Media is so Obsessed with Trump It is Costing Democrat Presidential Hopefuls Airtime

In 2016 Donald Trump had a knack for getting earned media. He still does. And nine out of every ten of those minutes is negative. So, obsessed are these “journalists” with this formula that Trump received 11 times more media than the Dems leading candidate.

Related: House Dems Open Investigation into White House tampering over hurricane Dorian’s path

From July 1 to Aug 30, according to President Trump received 838 minutes of news coverage.

“The airtime devoted to Trump was 11 times greater than that spent on the leading Democratic candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden (just under 74 minutes), and vastly more than the networks gave California Sen. Kamala Harris (30 minutes), South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg (15 minutes) or Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (just under 14 minutes),” Mr. Noyes said.

The same article notes that,

On the GOP side, former Congressman Joe Walsh received a scant 35 seconds of coverage after he announced his candidacy in late August, while the campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld has yet to be acknowledged by any of the three evening newscasts,” he continued.

The Weld campaign is projecting anger and frustration at the New Hampshire Republican Party. Weld claims they’ve blacklisted him from committee meetings. Chris exposed that lie yesterday, but the media blackout appears to be real.

Perhaps he should take that up with the scions of cable news? Have himself a scandal. Or, appear to represent a threat to the presidential “throne?”

The media hates Trump. As democrat party advocates, they are providing unlimited in-kind contributions by investing in negative press about the president.  As a strategy, it’s telling.

None of the Democrat candidates so-called positives, at least to liberals, is good enough to beat Trump. The only way to stop him is to go negative all day every day.

That’s been the plan since he won the nomination. But he won that gig in part by dominating the news coverage, most of which has always been dismissive.

That didn’t work out in 2016 but here they are doing it again.

| Washington Times

Share to...