Shows Show Only the Shallow
So did Trump, but that was because the media are so much out of touch with excluded Americans that they thought he was an entertaining clown providing comic relief to dull droning hillary's in-the-bag victory.
This is interesting:
Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy released a study Wednesday comparing news coverage of Trump and Clinton during the general election, and the results show The Donald was correct to question the media’s biased reporting.
The study – gleaned from reports by ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post – showed that news coverage of Trump after the primaries was 77 percent negative and 23 percent positive. For Clinton, the figures were 36 percent positive and 64 percent negative.
...
News coverage of Trump during the primary included some positive stories about his growing momentum and rising poll numbers, but the general election was much different.
“His coverage was negative from the start, and never came close to entering positive territory. During his best weeks, the coverage ran 2-to-1 negative over positive. In his worst weeks, the ratio was more than 10-to-1. If there was a silver lining for Trump, it was that his two best weeks were the ones just preceding the November balloting,” Patterson wrote.
“Trump’s coverage was negative in all the news outlets in our study, even those that typically side with the Republican nominee. Fox provided Trump his most favorable coverage, but it was still nearly 3-to-1 negative over positive.
The Wall Street Journal was his next best outlet, but its coverage ran 4-to-1 negative. The most negative coverage was carried by CBS at 9-to-1, but Trump’s coverage was nearly as negative in most other outlets.”