, , , , , ,

Anyone even remotely conscious and paying attention must, by now, have come to the conclusion that the Media have given up any pretense of professional, unbiased journalism where Donald Trump is concerned. What has been missing to date is precisely how far beyond the bend the media have gone. No one has quantified just how far the media have gone toward being nothing more than Democrat operatives with bylines, and particularly deranged operatives at that—until now, as Byron York at the Washington Examiner reports:

How negative was press coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office? Far more than that of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, according to a new report from the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.

The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump’s initial time in office. They found, to no one’s surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative — 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.

The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.

See what I mean, gentle readers?

…the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN’s Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

This is not surprising. Fox, by any measure since its inception, has been essentially balanced, an indicator of adherence to actual journalistic ethics.   Unsurprisingly, many journalistic operatives have explained the stats by claiming Mr. Trump is so bad and evil, almost all the coverage is negative. Right.

The Harvard study had plenty of criticism for Trump. ‘Never in the nation’s history,’ the authors wrote, ‘has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy.

Really? Aren’t the authors familiar with Barack Obama? They had eight years of blatant lies, juvenile behavior, and pen and phone spitting in the face of democracy from which to pick and choose. Mr. Trump has only been around for 100 days and he’s the leader?

But the authors made clear that journalists are very much part of the problem. ‘At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it,’ the study said.

Just for fun, let’s visit CNN, the leader in anti-Trump bias and see just how far they’ve descended into Trump Derangement Syndrome. Legal Insurrection reports:

Bob Schieffer is an old-school newsman. There’s no doubt that the former Face the Nation host leans left, but he is still capable of reporting, you know, the news. That is too much for denizens of the modern MSM to tolerate.

On today’s Reliable Sources on CNN, Schieffer reported the glaringly obvious truth: that President Trump gave a good speech in Saudi Arabia today. Guest host John Berman had to push back: ‘you know, Bob, though, that there will be people who look at that last comment you made and say you’re normalizing the president.

Right. And who are these “people?” As usual, Berman is just another partisan Democrat hack who puts his own thoughts into the mouths of unidentified “people.” And Donald Trump is President of the United States. One doesn’t get much more normal than that, regardless of how much The Resistance would like to deny or change it.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Today you saw a very different President Trump. He actually sounded presidential. You may agree or disagree with what he said, but he sounded like a president . . . This went over very well, mainly because he stayed on script. No tweets today. But a dignified speech.

I think very few people would disagree with me when I say he helped himself today, because he didn’t sound like the guy at the end of the bar popping off. He sounded like someone who had actually thought about what he was going to say before he said it.

JOHN BERMAN: You know, Bob, though, that there will be people who look at that last comment you made and say, you’re normalizing the president. You’re saying because he met this admittedly very low bar for not sounding foolish, in fact, he was in fact presidential. What would you say to criticism like that?

SCHIEFFER: Well, I’m not trying to normalize him in any way. I’m trying to do what reporters do, and that, report and try to emphasize what I think was important here.

Notice Berman’s default mindset: President Trump is illegitimate; he must not be “normalized;” he’s foolish, and any sane person knows that and would criticize Schieffer for daring to say otherwise. This manner of non-thinking is certainly not limited to Berman at CNN, as USA Today reports:

CNN host Anderson Cooper apologized for a ‘crude’ remark directed at President Trump supporter Jeffrey Lord during his show on Friday, calling his comment ‘unprofessional.’

During a segment on AC360, Cooper verbally sparred with Lord, a CNN political commentator, over revelations that Trump reportedly told Russian officials that former FBI Director James Comey is a “nut job” who was adding pressure to the ongoing investigation of possible interference in the 2016 election. Clearly frustrated with Lord’s response to the matter, Cooper interrupted the conservative pundit and interjected with a not-so-subtle jab.

‘If he took a dump on his desk, you would defend it,’ Cooper told Lord. ‘I don’t know what he would do that you would not defend.

Ah, the lofty majesty and intellectual superiority of the Press! Ah, the glory of the defenders of the First Amendment. “A dump on the desk.” What a brilliant, morally and intellectually superior retort. How could anyone possibly refute such rapier wit? This is CNN.

Oh I’m sure Cooper is really, truly and sincerely–even genuinely–sorry.  After all, he’s on CNN, and he says so.  Isn’t that all anyone needs?

Just for the fun of it gentle readers, you might wish to visit Legal Insurrection again, where you’ll find a five minute plus compilation of media bias so unashamed and arrogant, it will…it will…well, it will not be a surprise, but it is genuinely pathetic.