President Donald Trump frequently complains about media coverage of his administration, and a study released Monday confirms his suspicion: Most of it has been negative.

The Pew Research Center, in a content analysis of the early days of the Trump presidency, found that 62 percent of the coverage was negative and only 5 percent was positive.

In contrast, President Barack Obama's coverage in early 2009 was 42 percent positive and 20 percent negative, the study said.

Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had higher negative than positive coverage early in their administrations, but not nearly to Trump's degree. Clinton had 28 percent negative coverage and 27 percent positive in 1993, while Bush had 28 percent negative and 22 percent positive in 2001.

Coverage of Trump was primarily focused on “character and leadership” versus policy, according to the Pew Center, a nonprofit based in Washington. The study also showed that only 2 percent of stories from outlets with a right-leaning audience refuted statements made by Trump or his administration, while 15 percent of stories carried by left-leaning outlets questioned the administration.

“It certainly shows that where people turn for news has implications for what they’re hearing about President Trump,” said Amy Mitchell, Pew’s director of journalism research.

The study looked at online general news sites with at least 20 million average unique monthly visitors, according to Pew, as well as the cable networks CNN, Fox News and MSNBC, and the evening news programs from the broadcast networks and PBS. Top talk radio shows and National Public Radio were also included.

The overall study was conducted from Jan. 21 to April 30 and examined 3,000 news stories across 24 media outlets. The portion of the study that measured how positively the media covered Trump was conducted over the first 60 days of the administration and compared a smaller sub-set of outlets to make sure it was comparable with the Clinton era.

I'm just spitballing here, but could it be Trump's getting more negative coverage because he's not doing as good a job as past presidents?

On Rotten Tomatoes, Bio-Dome has a fresh rating of 5% while Casablanca sits at 97%. Are movie reviewers "biased" against Pauly Shore?

Of course but 5%, especially when the economy is doing so well is a bit puzzling. Economy was in shambles in 2009 and BHO only received 20% negative press to DJT's 62%. If you take out the personalities and judge it on economy, defense (ISIS squashed), and outlook (see the tax consequences tab) I think he would score much higher. Just a personal opinion.

Yeah, I'm surprised Obama's negative rating was so low in 2009 considering how badly he wrecked the sweet economy he inherited from Dubya.

there is debate on the big picture that is definitely wiping out press that would be good about the snapshot economy........cynicism over 1 time bonuses is wiping out some positive reviews.........i think there is a feeling that what you see now is like a sugar rush to a diabetic.
but also i do agree that the press has an absolute disgust for the man mostly started by him that will not lead them to lie but he can forget about getting the benefit of the doubt.

Open question for all (Especially Trump apologists!)

How many actually highly intelligent people have you met (EVER!) in your lifetimes that as a matter of course went around describing himself as "a stable genius" in egotistical rants attempting to demonstrate how "smart" he is??

"...Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart"
"...‘I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star … to President of the United States (on my first try).
‘I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius….and a very stable genius at that!’"

I see He's humble too. Do you know he once said he liked the Pope because he was so "humble" just like me........... LOL!

When are you mental midgets still trying to justify your mistaken opinion of this LIAR and FOOL going to admit you erred???
We've erred before at this! Remember Nixon! It's not terminal to make mistakes.
It is insane to not admit you f'd up............when you have!

We've elected a completely unfit MORON as leader of the free world. We should be very ashamed of ourselves in the eyes of the rest of the thinking world.
We've just proven ourselves to be completely stupid!

hay, mr. ed was a stable genius.

Yes, but Mr. Ed didn't have to try and convince you of it! He could talk and think. Our current POTUS can't seem to do the latter.

in all seriousness...maybe maybe just maybe...out of all of this the republican party can become a jurrasic park and people like arlen specter will return......john kasich will become a leader......centrist republicans...moderate republicans..actual mensches........loyal american republicans will regain control of the republican party.
when arlen specter tried his luck in the primary he couldnt get more then a fraction over 1 %.....he saw the evolution of the party and ended up becoming a democrat.......he was a social liberal and fiscal republican......there are no more of those......except kasich.
how in the world could a bozo like santorum swamp specter in national standing among republicans.

Exactly! That's what kills me. The left complains about Trump and they love to call him a liar, but they ran HRC. She lost because she has no integrity and the American people know this. If you didn't want Trump as president you should have ran a more honest candidate on the dems side.

I have said many times that I am not a Trump supporter. I could not bring myself to vote for someone that contracts workers, doesn't pay them, and then files bankruptcy to avoid paying them. Trump is a cheat. I agree with the left, but he was most certainly the lesser of two evils. I think Bernie is actually a pretty honest guy that truly believes socialism is the best policy. The problem with him is that he actually believes socialism is the best policy.

more people by the millions voted for her over trump but she was a flawed candidate.........the millions of bernie voters did not like her but that didnt make her as bad as trump........as a dem i hope we dont end up with warren....i think booker has a good chance with the nomination.

Posted by crazystengel on 1/6/2018 11:35:00 AM (view original):
I'm just spitballing here, but could it be Trump's getting more negative coverage because he's not doing as good a job as past presidents?

On Rotten Tomatoes, Bio-Dome has a fresh rating of 5% while Casablanca sits at 97%. Are movie reviewers "biased" against Pauly Shore?

This

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/6/2018 11:33:00 AM (view original):
Of course but 5%, especially when the economy is doing so well is a bit puzzling. Economy was in shambles in 2009 and BHO only received 20% negative press to DJT's 62%. If you take out the personalities and judge it on economy, defense (ISIS squashed), and outlook (see the tax consequences tab) I think he would score much higher. Just a personal opinion.

In the same way that Obama didn’t create the bad economy, Trump didn’t create the good economy.

to me it is a good example of if it aint broken dont fix it....we were doing well with the obama economy......now we have the tax cuts bill.....the long picture is what matters.