NEWS AND OPINION:
Yet another meticulous analysis reveals that the news media is biased against President Trump and his administration. This time, the report comes from the Pew Research Center, which based its analysis on 3,000 news stories from 24 different print, digital and broadcast media sources from January through the end of April.
“Overall, journalists structured their narratives far more around President Trump’s leadership and character than his policy agenda, 74 percent vs. 26 percent, respectively,” the study noted. “What’s more, only about one-in-ten stories (11 percent) delivered an overall positive assessment of the administration’s words or actions. Four times as many (44 percent) offered a negative assessment, while the remaining 45 percent were neither positive nor negative.”
The wide ranging study affirmed that politics and ideology shape the content and tone of coverage.
“Additionally, direct refutations of a statement by President Trump or the administration were about seven times more common in stories from outlets with a left-leaning audience (15 percent) than a right-leaning one (2 percent). Stories from outlets with a more mixed audience fell in the middle (10 percent),” the researchers said.
“Amid a media landscape that has undergone dramatic change and a political climate that has left the public more divided in where they turn and who they trust for news, this study looks to shed light on what impact that can have on the news Americans receive,” says Amy Mitchell, the center’s director of journalism research. “The findings reveal that indeed, the mix of voices heard from, the assessments of the administration and the degree to which President Trump’s words were refuted differed, with outlets that appeal to a right-leaning audience most often standing apart from those with a left-leaning or a more mixed audience.”
NOW THERE’S A THOUGHT
“Today is a day for consoling the survivors and mourning those we lost. Our thoughts and prayers are certainly with all those individuals. There’s a time and place for a political debate, but now is time to unite as a country.”
— White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders telling assembled journalists who hoped to discuss gun control issues following the Las Vegas shootings.
TRUMP ’LEAST REGULATORY’ PRESIDENT
“President Trump is the least regulatory president since Ronald Reagan. His administration has only proposed 1,241 rules, 13 percent less than Barack Obama’s first year, 42 percent lower than George W. Bush’s, and 72 percent lower than Bill Clinton’s,” reports Wayne Crews, the canny vice president of policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who says that the current president prefers to regulate bureaucrats than regulate the public.
The Federal Register, which contains every government agency rule and notice, now stands at 45,678 pages. Last year at this time, then President Obama’s Federal Register contained 67,900 pages, and ultimate ended up with 97,110 pages for 2016, an “all-time record,” Mr. Crews says.
“Trump’s focus on tax reform and cutting red tape is exceptionally good news for consumers, businesses and the economy. In recent years, I’ve estimated the baseline for the U.S. federal regulatory burden has amounted to nearly $2 trillion annually. This amounts to a hidden tax of nearly $15,000 per household in a given year,” he adds.
KASICH’S FLIRTATION WITH A THIRD PARTY
“If the party can’t be fixed, then I’m not going to be able to support the party. Period. That’s the end of it,” Ohio Gov. John Kasich told CNN’s “State of the Union,” regarding his sentiments about the Republican Party.
“What I’m trying to do is struggle for the soul of the Republican Party the way that I see it. And I have a right to define it. But I’m not going to support people who are dividers,” he added.
What does it all mean?
“Kasich is in his second and final term as Buckeye governor. That means that — hypothetically, mind you — he’d be in position come January 2019 to mount a political challenge to you-know-who for the 2020 GOP nomination,” observes Roger L. Simon, founder of PJ Media.
Yes, that’s President Trump he is referencing, of course.
“Such a challenge would require a considerable amount of you-know-what,” Mr. Simon continued, presumably referencing campaign funds. “It would also require a party disaffected with its leadership and congressional wing. But that could be developing as gaps widen within the party.”
ONE FOR THE PUPS
A hearing of note for Tuesday, staged by the Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Transportation and Protective Security and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs. The hearing title say all: “Innovations in Security: Examining the Use of Canines.”
On the witness list: “Industry professionals and experts on the use of canines for security purposes, shortages in the supply of qualified canines, challenges to use and procurement of domestic canines, innovations in canine detection and security traits and techniques, and efforts to improve collaboration on these issues,” the organizers note.
And there is, of course, something about the presence of a dog.
“The panel will also discuss opportunities to expand the visibility of canines at soft targets and transportation hubs throughout the country,” the committees say.
POLL DU JOUR
• 52 percent of Americans favor cutting tax rates “for everybody”: 72 percent of Republicans, 51 percent of independents and 44 percent of Democrats agree.
• 28 percent overall oppose tax cuts for everyone; 15 percent of Republicans, 27 percent of independents and 41 percent of Democrats agree.
• 41 percent overall say they pay “more than their fair share” of federal taxes; 51 percent of Republicans, 38 percent of independents and 37 percent of Democrats agree.
• 34 percent overall say they pay “the right amount”; 30 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of independents and 41 percent of Democrats agree.
Source: An Economist/YouGov poll of 1,500 U.S. adults conducted Sept. 24-26.
• Kindly follow Jennifer Harper on Twitter @HarperBulletin
• Jennifer Harper can be reached at jharper@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.