News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters

Thomas E. Patterson
Additional contact information
Thomas E. Patterson: Harvard University

Working Paper Series from Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government

Abstract: Criticism dogged Hillary Clinton at every step of the general election. Her "bad press" outpaced her "good press" by 64 percent to 36 percent. She was criticized for everything from her speaking style to her use of emails. As Clinton was being attacked in the press, Donald Trump was attacking the press, claiming that it was trying to "rig" the election in her favor. If thats true, journalists had a peculiar way of going about it. Trump's coverage during the general election was more negative than Clinton's, running 77 percent negative to 23 percent positive. But over the full course of the election, it was Clinton, not Trump, who was more often the target of negative coverage (see Figure 1). Overall, the coverage of her candidacy was 62 percent negative to 38 percent positive, while his coverage was 56 percent negative to 44 percent positive.

Date: 2016-12
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-pol
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=1463

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp16-052

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Paper Series from Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().