first, the # for the entirety of the campaign coverage is net Clinton -24, Trump -12. 2nd, what about how self generated it was?
-
-
-
First, new part of study was general election, which is what I cited. Hillary-Bernie numbers not that relevant...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"But over the full course of the election,it was Clinton, not Trump, who was more often the target of negative coverage (see Fig
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Reading study, then
@ByronYork's sad cherrypicking of the last month's coverage itself a microcosm of media's slant.https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/806463946953785344 … -
...should say months' not month's actually
@ByronYorkhttps://twitter.com/BluthX/status/806500290836959232 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
H, 61% negative coverage? No way. I'm shocked H wasn't awarded a participation trophy, sainthood & #TimePersonOfTheYear2016.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Ironically, ANY coverage seemed to benefit Trump.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
HARVARD STUDY = FAKE. HILLARY HAD HARDLY any criticism.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That low for Trump?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@KevinMaddenDC reporting what he said verbatim=negative "you ought to see this guy" & "grab em by the *****" , need I go on?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.