While much of the conversation about the media this presidential cycle has focused on its fascination with Donald Trump, it turns out the candidate who gets the most negative coverage is Hillary Clinton.
A study was conducted of more than 170,000 online news items and run through a sentiment analysis program. Sentiment analysis (which you can learn more about: here) reads text and is able, through artificial intelligence, to determine if it has a positive, neutral, or negative sentiment.
Crimson Hexagon, the company who ran the analytics, found that Hillary Clinton had the largest percentage of negative news coverage by far. She was the only candidate of the last five in both parties to get a negative coverage score of more than 40 percent. Conversely, they found that while Clinton got more coverage overall, Sanders got slightly more positive coverage than the former Secretary of State.
Still that Clinton got more airtime could indicate a kind of bias on the part of the press, but simply because they assume she’s going to win. As Vox reports “the greater scrutiny probably also reflects the fact that the media regards her as a more serious frontrunner than Sanders. And that may really have hurt Sanders’s chances as much as — or more than — negative stories.”
Still the claim from Republicans and disaffected Sanders supporters alike — that the press is secretly supporting the candidate — appears unfounded given the evidence.
In truth, she is a boring centrist, whose policy positions are seemingly crafted to be the least offensive as possible. While this is likely because every position she takes garners an overreaction, her critics say it’s because she has no principles and is a corporate/socialist shill.
What do you think? Is there a kind of cognitive dissonance about Hillary Clinton and the coverage she gets, or do you think the sentiment analysis was wrong? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Front image via screengrab