IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/harjfk/rwp16-052.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Patterson, Thomas E.

    (Harvard University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Patterson, Thomas E., 2016. "News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters," Working Paper Series rwp16-052, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp16-052
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=1463
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Ferguson & Paul Jorgensen & Jie Chen, 2018. "Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games:Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election," Working Papers Series 66, Institute for New Economic Thinking.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp16-052. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ksharus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.