From [HERE] Major news broadcasters displayed an unprecedented level of political bias this campaign cycle, according to a new study that tallied the number of value-laden statements made about each candidate by news anchors, reporters, and expert subjects over the course of the presidential race.

Across ABC, CBS, and NBC, coverage of Kamala Harris was found to be 78 percent positive and 22 percent negative, according to the study conducted by the Media Research Center, a conservative-leaning media watchdog group. By contrast, Donald Trump received 15 percent positive coverage versus 85 percent negative, trailing Harris by 63 percent in terms of positive coverage.

This unprecedented edge topped the previous record of +58 for President Joe Biden in 2020.

“The MRC studies each determined the spin of news coverage by tallying all explicitly evaluative statements about each candidate from either reporters, anchors or non-partisan sources such as experts or voters,” the group claimed. “Evaluations from partisan sources, as well as neutral statements, were not included, nor were statements about their prospects in the campaign horse race (i.e., standings in the polls, chances to win, etc.).”

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton only received 21 percent positive press coverage in 2016 to Trump’s meager nine percent, which suggests that major broadcasters have steadily expanded their negative coverage of Trump in the years since he entered the political scene.

Bill Clinton maintained a 23-point advantage over Republican challenger George H. W. Bush (52 percent to 29 percent) during the 1992 cycle, according to a Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) study. The 2000 race coverage was shown to be more balanced, with Al Gore’s 40 percent positive press narrowly topping George W. Bush’s 37 percent.

Later, John Kerry enjoyed 59 percent positive coverage compared to Bush’s 37 percent. The results were far more skewed in 2008, when Barack Obama received 68 percent positive press compared to former Arizona senator John McCain’s 33 percent.

“Our analysis of good and bad press was based strictly on the opinions expressed by any independent observers quoted in the story, or on the stated opinions of the reporters themselves, commented CMPA on their methodology. “We coded each comment separately, identifying the source, target, and the direction of the evaluation.”