GREGG JARRETT (HOST): So, Judith, I took a look at this Harvard study. The devil's in the details, and context is everything. It turns out that all the negative stories were dominated by Hillary Clinton's email scandal, and 91 percent of those stories were negative. Well, of course they were. It's a scandal. There's nothing much positive to say about a scandal. 



JUDITH MILLER: Actually, as I read that study, Gregg, it said that 11 percent of the stories were actually devoted to the emails scandal, and that 91 percent of those -- only 11 percent --



JARRETT: Relative to the other stories, they're a smaller percentage



MILLER: But, look, the issue is, what is the tone of the stories that are about her that are not straight news stories? And the finding, 91 percent of them are negative in tone, gives Hillary Clinton -- as opposed to Donald Trump -- something legitimate to complain about, and I think that, you know, we've seen a woman who is more heavily scrutinized --



JARRETT: What possibly could you say positive about a scandal, that she wasn't indicted? That's the only thing positive I can think of.



MILLER: No, the problem is, there are only 4 percent of stories about her that are devoted to her actual policies, what she believes, what she wants to do if she's president about the pressing economic and foreign policy issues that confront this country. When you have a situation in which personal scandal Trumps substance every time, you're going to have a slanting of the news automatically. That was the way I read the story anyway.

JARRETT: Lynn, it's no secret most  journalists are sort of left of center, and most of them probably aren't going to be voting for Donald Trump. Maybe they're just doing their jobs as journalists. They're being skeptical and tough.



LYNN SWEET: Let's leave aside your assertion about whatever you think the universe of journalists, and I know that's a separate issue. Let's stick with the study for a minute, done by Tom Patterson at Harvard's Shorenstein Center, where he also says -- I have looked at the study itself, Gregg -- what he talks about is that the large amount of negative coverage that both of them have gotten, including in the context of policy. So the study talks about both negative coverage, it's not just of Clinton's emails. So, just so our viewers know, this is not just a study of Hillary Clinton's emails. It's a study of coverage from a multitude of mainstream sources in the convention month of this summer. So I think what -- I got a lot out of that study -- is how negative news prevails over positive and policy stories

JARRETT: Hasn't that always been the case?

SWEET: That would not matter, no matter the political orientation -- if there is one -- of who writes it. Covering a speech is covering speech. I don't think most journalists who are out there doing a news story throws their coverage in the way that you suggest.

[...]

MILLER: My problem with the coverage is that so much of it has been personality-oriented and character-oriented that, the American people don't really know what policy prescriptions these candidates are offering.



[...]

SWEET: One of the points I think, when Donald Trump complains about the media, or now decides not to have press conferences -- after complaining so long about Hillary Clinton not having them -- is that he went through months and months of favorable, easy, light and fluffy coverage that when people ask what seem to me routine questions about his businesses and his charitable giving, he takes this as negative when this is routine.

Previously:

Harvard Professor: News Media Chose “Damaging Headlines” Over Policy And Context In Clinton Coverage

STUDY: Cable News Devotes 13 Times As Much Coverage To Clinton Health As Trump Foundation

Trump Blames Negative Campaign Coverage On “Being Treated Horribly, Horribly By The Press”