Mainstream media don't like Donald Trump

It must be true, because Harvard University says so. As reported by Heat Street, May 19, 2017 (links in original):

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:



The academics based their study on seven US outlets and three European ones.

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive.

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:



The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 days got a good write-up overall – with 59% of reports positive.

Bill Clinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:



Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility.

This study suggests that, at least when it comes to recent history, he’s right.

Click on the earlier link or here to see the original article News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days by Thomas E. Patterson of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, May 18, 2017.

See also Michael Goodwin's column American Journalism is Collapsing Before Our Eyes in the New York Post, August 21, 2016.

The mainstream media coverage of Donald Trump reminds me of a comment made by white liberal South African comedian Pieter-Dirk Uys in an interview with TVOntario early in 1988. The apartheid regime was still in power in South Africa, and Mr. Uys said that the media coverage of anti-apartheid Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu was so biased against him that if he walked on water, it would be reported as "Bishop Tutu cannot swim."

HT: Infogalactic News

Prompt treatment of sepsis may save lives

It occurs to this blogger that the prompter the treatment of any medical emergency, the more likely it is that the life of the patient will be saved--assuming, of course, that the medical professionals know what they're doing. As reported by Lauran Neergaard of Associated Press, May 22, 2017:

WASHINGTON — Minutes matter when it comes to treating sepsis, the killer condition that most Americans probably have never heard of, and new research shows it's time they learn.

Sepsis is the body's out-of-control reaction to an infection. By the time patients realize they're in trouble, their organs could be shutting down.

New York became the first state to require that hospitals follow aggressive steps when they suspect sepsis is brewing. Researchers examined patients treated there in the past two years and reported Sunday that faster care really is better.

Every additional hour it takes to give antibiotics and perform other key steps increases the odds of death by 4 percent, according to the study reported at an American Thoracic Society meeting and in the New England Journal of Medicine.

That's not just news for doctors or for other states considering similar rules. Patients also have to reach the hospital in time.

"Know when to ask for help," said Dr. Christopher Seymour, a critical care specialist at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine who led the study. "If they're not aware of sepsis or know they need help, we can't save lives."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last year began a major campaign to teach people that while sepsis starts with vague symptoms, it's a medical emergency.

To make sure the doctor doesn't overlook the possibility, "Ask, 'Could this be sepsis?'" advised the CDC's Dr. Lauren Epstein.

Once misleadingly called blood poisoning or a bloodstream infection, sepsis occurs when the body goes into overdrive while fighting an infection, injuring its own tissue. The cascade of inflammation and other damage can lead to shock, amputations, organ failure or death.

It strikes more than 1.5 million people in the United States a year and kills more than 250,000.

Even a minor infection can be the trigger. A recent CDC study found nearly 80 percent of sepsis cases began outside of the hospital, not in patients already hospitalized because they were super-sick or recovering from surgery.

In addition to symptoms of infection, worrisome signs can include shivering, a fever or feeling very cold; clammy or sweaty skin; confusion or disorientation; a rapid heartbeat or pulse; confusion or disorientation; shortness of breath; or simply extreme pain or discomfort.

If you think you have an infection that's getting worse, seek care immediately, Epstein said.

Doctors have long known that rapidly treating sepsis is important. But there's been debate over how fast. New York mandated in 2013 that hospitals follow "protocols," or checklists, of certain steps within three hours, including performing a blood test for infection, checking blood levels of a sepsis marker called lactate, and beginning antibiotics.

Do the steps make a difference? Seymour's team examined records of nearly 50,000 patients treated at New York hospitals over two years. About 8 in 10 hospitals met the three-hour deadline; some got them done in about an hour. Having those three main steps performed faster was better — a finding that families could use in asking what care a loved one is receiving for suspected sepsis.

Sepsis is most common among people 65 and older, babies, and people with chronic health problems.

But even healthy people can get sepsis, even from minor infections. New York's rules, known as "Rory's Regulations," were enacted after the death of a healthy 12-year-old, Rory Staunton, whose sepsis stemmed from an infected scrape and was initially dismissed by one hospital as a virus.

Illinois last year enacted a similar sepsis mandate. Hospitals in other states, including Ohio and Wisconsin, have formed sepsis care collaborations. Nationally, hospitals are supposed to report to Medicare certain sepsis care steps. In New York, Rory's parents set up a foundation to push for standard sepsis care in all states.

"Every family or loved one who goes into a hospital, no matter what state, needs to know it's not the luck of the draw" whether they'll receive evidence-based care, said Rory's father, Ciaran Staunton.

Click on the link to see the original article Early, Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock — A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine, March 21, 2017.