Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Media Bias? What Planet Are You From?
Posted by: McQ on Monday, December 08, 2008

Everyone knows the media isn't biased. And if it was, it would be biased toward the right, right?
President-elect Barack Obama received 68% positive evaluations on the network evening news shows during the general election. His treatment was twice as favorable as John McCain’s 33% positive and Sarah Palin’s 34% positive evaluations.
Whoa, whoa, what does that prove? Maybe Obama just had more things that were positive about him and his campaign than those other two.
Obama’s 68% positive press is the strongest showing CMPA has ever recorded for a presidential candidate, since we began monitoring election news in 1988. He easily eclipsed previous leader John Kerry’s 59% positive evaluations on network news in 2004. Conversely, McCain’s tally of 33% positive evaluations was the worst showing since George H.W. Bush received only 29% positive press in 1988.

Averaged across the all elections since 1988, broadcast network coverage of the six Democratic presidential nominees has been evenly balanced – 50% positive vs. 50% negative press. The average coverage of the six Republican candidates has been 34% positive vs. 66% negative, a margin of 2 to 1 negative.
Oh. Well, uh, you know, the Dems have just had better candidates, like, uh, like John Kerry. John Kerry!? 59% positive!? Yeow. You'd have to be biased to give that goof 59% positive coverage. Obviously an outlier.

But back to Obama:
Obama’s 2 to 1 lead in good press also held true for the candidates’ issue coverage, which includes evaluations of their policies and proposals. A slight majority (53%) of statements about Obama’s policies and proposals were favorable, compared to one out of four (24%) favorable comments about McCain and one out of six (16%) favorable toward Palin. The combined totals were 52% positive issue coverage of the Democrats and 24% positive toward the GOP.
Yup, hard to argue the bias question with numbers like that, isn't it? And, of course these aren't particularly helpful either:
The three broadcast networks were very similar in the tone of their coverage. ABC and CBS had 68% positive coverage of Obama. NBC gave Obama 73% positive coverage. The networks were similar in the negative coverage of McCain. McCain received only 31% positive coverage on NBC, 33% positive coverage on CBS, and 36% positive coverage on ABC.
I forget who it was, but the person who called the over-the-top positive coverage for Obama in this election "embarrassing" had a pretty valid point. You can also understand why some experts believe coverage like Obama got is worth about 5% at the polls.

Objective Journalism - 2008. RIP

Advocacy Journalism - alive, well and left-leaning.

We should understand, accept and learn to live with it because it isn't going to change. Just don't let the media get away with the "unbiased" nonsense anymore and weigh everything they say or report very carefully against the facts you're able to dig up independently - because that's the only way you're going to get anywhere near the truth.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I’m too lazy to do research, but it would be hysterical to compare the coverage McCain got before the pres campaign as well as the coverage he’ll get in the coming months when he goes all Maverick again and helps Pres. Lightworker pass lousy immigration "reform" or stop a GOP filibuster.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I suppose we had real journalism in 2000, when Gore had the most negative stories?

As I have said before, there is absolutely bias in journalism, but I disagree that it is partisan bias. If it were partisan based bias, then Democrats would always have the least negative stories and Republicans the most, and that’s just not how it’s worked out.

Being ahead in the race begets positive coverage (what Obama is doing right) and losing begets negative coverage (what McCain is doing wrong).

In 2004, Kerry was ahead for most of the race, but, while a lot of the Swift Boat stories were theoretically positive for Kerry, just the fact that they were in print was a negative, but how do you quantify that?

Imagine if there were hundreds of stories about how John McCain really didn’t do anything wrong in the Keating 5 scandal. Theoretically a positive, but really, a negative.



 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Isn’t this kind of a moot point with a major media holding company going bankrupt today? This is probably not the last one, mind you.

Advocacy Journalism - bringing a formerly respected institution into financial and moral ruin, one organization at a time.

There, fixed that.
 
Written By: CR
URL: http://
Newspapers are going down because of the intarwebs - but guess what, you lost the fight for the web too. Anti-intellectual Palinism doesn’t sell too well in the medium of ideas.
 
Written By: TomD
URL: http://
I suppose we had real journalism in 2000, when Gore had the most negative stories?
I wouldn’t argue that.

Instead I’d say that it should be clear, given the numbers in this election, that "objective journalism" is a farce mostly perpetrated by journalists.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I want a t-shirt that says "Obama might be my President, but you are NOT my media"
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Anti-intellectual Palinism doesn’t sell too well in the medium of ideas.
How would you know anything about a "medium of ideas"?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Newspapers are going down because of the intarwebs - but guess what, you lost the fight for the web too. Anti-intellectual Palinism doesn’t sell too well in the medium of ideas.
Did Mk drive you in on the short bus to this blog or are you his retarded hillbilly cousin? Just what is your story Tom?
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I suppose we had real journalism in 2000, when Gore had the most negative stories?
CMPA’s 2000 report:
"Reflecting the overall trend, assessments of the candidates policies and proposals were slightly more negative toward Bush (61%) than toward Gore (55%)"
If Gore had a higher raw number of negative stories, then he had a big edge in total stories. Either way the 3 big networks’ coverage did favor Gore over Bush.
Tone of Coverage (percent of good press) Dem 40% Rep 37%
And that’s as close as it’s been in the last five elections.
If it were partisan based bias, then Democrats would always have the least negative stories and Republicans the most, and that’s just not how it’s worked out.
For the last twenty years straight, that is exactly how it has worked out. By your own reasoning; there is a partisan bias toward the Democrats.
 
Written By: Phil
URL: http://
Is there some effect that is anti-incumbent party in these numbers?

That could explain some of Gore’s slightly less positive numbers.

But after reading articles about Fannie Mae influence in the AP where they mention exactly one minor Democrat while listing Republican after Republican, (no mention of Dodd or Frank!) its clear to me that bias is strong indeed.


 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Who cares.

Tribune = bankrupt.

NYT= had to leverage their shiny new HQ (purchsed on the cheap w/ 9-11 money)

They’re going down.

Faster please.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Being ahead in the race begets positive coverage (what Obama is doing right) and losing begets negative coverage (what McCain is doing wrong)."

Is that being ahead in the electoral vote, or the popular vote? If I recall correctly, Gore was ahead in the popular vote. Then there is always Nixon, evidently the darling of the media.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
CaptinSarcastic, in his comment ("I suppose we had real journalism in 2000, when Gore had the most negative stories?") may be thinking of the stats I provided a few weeks back from Pew’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, which showed the negative coverage in the final stages of the 2000 campaign to be 56% negative for Gore and 49% negative for Bush (not much difference, and I wonder what would happen if the they had broken down the stats by source as they did for the current cycle).
http://www.journalism.org/node/309
Phil notes that CMPA’s findings were a little different (Bush 61% negative, Gore 55% negative).

Here are PEJ’s findings for this past election broken down by source of coverage:
The Color of News
How Different Media Have Covered the General Election

Newspapers* Total
Coverage of Obama:
Positive: 41.1%
Negative: 27.5%

Coverage of McCain:
Positive: 6.1%
Negative: 69.4%

Network Total (for ABC, NBC, CBS):
Coverage of Obama:
Positive: 36.8%
Negative: 24.8%

Coverage of McCain:
Positive: 13.1%
Negative: 55.5%

CNN Total:
Obama:
Positive: 36.1%
Negative: 38.7%

McCain:
Positive: 12.6%
Negative: 61.3%

MSNBC Total:
Obama:
Positive: 43.2%
Negative: 13.5%

McCain:
Positive: 9.9%
Negative: 72.8%

Fox Total:
Obama:
Positive: 25.2%
Negative: 40.0%

McCain:
Positive: 22.2%
Negative: 39.8%
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
You may as well quote Media Research Center.

Primary funding for CPMA...

John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century
Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation
Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute

Come on!

Here’s another study that matches Pew’s findings...
The two presidential candidates received about the same amount of coverage, said the study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism. But about 24% of the stories about Bush were positive, compared to 13% for Gore. Among stories dealing equally with both candidates, 12% treated Gore negatively, while only 8% cast Bush in a negative light.

One way Gore suffered was by not performing up to press expectations during the presidential debates, the report found.

The study, which was conducted with Princeton Survey Research Associates, reviewed 1,149 stories from four newspapers (the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Portland Oregonian and the Orlando Sentinel), eight television news programs and five Web sites. It looked at coverage during September and October.
From the Pew study...
In all, 36% of stories about Obama have been positive, vs. 35% that have been neutral. And 29% have been negative. What are we to make of these numbers? One metric is how they compare with past studies, both those earlier in this race and from other years. Obama’s are similar to those recorded by the Project four years ago during a two-week period dominated by debates between John Kerry and George Bush. That year, 34% of Kerry stories were positive, while 25% were negative and 41% neutral. In 2000, when George Bush enjoyed more positive coverage than Al Gore, the depiction of him in the press was less flattering (24% positive, 27% neutral and 49% negative).
Sorry, this dog don’t hunt. The media favored Obama this year, it means nothing.

I am curious what we are trying to accomplish by pointing out a comparison of the number of positive/negative stories and then complaining about it. Are we looking to "level the playing field"? Do you want to force an equal number of positive/negative stories per candidate? Some kind of doctrine of fairness?

Interesting concept.
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
CaptinSarcastic wrote:
Here’s another study that matches Pew’s findings...
Uh, the source the LAT is citing "Project for Excellence in Journalism", is the same one I cited as "Pew’s Project for Excellence in Journalism" (though PEJ and Pew were seperate organizations at that time).
So no wonder the studies match.
You may as well quote Media Research Center.

Primary funding for CPMA...

John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century
Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation
Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute
Leftist Pillar #3: it is always more important who is saying something than what is being said.
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
Actually, the Pew study corresponds with the CPMA study (It also matches the study Cap found exactly cause, well, they’re the SAME study). Both show that Gore was dealt with more harshly after he stepped on it it during the first debate. The difference is that the CPMA study covers the whole election, and the PEJ study cited only looked at three weeks of coverage (there was no PEJ study looking at election coverage as a whole). So you’ve given evidence that the CPMA study is valid, thanks.

There is no suggestion that the playing field needs to be leveled, just exposed.
We should understand, accept and learn to live with it because it isn’t going to change. Just don’t let the media get away with the "unbiased" nonsense anymore and weigh everything they say or report very carefully against the facts you’re able to dig up independently - because that’s the only way you’re going to get anywhere near the truth.
Reading is fundamental.
 
Written By: Phil
URL: http://
Sorry, Anonymous beat me to it. I need to hit preview any time I edit at the office.
 
Written By: Phil
URL: http://
John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century

Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute

Come on!
Classic - when you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.

Are we to assume then, when something is published that is even peripherally linked to a Soros entity, that anything they say should be disregarded in the future?

Or should we instead inspect the premise and the facts and decide for ourselves whether it is worthy of consideration?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Classic - when you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.
If that the entirety of my argument, I would agree, that was just an aspect.
Are we to assume then, when something is published that is even peripherally linked to a Soros entity, that anything they say should be disregarded in the future?
Are you saying you don’t?
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
As Phil notes the CPMA study takes into account a longer time, it however uses fewer sources and does not look to have a nuetral category when compared to the PEJ study (at least for 2008) This may account for some of the difference in numbers.
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
If that the entirety of my argument, I would agree, that was just an aspect.
It was what you offered first - usually those arguing present their strongest argument first.
Are you saying you don’t?
I rarely, if ever, try to track down who is funding what. I’m normally able to find plenty of arguments to handily refute what I take exception too.

While I might be suspicious of a Soros funded entity (if I even knew that to be the case in the first place), I’d still be more interested in refuting their premise than whining about who funded the study as my primary argument.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
McQ wrote:
It was what you offered first - usually those arguing present their strongest argument first.
And as Phil pointed out what he offered second did not actually refute the argument.
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
Oy vey, I write this big post showing how you are all wrong, and then accidentally hit the search button and boom, it’s all gone.

Here’s the short version.

CMPA is not a shill because they are funded by ideologically right wing groups and happen to always come to conclusions that you would expect would make these groups happy. CMPA is a shill because they ignore data that does not make their case. They do this in a couple of ways, and if you read their report you can easily discern it. First, they only cover network news, not the media in general, not even the television media in general. Second, they ignore any statements made by any guests of the news segments, they are not included in their numbers at all. Meaning, a news hour could have a negative story about Bush, a positive story about Gore, and then 10 guests with negative attacks on Gore and none with negative attacks on Bush, and this would be scored as 100% negative for Bush.

Their funding sources are simply the reason to actually the read the study and not just accept their statistics as meaningful.

Now, the Pew research, as both PEW and Princeton were credited with this study separately, I did miss that it was a collaborative study, my mistake. But the Pew/PEJ/Princeton study is the most comprehensive, and it is not the study used by CMPA, though they reference some PEW polling.

The PEW study, as analyzed by PEW found that 2000 and 2004 were virtually opposite, with Gore receiving the most negative and least positive coverage in 2000 and Bush receiving the most negative and least positive in 2004.

If you want to cherry pick some of their numbers to try and make them say something different, knock yourself out, but I’m not buying.
What we see in these findings, above all, are two phenomena. The first is the focus on tactics and strategy. The candidate who was perceived to be winning this year got better coverage. We have seen that pattern before. In 2000, our research saw George Bush receiving more positive coverage than Gore. In 2004, our studies of a narrower time frame saw Kerry enjoying better coverage, as polls perceived his closing the gap on Bush.

The second phenomenon is an almost instantaneous reinforcing and echoing effect of the press. Presidential elections are now so heavily polled, with various daily tracks and compilations of state-by-state polls, that every campaign event is almost instantly measured for its political impact and that in turn is immediately analyzed by the political press. Each event has in a sense three echoes. The event is covered. The effect is measured. And the reaction to that measurement by the campaigns is then examined and covered.

That pattern becomes a snowball, and the trajectory of any one campaign event is magnified.
The reality is that there is simply too much data out there for anyone to have comprehensive studies of the entire media for an extended period of time, so this debate can continue ad infinitem.

There is bias in the media, every time, but it’s not partisan bias.

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
CMPA is not a shill because they are funded by ideologically right wing groups and happen to always come to conclusions that you would expect would make these groups happy.
Then why did you bring it up and make that implication your main line of argument?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
CMPA is a shill because they ignore data that does not make their case. They do this in a couple of ways, and if you read their report you can easily discern it. First, they only cover network news, not the media in general, not even the television media in general.
I already noted that they use less sources than the PEJ. Though as Phil noted, they do so for a much longer time period than PEJ.
Second, they ignore any statements made by any guests of the news segments, they are not included in their numbers at all.
If you read the report you could easily discern that this statement is not accurate. They do not ignore any guests.
"Our tallies include all opinions expressed by reporters and sources not affliated with the two campaigns."
pg 3
The PEW study, as analyzed by PEW found that 2000 and 2004 were virtually opposite
The PEW findings were:
Gore Negative 56%
Bush negative 49&

Bush Negative 59%
Kerry Negative 25%
Note that according to CaptinSarcastic, that almost dead even negative coverage of Bush and Gore is (with Gore getting a little more negative coverage) is ’virtually the opposite’ of Bush not just getting a little more negative coverage than Kerry, but getting more than twice as much negative coverage.
The Positive findings (13% Gore, 25% Bush, 14% Bush 34% Kerry) were closer to opposite.
CMPA is not a shill because they are funded by ideologically right wing groups and happen to always come to conclusions that you would expect would make these groups happy.
Always? Bush 41 recieved better press than Dukakis according to CMPA’s 1988 study (32% to 29% overall)
CMPA is a shill because they ignore data that does not make their case.
Unsupported claim.
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
CMPA is a shill because they ignore data that does not make their case.
Support for this claim was in the discussion of the methodology, but here’s some more...
The study only covers evening network news broadcasts—one of the most pared-down parts of American news—and it only covers the period from 9/4/00 to 11/7/00. This includes the single period in the twenty-month race when the press corps clearly turned on Bush—the (roughly) three-week period after Gore jumped ahead in the polls in the aftermath of the Democratic Convention. This was the period of the subliminal RATS ad and the major-league assh*le—the single period in the two-year campaign when Gore got better treatment than Bush.
You might be able to say that the period between 9/ and 11/7 represent the general election, but you’d be committing some serious sophistry if you did say that, since both candidate had wrapped up their primary victories in March of 2000, and were essentially in the general election race from that point on. Gore was trounced by the media for the vast majority of this time, with only a short period where his coverage was less negative than Bush’s, and of course, this short period happens to make up almost half of the entire period that CMPA wants to talk about.

Why is that Captain Ron?

I can’t look into people’s souls and answer this, but based on the sourcing for CMPA, I can suggest that if it comes out of a dog’s arse, it’s probably not candy.
The PEW study, as analyzed by PEW found that 2000 and 2004 were virtually opposite
The PEW findings were:
Gore Negative 56%
Bush negative 49&
This is NOT the Pew findings in their entirety, this is a sliver of the PEW findings, again, ignoring some periods and using others. This portion of the PEW study was three selected weeks in the final stretch, and you fail to show the positive numbers, in which Bush was TWICE as likely as Gore to have a positive story.


Gore Bush
Positive 13% 24%
Neutral 31 27
Negative 56 49
Total 100 100
Look, here’s the deal, this is an endless debate, and I seem to have been having it endlessly for 10 years. I used to think that there was a corporate/statist bias in the media, and though I still believe it, I no longer believe it can be empirically proven with anything but easily disputable statistics. I know there is no way to change the minds of you folks, it’s dogma for conservatives to believe that the media is a just an arm of the DNC.

But taken as a whole, the media is not partisan. Bias shows up in every election, just like a winner shows up in every election, it’s just not a partisan bias.

Because the universe of variables is so massive, it’s simple to create a desired outcome, it’s impossible to even attempt such a study without drastically limiting the variables covered, and I agree that is true of either side of this debate. But if you look at media bias "studies", you’ll note that when someone wants a conservative bias, they ignore news analysts, they ignore partisan guests, and they often focus on polls of who journalist (who will answer) say they are going to vote for. To get a conservative bias, resarchers can focus on columnists, analysts, editorial pages, talk radio, and the surveyed issue positions of journalists. They can also focus on times during the campaign when the numbers favor their point of view.

Whines of partisan media bias serve a political function, it can rally the base by setting the candidate up as the underdog, but really, there isn’t an empirical foundation.









 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
You might be able to say that the period between 9/[4] and 11/7 represent the general election, but you’d be committing some serious sophistry if you did say that,
However, the Pew study that covers less than half of this time period is definitive?
This is NOT the Pew findings in their entirety, this is a sliver of the PEW findings, again, ignoring some periods and using others.
The enitre Pew study only covered three weeks!!
Here’s the Title:
The Last Lap
How the press covered the final stages of the campaign
This is from the front page of the Pew study:
The study examined the weeks of September 23-29, October 7-13, and October 14-20, which included the run up to the first debate coverage before, during and after the second and third debates.
No one has ’selected’ portions of the Pew findings, there isn’t anything else to select.

Just post the link to eRiposte and be done with it if you’re not even going to bother thinking about your comments or reading your own references.
 
Written By: Phil
URL: http://
No one has ’selected’ portions of the Pew findings, there isn’t anything else to select.
Really?

So saying this...
The PEW study, as analyzed by PEW found that 2000 and 2004 were virtually opposite
The PEW findings were:
Gore Negative 56%
Bush negative 49&
Doesn’t leave anything out as compared to saying this...

Gore Positive 13%
Bush Positive 24%

Gore Neutral 31%
Bush Neutral 27%

Gore Negative 56%
Bush Negative 49%
Alrighty then....

Might I suggest that you take a dose of the medicine you prescribed if you’re not even going to bother thinking about your comments or reading your own references.
However, the Pew study that covers less than half of this time period is definitive?
The PEW study is better, but, as I pointed out, not remotely definitive. My conclusion was that there are no definitive studies and definitive studies are probably not even possible.

Didn’t you get that when you read this...
Because the universe of variables is so massive, it’s simple to create a desired outcome, it’s impossible to even attempt such a study without drastically limiting the variables covered, and I agree that is true of either side of this debate. But if you look at media bias "studies", you’ll note that when someone wants a conservative bias, they ignore news analysts, they ignore partisan guests, and they often focus on polls of who journalist (who will answer) say they are going to vote for. To get a conservative bias, resarchers can focus on columnists, analysts, editorial pages, talk radio, and the surveyed issue positions of journalists. They can also focus on times during the campaign when the numbers favor their point of view.
Just post the link to eRiposte
I disagree with their conclusions for the same reason I disagree with yours.

Statistics in this universe of variables are as good as looking at the Hudson Bay and making conclusions about the Atlantic Ocean. It’s wet is about as far as the accuracy goes.

The only argument is really when comparing the same study using the same variables over different periods, but then you are still arguing about a drop in a bucket with no idea of whether that drop is representative.

So PEW is probably as good as it gets, and it’s still not very good.

Let’s talk about voter bias!

At least we have a pretty good idea of how that plays out.

This year, voters were biased toward Obama, in 04, they were toward Bush, and in 00 they were biased toward Gore, but EC worked out for Bush, and so on...

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
So PEW is probably as good as it gets, and it’s still not very good.
.....My conclusion was that there are no definitive studies and definitive studies are probably not even possible.
Earlier...
But taken as a whole, the media is not partisan.
No definitive study is possible, none are even very good, but you can come to a definitive conclusion based on the one you like. Amazing
this is a sliver of the PEW findings, again, ignoring some periods and using others
What period of the Pew findings were ignored? None.
Just post the link to eRiposte
I disagree with their conclusions for the same reason I disagree with yours.
Then don’t use them for an uncredited quote.
The only argument is really when comparing the same study using the same variables over different periods,
That CPMA studies match that description closer that any other.
 
Written By: Phil
URL: http://
That CPMA studies match that description closer that any other.
But the CPMA doesn’t cover the media, it covers 60 minutes of broadcast television, and eliminates any partisan guest commentary.

So, I’ll cede this, the CPMA study may support an assertion that exclusing any partisan guest commentary, the 60 minutes of broadcast news may be biased.
No definitive study is possible, none are even very good, but you can come to a definitive conclusion based on the one you like. Amazing
Let me restate, the PEW study, nor the CPMA study, nor any other study have proven the media to be biased, and the PEW study, with it’s sliver of data supports the assertion that there is no partisan bias in the media. The CPMA study is dogsh*t.
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
CMPA has run each of their studies the same way since they started in 1988. They just cover the network evening news (in 2004 they expanded to include Special Report on Fox News (which they found to favour Bush more than Kerry in 04 and McCain more than Obama in 08) and have always started at the beginning of Sept and run through the election.
According to CaptinSarcastic this is somehow proves that since in 2000 they were not covering a longer period they are shills. And CMPA does this because they only reach conclusions that make right wing groups happy (despite finding that coverage of the 88 campaign (which was done in the same manner as the 2000 campaign) was more favourable towards Bush 41), and despite finding Fox biased in favour of McCain (though the PEJ study had Fox vitually completly balanced in its coverage (a couple percentage points more positive towards Obama in fact, and less than a quarter percent more negative).

Re my citing the negative numbers (in response to CaptinSarcastic saying the findings were virtually opposite between Bush and Gore as compared to Bush and Kerry (which point he does not actually address)) CS writes:
This is NOT the Pew findings in their entirety,
However, you are the one who initially introduced the negative componant (CS wrote in his first post "I suppose we had real journalism in 2000, when Gore had the most negative stories")
this is a sliver of the PEW findings, again, ignoring some periods and using others. This portion of the PEW study was three selected weeks in the final stretch, and you fail to show the positive numbers, in which Bush was TWICE as likely as Gore to have a positive story.
Are you actually reading what you are responding to? I did not fail to show the positive numbers. I quite clearly wrote, and I quote:
The Positive findings (13% Gore, 25% Bush, 14% Bush 34% Kerry) were closer to opposite.

So not only did I not fail to show them, unlike what CS claims, I even generously said they were much closer to opposite than the negative comparison.

Are you incapable of reading or are you being deliberately dishonest?

It looks like I also have to requote the CMPA study on who it tallies in its tabulation:
"Our tallies include all opinions expressed by reporters and sources not affliated with the two campaigns."
pg 3
It does not say it does not include partisan sources, it says it does not include sources from the campaigns.
PEW study, with it’s sliver of data supports the assertion that there is no partisan bias in the media
No, the PEW study supports the assertion that there is partisan bias in the media by more than 2 to 1 favouring Democrats (ie majorly favouring both Kerry (D)and Obama (D) in 04 and 08, while minorly favouring Bush (R) in 00 (and I still wonder what the numbers would have looked like in 2000 if PEJ had broken down the coverage, so that the ’right wing’ sources they included in their tabulations, could be excluded).
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
Oh, and who is ’Captain Ron’?
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
Oh, and who is ’Captain Ron’?
Captain Ron was a movie starring Kurt Russell.

Why is that Captain Ron?

Well, nobody knows.
It looks like I also have to requote the CMPA study on who it tallies in its tabulation: "Our tallies include all opinions expressed by reporters and sources not affliated with the two campaigns."
pg 3
It does not say it does not include partisan sources, it says it does not include sources from the campaigns.
Who talks politics that is not affiliated with a campaign and who researches this? When they say "Republican strategist", do they consider that person unaffiliated? When they say Democratic COngressman, do they consider that person unaffiliated? Oh, and did you catch the part where the exclude items related to the "horse race" aspect of the elections? According to PEW, that’s as much as 70% of the news stories. So you claim liberal bias on a study that excludes (or not) candidate supports that may or may not be affiliated with the candidate, only focuses on 60 minutes of broadcast television, excludes 70% of the political stories because they are "horse race" related?

You have to face it, there is just not enough information to support the claim that there is a Democratic bias in the media.

For my part, I recognize that there is not enough information to support the claims that there is a conservative bias in the media, though, as I said before, I "believe" there is a corporate/statist bias in the media, which can on occasion favor one or another candidate, and really, the statist aspect is all but obvious, though still not proven, in the fact that there is so little coverage of third party candidates. It may be a business decision by media outlets, no one is interested, it won’t sell ad space/time, so don’t cover it?

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Captain Ron was a movie starring Kurt Russell.

Why is that Captain Ron?

Well, nobody knows.
And of what possible relevance is it to the topic such that you keep invoking this Captain Ron?
When they say "Republican strategist", do they consider that person unaffiliated? When they say Democratic COngressman, do they consider that person unaffiliated?

Why don’t you ask them.
Your false claim initially was that
...they ignore any statements made by any guests of the news segments, they are not included in their numbers at all.
When pointed out that this claim of yours was false because what they said is:
"Our tallies include all opinions expressed by reporters and sources not affliated with the two campaigns."
You then change your claim to "partisan sources" which is also not what they say. Why not just use what they say, instead of making it up.

So you claim liberal bias on a study that excludes (or not) candidate supports that may or may not be affiliated with the candidate, only focuses on 60 minutes of broadcast television, excludes 70% of the political stories because they are "horse race" related?
Where did I do that?

Oh and did you catch the part where you claimed:
you fail to show the positive numbers, in which Bush was TWICE as likely as Gore to have a positive story.
And I responded with:

Are you actually reading what you are responding to? I did not fail to show the positive numbers. I quite clearly wrote, and I quote:
The Positive findings (13% Gore, 25% Bush, 14% Bush 34% Kerry) were closer to opposite.


The media is generally biased in favour of Democrats (PEW shows this). The reporting as analyzed by Pew showed overwhelming bias towards Democrats in two of the last three Presidential races and comparitively only slight in favour of the Republican in one. Not surprising since journalists tend vote for Democrats and when they donate campaign money, that tends to go to Democrats.


 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider