How did NYT coverage of Trump differ from coverage of Nixon, Clinton, Bush, and Obama in topics like scandal, policy, and personal character?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The New York Times’ coverage of Donald Trump has been quantitatively and qualitatively different from its reporting on Nixon, Clinton, Bush and Obama: researchers and media analysts found Trump received far more negative early-coverage tone and far higher volume and frequency of “White House” and “president” mentions than in decades, while comparisons to Nixon focus on attacks on media and retribution themes rather than identical scandals [1] [2] [3]. Media-studies reports show Trump-era coverage combined aggressive scandal reporting with sustained attention to personal character and routine policy stories in ways that earlier presidencies did not [1] [2] [4].
1. Tone and volume: The Times amplified Trump in a way not seen since Watergate
Analysts who measured NYT lexicon and story tone show the paper used terms like “president,” “White House” and “administration” more in 2017 than at any time since 1974, and early news-evaluation studies found roughly 62% of stories about Trump’s first 60 days carried an overall negative assessment — far more negative than Clinton, Bush or Obama at comparative points (Trump 62% negative vs. Obama 42% positive in early days; Clinton/Bush far more positive) [2] [1].
2. Scandal coverage: frequent, multi‑threaded, and often compared to Nixon — but not identical
The Times and other outlets chronicled scandals and legal exposures around Trump with intensity, and commentators and historians frequently invoked Nixon and Watergate as a parallel; researchers and reporters note Trump’s pattern of public retribution and attacks on institutions recalls Nixonian themes even as the eras differ in media ecosystem and legal outcomes [3] [5]. Sources argue the comparison is apt in rhetoric and retaliation but not a perfect match: Nixon’s secretive cover-up and tapes produced a different legal arc than the sprawling, public-facing modern investigations around Trump [3] [6].
3. Policy versus personality: Times balanced policy pieces with personality-driven reporting, but personality dominated public framing
Pew and Shorenstein analyses show that while policy was covered, the balance of evaluative judgment skewed against Trump in the early months and the Times ran many stories that foregrounded chaos, management and character questions alongside policy reporting [1] [4]. By contrast, earlier presidents — Obama especially — received more favorable early tone and more stories focused on public engagement and policy initiatives rather than sustained personal-character framing [1].
4. The press‑president relationship: escalation and a different playbook
Coverage repeatedly noted Trump’s antagonistic posture toward the press and his use of social and partisan media to shape coverage; historians see parallels to Nixon’s media battles but stress differences in technique — Trump broadcast attacks and relied on earned social-media coverage rather than covert pressure on broadcasters [2] [7] [5]. Reporting documents how Trump’s public retribution campaigns and open threats to institutions produced sustained coverage distinct from the press cycles of Clinton, Bush and Obama [3] [8].
5. Comparative legacies in coverage: Clinton’s scandals, Bush’s security frame, Obama’s policy‑heavy reception
The Times’ archival patterns and other studies show Clinton drew intense scandal-focused reporting (Lewinsky/Whitewater era) even as editorial pages sometimes favored him; Bush’s coverage often centered on security and management (especially post‑9/11), while Obama’s arrival produced markedly more positive early coverage focused on relationship-building and policy [1] [4] [9]. Trump’s coverage combines persistent scandal threads, aggressive personality scrutiny, and unusually high day‑to‑day news volume [1] [2].
6. Limits, disagreements and hidden agendas in the sources
Scholars warn about comparing eras without accounting for the changed media environment: digital platforms and the 24/7 cycle magnify mentions and make the Times both an originator and an amplifier of narratives that spread elsewhere [2]. Some commentators (including veterans of Watergate) argue Trump’s alleged misconduct could surpass Nixon’s, while others stress that historical, legal and institutional contexts differ — the sources disagree over whether modern coverage is proportionate or alarmist [10] [11]. The Times’ role as agenda-setter is explicit in the analyses; that influence can reflect editorial priorities as much as newsworthiness [2].
7. Bottom line for readers
Available reporting shows The New York Times treated Trump with far higher negative tone and unusually high story volume compared with recent presidents, mixing policy reporting with relentless scandal and character coverage and repeatedly drawing Nixon analogies while noting important differences in era and method [1] [2] [3]. Readers should weigh those empirical media‑study findings alongside the structural shift in news — more platforms, faster cycles — which amplifies differences in coverage as much as differences in the presidents themselves [2] [4].