The predominantly liberal media isn’t even trying to fake it anymore.

Various print, broadcast, and cable media outlets have gone all-in for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, abandoning any pretense of objective journalism.

The evening newscasts are giving the Democrats the campaign they wanted.

More from LifeZette TV

MORE NEWS: College Professor Uses Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Death Shameful Attack On Conservatives

A new study by a media watchdog group shows how just how tilted the landscape has become. The Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog, released a study on Tuesday that found network evening news coverage of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has been overwhelmingly negative.

The coverage has been so negative it has drowned out discussion of Clinton’s weaknesses, according to the study’s author, Rich Noyes. And it has drowned out discussion of the Democrats’ record in the White House for the last eight years.

Do you agree that protesting is acceptable, but rioting is not? Yes No Email Address (required) By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement Results Vote

“The evening newscasts are giving the Democrats the campaign they wanted,” said Noyes. “[The Democrats] wanted to have a referendum on Donald Trump.”

Noyes looked at all 588 broadcast evening newscasts from July 29 — after the end of both parties’ conventions — to Oct. 20. He monitored NBC News, CBS News, and ABC News.

The networks appeared to care little for the fact that Clinton is the one with legislative and administrative records to examine.

And while Trump is getting the volume of media coverage he wanted, it’s not in the manner he intended.

MORE NEWS: Black Lives Matter Coming After American Families

Ninety-one percent of the 623 evaluative statements made on the evening news have been negative.

Clinton has endured far less negativity, as the networks made just 145 negative statements about the Democratic nominee over the same time period.

Trump has also weathered 440 minutes of controversy coverage. Clinton, by comparison, suffered only 185 minutes of controversy coverage, even though WikiLeaks began releasing her campaign chairman’s emails on Oct. 7.

[lz_table title=”Media Time Spent Covering Trump and Clinton” source=”Media Research Center”]

Nightly newscasts on ABC and CBS and NBC

July 29 – Oct. 20

|Overall coverage

Trump, 785 minutes

Clinton, 478 minutes

|Controversy coverage

Trump, 440 minutes

Clinton, 185 minutes

|Negative statements

Trump, 623 (91%)

Clinton, 145 (79%)

[/lz_table]

Even the quality of negative coverage was different for the candidates, Noyes notes.

“Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her email server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage,” Noyes wrote in his study. “This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying ‘the politics of fear,’ or a ‘dangerous’ and ‘vulgar misogynistic bully’ who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate.”

The disrespect and condescension isn’t just apparent in broadcast news, which has always been slanted against Republicans in coverage, tone and story selection.

Print and digital outlets are also doing their part to damage Trump and carry water for Clinton.

On Tuesday, Politico — one of the worst offenders of the election season — led the top of its page with three negative stories on Trump and a story about Democrats pining for more attacks on U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-Fla.).

Also on Politico’s front web page is a dubious entry by its even-more liberal magazine entitled, “How White Nationalists Learned To Love Donald Trump.”

CNN, which has truly earned its nickname this year as the “Clinton News Network,” has even downplayed skyrocketing Obamacare premiums.

On Tuesday, CNN and CNNMoney noted that Obamacare premiums will rise “an average of 22 percent” after the administration admitted Monday that premiums would rise, on average, between 22 and 25 percent.

CNN selected the low end of the administration’s average, which papers over the fact that consumers in some states will face far larger hikes.

Premiums in Arizona, for example, are set to rise more than 110 percent.

But perhaps nothing has exposed media bias this cycle quite so much as WikiLeaks. The website obtained roughly 50,000 emails from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account and has released hundreds nearly every day since Oct. 7.

The emails from Podesta’s inbox do not just expose Clinton campaign plots — they also show an often pliable U.S. media eager to aid to Podesta and Clinton.

[lz_related_box id=”227173″]

A Tuesday posting by WikiLeaks showed Hunter Walker, formerly of Business Insider and now of Yahoo News, praising Podesta for a snarky tweet aimed at conservative webmaster Matt Drudge.

“Would love to do a post on this,” Walker emailed Podesta. “Will you be mailing him a shirt? Also, what’s a guy got to do to get invited to some briefings?”

Walker protested on Twitter that he was told to get close to the Clinton campaign, which is feasible for a journalist seeking scoops. But given the general behavior of the media this year, do reporters really need to beg to be close to the Clinton campaign?