Shorenstein Center

The digital marketplace is wide-reaching, complicated and self-reinforcing. The systems developed to oversee an earlier time are burdened by industrial era statutes and decades of precedent that render them insufficient for the digital present. In the absence of federal oversight, the dominant digital companies have made their own rules and imposed them on consumers and the market. Just as industrial capitalism operated—and thrived—under public interest obligations, so should internet capitalism be grounded in public interest expectations.

A US national probability-based survey during the early days of the SARS-CoV-2 spread in the US showed that, above and beyond respondents’ political party, mainstream broadcast media use (e.g., NBC News) correlated with accurate information about the disease’s lethality, and mainstream print media use (e.g., the New York Times) correlated with accurate beliefs about protection from infection.

If rural America returns to broadband as usual, it will mean public institutions like libraries sometimes serving as the only broadband link for communities. While rural communities find ways to keep residents connected, the only thing certain right now is that there is a great deal of uncertainty. The new coronavirus has pulled hard at a thread of the nation’s patchwork sweater, leaving some Americans exposed to an onrush of climactic change. But for rural Americans who want reliable broadband, there is the potential for opportunity in crisis.

A report issued by the United Kingdom’s competition authority (CMA) provides interim findings that both Google and Facebook have a virtual lock on key elements of and inputs to the digital advertising market.

Based on growing signs that platforms are tipping toward monopoly in key market functions, it is very likely that antitrust is not enough of a solution without targeted regulation that opens markets to new competition. Perhaps the most important change we need is competition-expanding regulations that address the  problems antitrust cannot solve.  A new expert regulator equipped by Congress with the tools to promote entry and expansion in these markets could actually expand competition to benefit consumers, entrepreneurship, and innovation.

News is the killer app — and will be key to winning the streaming war. This comprehensive overview of the streaming and direct-to-consumer universe comes as the media industry stands on the cusp of radical change — positing that successful companies of the future will need to know how to attract and retain subscribers — and that news can help win the battle for consumer attention and loyalty. Every era and every new medium — print, radio, television, cable, and the Internet — has found news essential to building and keeping audience.

It is time for the technology industry to compromise on regulations — specifically around privacy, competition, and operational openness. Responsible corporate action must now extend beyond the voluntary commitments that have governed the first decades of the digital era. Since the earliest days of the internet, policymakers have been afraid to touch it, subscribing to the mythology that somehow they could break the magic. But the effects of digital dominance on privacy, competition, and openness are now clear for all the see.

A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office. The report is based on an analysis of news reports in the print editions of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the main newscasts of CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC, and three European news outlets (The UK’s Financial Times and BBC, and Germany’s ARD). Findings include:

• President Trump dominated media coverage in the outlets and programs analyzed, with Trump being the topic of 41 percent of all news stories—three times the amount of coverage received by previous presidents. He was also the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds of his coverage.
• Republican voices accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency, compared to only 6 percent for Democrats and 3 percent for those involved in anti-Trump protests.
• European reporters were more likely than American journalists to directly question Trump’s fitness for office.
• Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president.
• Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic.

A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of the 2016 Republican and Democratic national conventions, and whether this coverage, which was overwhelmingly negative, best served the needs of the public.

This report is the third in a multi-part series of research analyzing news coverage of candidates and issues during the 2016 presidential election. The study examines news coverage during the four-week convention period, starting with the week prior to the Republican convention and concluding with the week following the Democratic convention. The daily news audience is larger than that of the convention viewing audience, meaning that many people learn about the conventions through the news media’s version of the events. Coverage of Donald Trump continued to outpace that of Hillary Clinton during this period, but, notably, both candidates received negative coverage. Negative news reports about policy positions, for example, outnumbered positive reports 82 percent to 18 percent. Trump experienced a reversal of the “good press” he had received earlier in the campaign, with his reaction to the Democratic convention speech of Khizr Khan generating the most negative attention.

Although Clinton’s coverage was more positive than Trump’s, it was still negative on balance, with a full tenth of her coverage revolving around allegations of wrongdoing. What appeared to be missing from this negative coverage, however, was context. For example, although Clinton’s email issue was clearly deemed important by the media, relatively few stories provided background to help news consumers make sense of the issue—what harm was caused by her actions, or how common these actions are among elected officials. And in keeping with patterns noted earlier in the election cycle, coverage of policy and issues, although they were in the forefront at the conventions, continued to take a back seat to polls, projections, and scandal.

A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of the 2016 presidential primary races and how it affected the candidates’ chances of winning the nomination, concluding that coverage of the primaries focused on the horse race over the issues – to the detriment of candidates and voters alike. The report picks up where the Center’s previous report concluded, analyzing coverage of Donald Trump, Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX), Sen Marco Rubio (R-FL), Gov John Kasich (R-OH), Hillary Clinton, and Sen Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from January through June 2016.

Some of the questions Patterson investigates include:
Why did Trump receive so much more coverage than the other presidential candidates, and why was his coverage positive in tone when the Republican race was still being contested and yet negative in tone after it had been decided?
Why was Rubio’s coverage so much more negative than that of another unsuccessful Republican contender, Cruz?
Why was Clinton’s coverage substantially more negative than Sanders’, and why did Sanders get so much less coverage than she did?
Why did the candidates’ character and policy positions receive so little attention relative to the candidates’ chances of winning?

The Shorenstein Center study is based on an analysis of news statements by CBS, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. The study’s data were provided by Media Tenor, a firm that specializes in the content analysis of news coverage.