I don't know about cable news, but istm that's what most high quality, mainstream news outlets (eg NY Times) do. I mean, you can find editorial as well, but good papers tend to do a decent job of keeping that separate from journalism.
I would really like an objective, original, pay news service. No ads. NPR is biased to US, BBC to the UK, Al Jazeera to UAE. I can sort of triangulate, but would like an objective source.
Also, 'mainstream bias,' for lack or a better term, is still bias. Unjust death and arbitrary transfers of wealth via the military, healthcare lobbies, Wall St, and the Fed Reserve are not any different than murder or theft, they're just part of our economy and education, and our mainstream media sings their praises(it's true of all the mainstream media outlets): https://theintercept.com/2016/09/09/wolf-blitzer-is-worried-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Accusations...
Even former President Jimmy Carter has said so.
So no, there is no unbiased, high quality mainstream media. There is only biased reporting from the right (Fox) and the left (just about everybody else).
Another point: the article points out that, despite the overwhelmingly negative coverage, most of the time, they're using his own voice:
What’s truly atypical about Trump’s coverage is that it’s sharply negative despite the fact that he’s the source of nearly two-thirds of the sound bites surrounding his coverage. Typically, newsmakers and groups complain that their media narrative is negative because they’re not given a chance to speak for themselves. Over the past decade, U.S. coverage of Muslims has been more than 75 percent negative. And Muslims have had little chance to tell their side of the story. Muslims account for less than 5 percent of the voices heard in news reports about Islam.[31] So why is Trump’s coverage so negative even though he does most of the talking? The fact is, he’s been on the defensive during most of his 100 days in office, trying to put the best face possible on executive orders, legislative initiatives, appointments, and other undertakings that have gone bad.
[1] https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-fi...
Have a link? I know Fox is the most watched cable news network. I assume television is still the majority of the way Americans consume the news.
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fox-news-is-basic-cables-most...
Jimmy Carter has been in that seat, and he says the media has been harder on Trump.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017...
Being overly hard on Trump and being overwhelmingly left-leaning isn't necessarily the same thing though. I mean Lindsay Graham who is fairly conservative went on a Trump slam tour before the election. Mitt Romney did the same thing, as did other conservative leaders.
I mean there is a reason Fox blathers on about being most trusted and all that, just like a used car salesman says, "trust me."
At the same time, the first unbiased & objective human being has yet to be found.
"Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic."
When you consider this line especially, with everything else, it seems more consistent with "Trump is unusually unpopular and criticized" than "the media is even more liberal now."
Maybe you should think about your own biases here, before continuing to equate "negative towards Trump" with "liberal/left"?
If I wanted to write a post criticizing Trump I'd have an incredibly easy time doing it from several right-wing perspectives: religious/moral, small government/individual freedom, anti-corruption/pro-transparency, take your pick. It's all fish in a barrel.
But I don't think those are it. When Jimmy Carter says the media is applying a different standard to Trump, it lends credibility to the idea that they just might be.
Not really. Carter is a qualified expert in some things, but analyzing media bias is emphatically not one of them. Now, as a statement that seems at odds with Carter's assumed partisan bias, him saying it may be more credible as a genuine statement of belief than of a source said the same thing with either no obvious partisan bias or consistent with obvious partisan bias, but that's not the same as lending credibility to the claim itself.
I honestly believe the difference now is Trump itself. He's uniquely unqualified to be president on every intellectual or moral metric I would consider relevant. Therefore, an objective press would be expected to be far more negative than positive.
The other problem (or clever strategy on the right) is to paint mainstream outlets like NY Times or Washington Post as the 'other side', while basically ignoring truly left-leaning media, like Huffington Post or Vox. In doing so, they portray a spectrum where Fox and Breitbart lean to one side, and NY Times / WaPo lean to the other, with the unbiased position somewhere in the center - when in reality, the average of those publications is pretty far on the conservative side of the spectrum. (Even more so for those who actually believe Fox is 'balanced' and other mainstream outlets are in fact far left.)
I don't think it's necessarily impossible to do good journalism while being biased; I think Vox does a fair amount of good reporting for instance. It is necessary though to clearly distinguish between fact and opinion.
“News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days”[0]
Summary:
“A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office.
The report is based on an analysis of news reports in the print editions of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the main newscasts of CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC, and three European news outlets (The UK’s Financial Times and BBC, and Germany’s ARD).”
——-
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-fi...