Showing posts with label ratings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ratings. Show all posts

Saturday, 24 September 2016

Kathy Sheridan: US networks sell their soul for Trump ratings boostv

Irish Times:

American friends wonder why the media cannot ignore the Republican candidate for a week


Last week (September 16) in the US, a Gallop poll suggested that 
only one in three Americans have any trust in the media, the lowest ever recorded. 

Separately, in a vanishingly rare show of dignity, the major television networks staged a minor rebellion against Donald Trump’s mighty media stranglehold.
This stranglehold is fashioned from dollar bills. Not Trump’s own dosh of course – he brags about not spending money on campaign ads – but from the ratings generated by his nonsensical, childish bombast. 

With their round-the-clock, razzle-dazzle coverage of his campaign, network chiefs knew well the destruction they were wreaking on the body politic of the US and its people. 

In February, CBS chairman, Les Moonves, said as much. “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS. Man, who would have expected the ride we’re all having right now? The money’s rolling in and this is fun. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

The networks hit their nadir last week when they accepted Trump’s invitation to an event billed as a major statement on President Obama’s place of birth.

Only after a series of testimonials to the great man from retired military men and more than 20 minutes of priceless, live TV coverage, did he finally step up to acknowledge President Obama as American, in a segment that took all of 33 seconds and included the playground jibe that Hillary Clinton started it.  


“We got played again,” admitted John King, CNN’s chief national correspondent live on air, while America’s news terriers recommenced lashing Clinton for daring to soldier on through pneumonia. 

There are lessons here to be learned by the world’s media. And by all those who say they don’t care how the media works. And, most importantly, by those who routinely call for big, mouthy businessmen to sort out the country’s problems. Watch next week’s debate. 

A Harvard professor studied 10 major media outlets and found a harsh reality about election coverage

10 major outlets studied

Each report was based on a detailed content analysis of the presidential election coverage on five television networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC) and in five leading newspapers (Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and USA Today).

The analysis indicates that substantive policy issues have received only a small amount of attention in the 2016 election coverage.

But in the overall context of election coverage, issues have played second fiddle. They were at the forefront in the halls of the national conventions but not in the forefront of convention-period news coverage. Not a single policy proposal accounted for even 1% of Hillary Clinton's convention-period coverage, and collectively her policy stances accounted for a mere 4% of it.

Trump's policies got more attention — but not until after the Democratic convention ...

"Medialities" is the label political scientist Michael Robinson has given to such controversies. Journalists find them irresistible,

More here from The Conversation

What distracts us

The leading "mediality" of the 2016 campaign has been Clinton's emails. That and other news references to Clinton-related "scandals" accounted for 11% of her convention-period coverage.

Policy issues, on the other hand, lack novelty.