[aslkdjaslkdj1]

Hillary received far more negative coverage across the media than Trump did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/...

>A December report from Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy delivered some sobering news for all those investigative reporters who may have supposed that their Trump exclusives were changing the world: None of them were breaking from the pack. “Clinton’s controversies got more attention than Trump’s (19 percent versus 15 percent) and were more focused,” noted study author Thomas E. Patterson. “Trump wallowed in a cascade of separate controversies. Clinton’s badgering had a laser-like focus. She was alleged to be scandal-prone. Clinton’s alleged scandals accounted for 16 percent of her coverage—four times the amount of press attention paid to Trump’s treatment of women and sixteen times the amount of news coverage given to Clinton’s most heavily covered policy position.”

[leereeves]

The actual report is here:

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-ele...

It notes that:

> Trump’s coverage during the general election was more negative than Clinton’s

Positive coverage of Trump was during the primaries, which is what the Clinton camp wanted, calling him a Pied Piper:

> We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clin...