Donald Trump talks to the media at Trump Tower in New York, Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016. (Albin Lohr-Jones/Pool via Bloomberg)
Depending on who you believe, Donald Trump won the
election because of Russian hackerslast-minute FBI
 announcementsfake news, or because Hillary Clinton was a
 bad candidate. A new study from the Harvard Kennedy
School pins the blame on the news media—specifically the
 “overwhelmingly negative” tone of news coverage and the
 “extremely light” coverage of policy issues.
The study, from the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics 
and Public Policy, examined print editions of the Los Angeles
 Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The
 Washington Post and USA Today, the main newscasts on
 ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as CNN’s The Situation Room
and Fox’s Special Report.
The report should be required reading for political journalists
 trying to understand Trump’s victory. The study found that
 62% of the coverage of Clinton and 56% of the coverage of
 Trump was negative in tone. These numbers actually
overstate the amount of positive press the candidates received.
 Most of the “positive” stories here were about new poll
numbers. Each one of these horse race stories was “good
 press” for one candidate and “bad press” for the other.


On top of receiving more positive press than Clinton, Trump received 15% more press coverage overall than Clinton. His policy ideas received more attention than Clinton’s, and Clinton’s scandals received more coverage than Trump’s. The number of stories focused on Clinton’s emails and ongoing investigations peaked in the final two weeks of the campaign.
According to the study’s author, Trump dominated the news
 because his behavior met the stories' demands. "The news
 is not about what’s ordinary or expected," the study says.
"It’s about what’s new and different, better yet when laced
 with conflict and outrage. Trump delivered that type of
 material by the cart load.” Trump packaged news into easily
digestible and deliciously controversial bites. As a result,
 his message (“make America great again”) was simply heard
 more often than Clinton’s (“stronger together”).
The “overwhelmingly negative” tone of campaign coverage
 also helped normalize Trump. “When everything and
everybody is portrayed as deeply flawed, there’s no sense
 making distinctions on that score, which works to the
 advantage of those who are more deeply flawed.” Countless
 voters viewed Clinton and Trump as equally flawed because
 of the media’s bias towards negativity.
In fact, the study argues, “[t]he real bias of the press is not
that it’s liberal. Its bias is a decided preference for the
 negative…. The mainstream press highlights what’s wrong
with politics without also telling us what’s right.... Civility
 and sound proposals are no longer the stuff of headlined.”
Presidential candidates have been covered in a negative light
 since the 1980s, as the graph below shows. After Watergate,
scandal replaced policy and cynicism replaced healthy
 skepticism.
Tone of Presidential Nominees' Coverage, 1960-2016
From Shorenstein Center's Report.
This negative bias inadvertently benefits Republicans.
 “[T]he media’s persistent criticism of government reinforces
 the right wing’s anti-government message.” By highlighting
what goes wrong in government, journalists “create[] a
 seedbed of public anger, misperception, and anxiety,
” which savvy politicians like Donald Trump can exploit.
 For 30 years, stories criticizing politicians have soured
 the public’s view of government. “It’s gotten to the point,
” says Joe Klein, “where the toughest story for a … reporter
 to write about a politician is a positive story.”