clinton or about himself or vice versa. This is the reporter statements. The nonpartisan experts they’d bring in, the voters they would bring in. Partisans who broke the partisan mold that would then get attention on the news. Things that really lent a spin. We found almost 700 statements about Trump, 91 percent of them were negative. We found fewer than 200 about Hillary Clinton, about 79 percent of those were negative as well. But my conclusion, looking at that, is she's really out of the line of fire in the news media up until, I guess, this past weekend. And he was the central focus, and it was very, very negative.
STELTER: When you look at the kind of the fairness between the coverage of Clinton and Trump, would you think it's fair to say that Clinton has had fewer controversies or more controversies for the nightly news to cover?
NOYES: Well, she's got her controversies, and you know, they're certainly though getting less air time. We found 440 minutes of this air time devoted to Trump controversies. 185, about 40 percent of that, to Hillary Clinton. Now, you could argue that the e-mail controversy, which is now back in the news, the Clinton Foundation pay for play, those are potentially very significant controversies about her time in public office going right to questions of ethics and competence. And yet, those were getting far less coverage than say Trump and his behavior towards women, which is certainly a valid issue, Trump's taxes. Things like that that the media seemed more eager to cover. Whereas with Hillary Clinton, they seemed ready to call that old news, again, until this weekend. Our study stopped October 20th.
…
STELTER: Rich, do you agree with Matt [Lewis] [that Fox News is microcosm if of the GOP civil war], or is it possible Fox News can be all things to all conservatives or even moderates?
NOYES: Well, I think it's going to be difficult. I mean, Fox is going through its own changes right now. But you know, they have been up until this election and really including this election, the one place on television-- cable television news where conservatives felt they were getting a fair shake. Getting some respect, getting their point of view across. Now, conservatives are split amongst themselves so some are unhappy with Fox one night or they like this host, they don't like that host. So you know, when the conservative movement sort of pulls itself together, it will be easier to serve them as a constituency. Until then, it's going to be more difficult.
STELTER: You know, you tweeted something earlier Rich that stood out to me. There have been a couple polls showing that most Americans think the media, writ large, wants Clinton to win, not Trump to win.
NOYES: Right.
STELTER: And that feels to me like a problem. It feels like a problem. If most Americans think the scales are somehow tilted in Clinton's favor. At the same time, I don't know how to separate that from Trump's dominant anti-media rhetoric; that he's always telling his supporters the media is trying to tear down his candidacy. When you look at the polls that show that, do you think that it has a lot to do with Trump's anti-media rhetoric, which he has toned down in recent days?
NOYES: Well, that's part of it, but the other part is we have journalist, this week Dana Milbank is one, who got out and say the press can't play it fair anymore. The press can't play it neutral. To be neutral—
STELTER: But he’s a liberal columnist.
NOYES: Well I know. He's talking to other journalists. He is suggesting that it's illegitimate to give Trump the same treatment as you would any other Republican candidate. When the press wants to get in there and take sides because it's too important to lead to the voters to make up the decision themselves, you know, they're basically playing to Trump's hand and saying it is a rigged game, and they're demonstrating that with their coverage every night being much more adversarial against Trump than against Hillary Clinton.
STELTER: Well Jennifer, you work at the Post. How do you feel?
JENNIFER RUBIN: I disagree. And I think this is one of the problems with conservative media and conservative watchdogs, they don't, for example, as you pointed out distinguish between the actual reporters and the columnist.
…
