Several problems with this article, which really are so significant that it shouldn’t have been written; at the very least, it doesn’t in the least show that the aberrant behavior of the journalists skewed their coverage of Mrs. Clinton to the extent that it was unfair towards her.
- But…….blaming “mysogenist writers” for unbalanced Clinton coverage? That allegation is not addressed in this articleThe first problem with all this data is that at the time, the only candidate who was known to be under FBI investigation was Mrs. Clinton. If the news analysis on the above graphs showed that there was coverage of any issue or scandal that ranked *higher* than the email issue, the media (taken as a whole) would have been malfeasant; and, this continued to be an issue up until Election Day. Ergo, the fact that that more was written about that singular issue than any other means simply that the media was doing their job.
- But, the worst part of this “analysis” (it;s not) is the fact that it makes no distinction between POSITIVE event coverage and NEGATIVE event coverage. You see, for example, more written about “Trump-Trade” than “Clinton-Trade”. I find that unsurprising, because Trump’s trade platform was considerably more controversial than Clinton’s trade platform. This point is even more vividly illustrated by the deltas on “Immigration”. Immigration policies which simply evolved the status quo (Clinton) were decidedly less controversial than Trump’s, which involved building walls, possibly splitting up families, and which would reverse decades of US behavior on the immigration issue.
One must bear in mind that the goal of the commercialized media is to “sell papers” (and grow viewers and clicks). If a noticeable difference in coverage between two candidates appears, and that difference is explained by controversy, which DOES “sell papers” more than any other variable, then trying to blame the difference on something else requires a lot more than a bar chart and a word salad.
The singular area where the OP’s views have merit is on “Trump-Women”. At the time, I was surprised by how little run this was getting, and how polarized the discussion was even among the anti-Trump media. The people who were angry about it were REALLY angry about it, but many of the pundits on their own side seemed to let it slide. So, on THAT issue, perhaps the OP’s musing propose a reasonable explanation.
But, taking that reasoning more broadly, to somehow blame mysogenistic pundits for unprofessional coverage of Clinton leading to her defeat? Fanciful musings, and certainly unproven by such an amateurish analysis of the data provided.