The impeachment inquiry of President Trump has gone from the private hearings phase to the open hearings phase before the House Intelligence Committee. These public hearings are taking place Wednesday, November 12, and Friday, November 15.
Democrats have been investigating whether President Trump abused his power by placing his own personal interests above the national security interests of the United States. This all stems from his communications with the Ukrainian president.
Here are the names most commonly being mentioned by the top 100+ news outlets over the previous 90 days.
How to watch the impeachment hearings this week
Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Time: 10 a.m. ET
Who: Bill Taylor, chargé d’affaires at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, and George Kent, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs
Given the recent death of ISIS leader Abu al-Baghadi by American forces it would stand to reason plenty of publications would cover that. But, to have RT and other non-U.S. news publications covering ‘terrorism’ more frequently and with more depth than American media – it just seems unexpected.
America has been fighting its global ‘War on Terror’ for nearly 20 years now, having launched its Global War on Terrorism campaign after the September 11 attacks. Yet, when it comes to media coverage of terrorism at large, American media seems to really miss the mark. Both in terms of coverage and the depth of that coverage.
Here’s a look at the English-speaking media outlets across the world and their frequency of coverage on “terrorism” over the previous 90 days.
There are literally two American publications ranked sixth and eighth, respectively, and an American-run conspiracy and fake news site between them.
Do we, warriors of freedom and fighters of global terrorism, not find value in reporting as heavily on the threat of global terrorism as our counterparts across the Atlantic Ocean?
Based on 2017 data, there were a total of 10,900 terrorist-related incidents across the globe. Just 65 of those incidents occurred within the United States – accounting for just over half of one percent of all incidents. Of the 26,445 reported deaths due to terrorist incidents that year there were 95 deaths in the United States linked to terrorist incidents. Accounting for an even smaller share of the havoc wreaked at 0.36%.
Since RT has been leading the volume of coverage on terrorism for the past 90 days we’ll use them as a comparison. Russia, in 2017, experienced 33 terrorism incidents and 61 deaths.
How is it that the leading Russian news site RT has shown a more consistent interest and willingness to cover terrorism than American news outlets?
Is terrorism too scary for Americans? Are we simply tired of perpetual war and tune out media coverage of it – and in doing so American news outlets just don’t cover it as prominently in the news cycle?
Or, perhaps it’s a result of experiencing a different type of terrorism in the United States versus what Russia likely stares down most days. Most terrorist incidents that occur in the U.S. are of the domestic variety; mass shootings specifically. Russia, on the other hand, has borders surrounded by countries that are a breeding ground for terrorists, terrorist activity, and just terrorism as a way of life.
There’s all of Europe which deals with it’s fair share of terrorism incidents. The Middle East pumps out terrorism like candy on Halloween. Africa has its own thing going on with warlords, unstable governments, and corruption just as badly (if not worse) than the Middle East does.
Maybe the answer to why American news outlets don’t cover terrorism and extremism as prominently as foreign news outlets is because we just don’t care as much as we say we do. Plus, we’re more likely to be killed by a white man with a gun in than we are by a brown man with a bomb strapped to his chest in the United States.
When it comes to politics, there is an irony that resembles the ‘catch 22’ dilemma. How do you attract media attention without a good showing in polls, and how do you reach voters without media coverage?
It appears the 2020 Democratic field, with only 3 months left until the Iowa caucus, have cemented their contenders. Barring a major upset in the early primary elections, or a floor fight at the convention, one of these three candidates will become the democratic nominee for president.
Did you know? Just three candidates represent 74% of the Democratic Caucus.
There has been little fanfare for this crop of presidential candidates, most being lamented for being too establishment or not well enough credentialed. Couple this with a decade marred by hyper-partisan gridlock and you have a recipe for a mundane democratic candidate.
Of the 1,000+ top news publisher we monitored for the Democratic primary field, just 10 represent a majority (55%) of all media consumption. Less surprising is that a large portion of the democrats’ media coverage comes from right-leaning news sources.
Do polls drive the media coverage, or does media coverage drive the polls? That’s a good question for another time…
Former Secretary of State, Senator, and Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has been trending in the news of late. She went from being a minor blip in the daily news cycle to spiking on October 18 – the same day her and Hawaii Congresswoman and Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard had a heated exchange after journalists interpreted something Clinton said as accusing Gabbard of being a “Russian asset”. That interpretation has since been debunked as Clinton was actually saying that Gabbard was actually a favorite of Republicans right now and they were the ones likely grooming her for an independent run.
That correction took a full week to be issued by multiple major news outlets.
The New York Times ran this correction late Wednesday night:
“An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an element of Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about Representative Tulsi Gabbard. While Mrs. Clinton said that a Democratic presidential candidate was ‘the favorite of the Russians,’ and an aide later confirmed the reference was to Ms. Gabbard, Mrs. Clinton’s remark about the ‘grooming’ of a third-party candidate in the 2020 race was in response to a question about the Republicans’ strategy, not about Russian intervention.”
It makes you wonder if Gabbard would have made the statements about Clinton that she did had the accurate interpretation of Clinton’s words would have been reported.
Since then Gabbard has fought back hard against Clinton, before news outlets ran their correction, and those allegations which haven’t been corroborated or proven to this point. Afterwards, the Clinton hype train began to pick up steam and so did Gabbard’s. In a span of one week Gabbard has stepped up her efforts to focus solely on her presidential campaign by announcing she wasn’t seeking re-election to Congress. In that same period of time Clinton is now being mentioned in the news as having not completely ruled out a 2020 run for president.
As you can see from the media mentions above over the previous 90 days both Gabbard and Clinton received a healthy spike in media coverage on October 18. Since then Clinton has steadily trended back down while Gabbard has continued to remain in the news cycle.
Is that one dust up with the Congresswoman from Hawaii all it takes to get someone like Clinton and Gabbard trending in the news – even if for just one moment? Not necessarily, which is why it’s important to look at which news outlets they are both actively being covered by and why.
Which news publications are the ones providing the most news coverage for Clinton in this short time period?
It makes sense that conservative outlets, in any form, would want to provide media coverage to Clinton if there’s an opportunity to highlight conflict within the democratic party or cast her in a poor light. But, what about more favorable or neutral outlets?
For Gabbard her major sources of news coverage come from the same top three sources as Clinton. However, she’s clearly more heavily covered by those outlets and other right-leaning outlets.
Gabbard being suggested as a potential “Russian Asset” provides the context around why RT has also covered her. But there are plenty of rumors suggesting Gabbard is going to run as a third-party candidate if she doesn’t secure the democratic nomination. Just as there are rumors suggesting she’s angling for an on-air job with Fox News once her campaign ends.
Given Gabbard’s more independent or moderate-right views on specific issues relative to the mainstream democratic party, it’s really no surprise some of these accusations or rumors persist. It’s also certainly not surprising that specific news outlets would take advantage of moments like these.
What is surprising is this one dust up between her and Clinton, even with Clinton being a prominent figure within the democratic party and American politics, sparked some steady coverage for Gabbard where she wasn’t receiving much at all before.
The main question here is did their exchange of accusations and insults matter enough to provide sustainable momentum for continued media coverage? Or, rather, did specific media entities amplify that first spark and keep the story going, as well as others, because it’s something these few outlets were able to push out to a large enough number of people to sew uncertainty or a bit of drama into democratic politics?
If anything, it at least appears that the overall reach outlets like Fox News, Breitbart, and even online conspiracy sites have can play a dramatic role in shaping our perceptions and opinions. This is only amplified further by how well some are able to leverage social media to reach even more people in the country and push their stories.
With the Russian and Iranian governments making efforts to disrupt our elections and news feeds, along with a host of other foreign powers, there’s also something else American citizens must be mindful of.
Figuring out why our own news by our own domestic media outlets are covering issues and politicians that matter to the general public the way they are. When something begins trending in the news we’re consuming, no matter how short-lived, it’s important for people to be able to easily identify why it’s trending and what that means to them.
