Evening News Spin: 100% Negative on Trump Defense, 95% Positive Dems

HU-885118952

Evening News Spin: 100% Negative on Trump Defense, 95% Positive Dems


https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2020/01/29/evening-news-spin-100-negative-trump-defense-95-positive-dems



Before the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump was gaveled into session, Chief Justice John Roberts presided over a swearing-in ceremony where all 100 senators pledged to be impartial jurors. The liberal media zeroed in on that pledge and decried Senate Republicans who seemed to be siding with the President.

But a Media Research Center study of broadcast evening news coverage of the opening arguments of both sides, found ABC, CBS, and NBC did not live up to the standard they demanded of Republicans. They gave Democrats double the airtime and showered their arguments with mostly praise, while expressing only criticism of the President’s legal team.

Between Wednesday, January 22, when Democratic House impeachment managers launched their opening arguments, and Tuesday, January 28, when the President’s defense team rested, evening newscast reporters and anchors made a total of 34 evaluative statements about the merits and effectiveness of both sides.

Democratic impeachment managers received a total of 21 evaluative statements from ABC, CBS, and NBC journalists. Of that total, 95 percent of those (20) touted their efforts and presentations, which means only one of their evaluative comments were negative. ABC’s World News Tonight had eight positive comments, CBS Evening News had five, and NBC Nightly News seven. NBC had the lone negative comment.

In stark contrast, every evaluative statement from reporters and anchors about the merits and effectiveness of Trump’s defense team were negative. Of the 13 total statements, ABC and CBS each had five with NBC pitching in with three.

The networks would roundly tear down the arguments Trump’s legal team was making despite the evidence they would present. When Trump lawyer Michael Purpura argued with evidence that the President was long interested in burden-sharing when it came to Ukraine’s defense, CBS chief congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes tried to shoot it down by saying, “Those claims run counter to witness testimony.” A common assertion by the networks.

After the manuscript of former National Security Advisor John Bolton was leaked, Holt announced that the book “contradicts his defense.” Moments later, NBC chief White House correspondent Hallie Jackson seemed to poke at how Trump’s lawyers were addressing senators by not “the elephant in the room.”

On day one on the Democratic arguments, they roundly praised how prosecutors were using the words of the President’s defenders against him. “But Chairman Jerry Nadler tried to dismantle that argument using one of the President’s top defenders to make the case,” said ABC senior congressional correspondent Mary Bruce. CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell echoed: “House managers laid out their case to remove Mr. Trump from office, at times using his own words against him.”

NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt opened the segment for day two of Democratic arguments by suggesting they were “painting a damning portrait of the President.”

The lone negative evaluation for Democrats came from NBC News political director Chuck Todd on Saturday, January 25, when he shared his frustrations with how the managers seemed to be unable to convince Senate Republicans to vote for more witnesses:
You don’t really any shifts. And if anything, I think before this trial began, I thought they had a good shot at getting witnesses and maybe at least extending this a little bit … I think it’s pretty clear that Mitch McConnell has convinced them … it’s not worth it.”

Along with that heavy praise for House impeachment managers came a sizable boost in the amount of airtime allowed for their side. More than double, in fact.

In all, the networks covered the Democratic managers for almost 25 minutes (24:57). That’s compared to the 11 minutes and 34 seconds they gave to President Trump’s defense team. The most wildly imbalanced was CBS Evening News, which gave seven minutes, 42 seconds for Democrats and skimped on Trump’s team with two minutes and 26 seconds.

ABC gave Democrats the most time at nine minutes, 25 seconds. Contrast that with the five minutes and 21 seconds they gave the Trump team. NBC allocated seven minutes, 50 seconds for Democrats, while giving three minutes, 47 seconds to the defense.

With the liberal media’s demand that Republicans be impartial in hearing the case, it was clearly more of a ‘do as I say, not as I do’ suggestion.

Editor's Note: A spokesman for CBS News contacted NewsBusters to insist that the minutes-and-seconds count for CBS did not mention CBS had the only interview with a group of Trump-defending House members.

The study was about the relative coverage of the two Senate presentations -- one by the House managers, one by Trump's legal team. The numbers are therefore accurate, and this is explained in the article. As NewsBusters readers were already informed by Nicholas Fondacaro, anchor Norah O'Donnell interviewed the four GOP House members (not legal team), but she also interviewed four Democrat House managers.That's not included in the CBS count either, since it aired prior to the study period.

SaveComment24Like
Comments (24)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Oh, for sure. Especially telling is their use of completely unnecessary adjectives and mugging for the cameras. It's all theatre.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

I think Trump's defense has been effective, with few missteps. I especially like their focus, brevity and control.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Yes, sort of like slapping a hysteric.

"Snap out of it already!"

5 Likes Save     Thanked by HU-885118952
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Several, up to four so far, GOP Senators are saying the House proved their case in terms of inappropriate behavior by Trump although they don't agree it was impeachable.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
gyr_falcon(Sunset 23)

You don't get positive coverage for saying stupid stuff. This wasn't a trump rally. And I noticed you didn't even mention Fox. Probably because Fox didn't show much of it, and removed the audio and substituted pro-trump quips.

https://www.mediamatters.org/cable-news/week-one-cable-news-impeachment-coverage-numbers



2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

I believe it might have been more positive had the defence actually produced evidence of Trump's innocence.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

LOL. Ok let me preempt accusations of hypocrisy by bolding part of what I posted on another thread this morning:

No, avoiding an argument because you don’t like relatively mainstream sources is lame. Lazy. And yes I include the left who does it constantly here. Lame.

With that out of the way, come on, you’re actually going to take MRC’s extremely biased view on media bias seriously?

I mean, all but pinned to the right!

Sounds right down some posters’ alley!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

100% Negative on Trump Defense

Scream innocence, but block any witness from testifying -- that's how negative coverage is generated.


5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Schiff sounds like a madman talking about a trial. No court of law would accept the manufactured crimes in schiff's head. They were afraid to go to trial for witnesses.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a

Schiff's a wannabe playwright.

Make sense, now?

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Whazzat you sed, Charlie Brown's teacher?


Kate

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

catkin, Schiff sure can spin fiction.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

catkinZ8a

Schiff's a wannabe playwright.

Make sense, now?

dublinbay z6 (KS)

Whazzat you sed, Charlie Brown's teacher?

Well, Kate. It's true.

Schiff has been writing screenplays on the side for years, which together amount to a kind of autobiography. “The first was a post-Holocaust story called ‘Remnant.’ ” As Schiff recalled, “I had an agent at William Morris tell me it was good but no one would want to see it—too depressing. Then ‘Schindler’s List’ came out, and I was, like, ‘Come on!’ ” His next, written when he was a prosecutor, was a murder mystery called “Minotaur.” “I had a friend who was a producer, and he said there were two answers in Hollywood—‘Yes,’ and ‘Here’s a check.’ I was getting lots of yeses.” But perhaps there is hope for his third. “It’s a spy drama,” he said. “That one is a work in progress.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/12/24/adam-schiffs-plans-to-obliterate-trumps-red-line

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Actually, Elvis, my Charlie Brown post was NOT in response to Catkin's post about Schiff as playwright--or I probably would have mentioned Catkin's name. In fact, it looks like those posts might have been cross-posted.

I was commenting on a number of the pro-Trump posts that preceded that post.

So what if Schiff was a wannabe playwright? I'll bet there are lots of wannabe poets and fictionists out there also. Nothing wrong with that.

Kate

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Ah. Good to know.

The playwriting hobby sure does spill over into his professional life.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

So what?

Must you make a fuss over every little thing that passes by?

Kate

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

LOL

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

dublinbay z6 (KS)

So what?

Must you make a fuss over every little thing that passes by?

Kate

Oh my sides! This will be re-used^^^.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Del Phinium

"With that out of the way, come on, you’re actually going to take MRC’s extremely biased view on media bias seriously?"

Cool story. Now do "Media Matters", from gyr_falcon's link.


ETA: Never mind. I'll do it:

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

That’s fair, Del! Though I’d say the narrative accompanying MM’s rating is less damning.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
gyr_falcon(Sunset 23)

Del, are you disputing the coverage time information that I posted? It is one thing to dispute the wording of article content as biased, but quite another to dispute the information coverage. If you don't agree, then post your live coverage amount info. I know my husband wanted to hear the what was being said when the channel he was watching went to commercial; he went to Fox, and complained that they weren't even showing the coverage at all, and had their regular programs on.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Del Phinium

gyr_falcon, I was simply pointing out that if someone (generic) is going to make a fuss out the far political leanings of a source, in the interest of fairness, they (generic) should do the same when another source is posted, leaning in the opposite direction. And, it seems that FOAS agreed, when (s)he said, "That's fair, Del!" That's all I was trying to say.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Who you going to believe?

Me, I believe Wikipedia. (That's a joke; I believe nobody)

Fact checking the Fact checkers Fact checkering the Fact checkers. By the time I finish I don't even know what I'm fact checking any more.


////////////////////////////////

"Media Bias/Fact Check is a web site that rates factual accuracy and political bias in news media. The site classifies media sources on a political bias spectrum, as well as on the accuracy of their factual reporting. The site is run by founder and editor Dave Van Zandt.


The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst." Van Zandt describes himself as someone with "more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence." The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific.""

///////////////////////////////////////

Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a progressive), nonprofit organization, with the stated mission of "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." MMfA was founded in 2004 by journalist and political activist David Brock as a counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center. It is known for its aggressive criticism of conservative journalists and media outlets, including its "War on Fox News."

///////////////////////////////////////////////

David Brock is an American liberal political consultant, author, and commentator who founded the media watchdog group Media Matters for America. He has been described by Time as "one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party".

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Hope that clears things up for you.

Who you going to believe?

Funny.

Hay

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
gyr_falcon(Sunset 23)

Del Phinium, What next--requiring the left/right leaning of the posters that agree with you? All I was saying is that left right bias of the site matters a lot less when fact stat info/graph is being presented, vs political opinion pieces or deciphering the graph. Unless you are disputing the factual information presented on the graph, it does not matter the leaning of the site from which it was pulled. The text accompanying the information might be bias, but if you are not arguing with the graph info posted, the graph should not require a bias notation in order to be "fair".

I've pulled graph info from right leaning sites when they show the info in a clearer manner. If the info presented is the same, what difference does it make concerning the bias of the presenting site? I use whichever graph visual I see first, as long as it is easy to read.

Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Your First House Modern Party Etiquette for Hosts and Guests
Learn the mannerly way to handle invitations, gifts and even mishaps for a party that's memorable for the right reasons
Full Story
Most Popular The Inevitable Future of Drones Around Your Home
As Google joins the push for airborne deliveries, it seems only a matter of time before neighborhoods are buzzing with drones. Is that OK?
Full Story
Wood When to Use Engineered Wood Floors
See why an engineered wood floor could be your best choice (and no one will know but you)
Full Story