|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!)
#7583535 - 11/01/07 10:40 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
A new study of the media and its coverage of the 2008 elections so far was recently released by the Project for Excellence in Journalism at Harvard (hardly a bastion of conservatism). The results are not (or at least shouldn't be, unless you've been living under a rock for a few years) surprising for anybody who pays any attention to the
MSM: media coverage is heavily slanted towards Democrats.
Big newspapers, broadcast networks and National Public Radio (paid for by your tax dollars) actually produce more stories that are slanted in favor of Democrats.
A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy has found that the media coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign was more likely to be spun in a positive manner toward Democrats than Republicans. The study also found that the press coverage of candidates was in sharp contrast to what the public says it wants from campaign reporting by concentrating on the effects that events have on candidates rather than reporting on how candidates’ stances on issues will affect the electorate. (h/t Bookworm)
In other words, the media is both slanted to the left and under performing in terms of public expectations on election coverage. The notable exception on left leaning bias is in talk radio; the one media outlet that is under attack by certain Democrats in Congress for emphasis on “fairness”.
Before I discuss the underlying data I think it is interesting to point out that the data on Fox News directly contradicts the mainstream narrative about its bias in favor of Republican candidates. While Fox news was more negative than other candidates about Democrats this trend merely helped underscore Fox’s neutrality in coverage because of the lopsided nature of Fox’s competitors as noted in the study.
The programming studied on Fox News offered a somewhat more positive picture of Republicans and more negative one of Democrats compared with other media outlets. Fox News stories about a Republican candidate were most likely to be neutral (47%), with the remainder more positive than negative (32% vs. 21% negative). The bulk of that positive coverage went to Giuliani (44% positive), while McCain still suffered from unflattering coverage (20% positive vs. 35% negative).
When it came to Democratic candidates, the picture was more negative. Again, neutral stories had a slight edge (39%), followed by 37% negative and 24% positive. And, in marked contrast from the rest of the media, coverage of Obama was twice as negative as positive: 32% negative vs. 16% positive and 52% neutral.
But any sense here that the news channel was uniformly positive about Republicans or negative about Democrats is not manifest in the data.
I find these statistics the most alarming of all the study results because a whole political party banned Fox News based on an unfounded narrative that was put forth by liberal interest groups.
Newspapers lead all other media outlets in terms of content and tone favorable for Democrats. Perhaps the most disturbing facet of the newspaper coverage was that nearly half of all front page stories were triggered by newsroom initiative rather than reacting to what candidates did and said. This stands in contrast to all other media.
On the front pages of newspapers, Democrats tended to get more coverage than in other media, somewhat more positive coverage than elsewhere, and more stories tended to contain information that explained how they would be affected if that candidate were elected than was true in the press coverage overall. In addition, many more of the stories were initiated by journalists than elsewhere in the press, a fact that signals a special role for print as a source of enterprise in news.
Another distinguishing characteristic of the print stories studied was tone. Democrats got much more positive coverage in the daily papers examined than they did elsewhere. Fully 59% of all stories about Democrats had a clear, positive message vs. 11% that carried a negative tone. That is roughly double the percentage of positive stories that we found in the media generally. Just under a third (30%) of the front page stories examined were neutral.
For the top tier Democrats, the positive tilt was even more the case than for Democrats in general. Obama’s front page coverage in the sample was 70% positive and 9% negative and Clinton’s was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative.
Republican candidates, in contrast, were more likely to receive clearly negative stories in print than elsewhere: 40% negative vs. 26% positive and 34% neutral.
Newspapers also stood out for initiating more campaign coverage on their own. Nearly half of all front page stories were triggered by newsroom initiative rather than reacting to what the candidate or others said or did (46%). That is substantially higher than the 28% in the media generally in the sample. A little more than a third of stories were triggered by the candidates and their campaigns (37%), compared with 46% generally.
Following on the heels of newspapers was network evening news. The tone of coverage was again slanted toward Democrats with Barack Obama getting the bulk of positive coverage and John McCain getting the bulk of the negative.
Cable news was the one bastion of “friendly territory” for Republicans on the tube. Not that this means that Republicans received more favorable coverage or even some sense of neutrality. It just means that Republicans fared slightly better in this medium than others with the exception of talk radio.
What distinguished cable news more in the first five months of the year was the tone of the coverage. The positive-negative breakdown of Democrats followed roughly the same trend as the media overall (34% positive vs. 25% negative). But the tone of Republican coverage was quite different. On cable TV, stories about Republican candidates were nearly as likely to be positive as to be negative (29% positive vs. 30% negative).
But those numbers only reflect the three major cable news channels taken together. When you look at the coverage of each one, there are significant differences in how the candidates were treated. CNN gave decidedly more negative coverage to Republican candidates; Fox was more negative towards Democrats--and more positive towards Republicans; MSNBC gave decidedly positive coverage towards both.
Who fared the worst in terms of bias in cable? CNN naturally by casting Republicans in a negative light by a margin of three-to-one!
Talk radio hosts spent most of their time dwelling on the negative with a split along ideological lines.
It may surprise no one that the 2008 presidential election was a major feature of talk radio, both conservative and liberal. From January through May, the race for the White House has accounted for 13% of the total airtime studied, making it the second-biggest story after the debate over Iraq policy (17%). Overall, conservative talk radio was far more interested in the early campaign than was liberal talk radio. Conservative talk radio aired 106 segments on the candidates, while liberal talk radio mustered a bare 29 segments.
Most of that airtime was spent dwelling on the negative. Conservatives spent the bulk of their time criticizing Democratic candidates and liberal hosts vented about Republican contenders. The candidate who received the most attention by far on talk radio was Senator Clinton.
The study as a whole was quite illuminating. It appears that positive coverage of Barack Obama accounted for much of the positive lean toward Democrats. When erasing the coverage that focused on him in conjunction with the negative coverage of McCain the reporting was more even.
Nonetheless the study confirms that the perception of liberal bias in the media is more than just conjecture; statistical analysis confirms that belief.
Tone for Democrats vs. Republicans
Taking all the presidential hopefuls together, the press overall has been more positive about Democratic candidates and more negative about Republicans. In the stories mainly about one of the Democratic candidates, the largest percentage was neutral (39%), but more than a third of stories (35%) were positive, while slightly more than a quarter (26%) carried a clearly negative tone.
For Republicans, the numbers were basically reversed. Again the same number as for Democrats (39%) were neutral, but more than a third (35%) were negative vs. 26% positive.
In other words, not only did the Republicans receive less coverage overall, the attention they did get tended to be more negative than that of Democrats. And in some specific media genres, the difference is particularly striking.
So when the liberals start saying that there is no media bias, just point them to this. For those of us who are subjected to the Dead Fish Wrapper, this isn't anything new.
http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/node/115
http://www.journalism.org/node/8197
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers



Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!) [Re: lonestar2004]
#7583555 - 11/01/07 10:45 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Blah Blah Blah.
Cry me a fucking river.
Maybe its the fact 50% of your party is just so jack-shit fucking stupid that any truthful article written about them is bound to make them look bad.
When your entire parties platform is based on hate, fear, and mistrust, there aren't going to be many cozy human-interest stories written about you.
What good things do you want people to write about them?
Quote:
"In other news today, GWB and his Jesus-Freak Cronies passed a resolution bringing America one step closer to a second war with a Mideast nation, while at the same time ensuring that our grandchildren will live in poverty commensurate with a third world nation. Bully For Him, and Bully for the GOP"
Get a fucking clue.
If you need your news spoon fed to you in a manner which makes you feel good about your fucked-up politics, stick to Fox News. In the meantime, I get enough Republican bullshit from the "MSM" as it is.
-------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!) [Re: Madtowntripper]
#7583636 - 11/01/07 11:13 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Madtowntripper said: Maybe its the fact 50% of your party is just so jack-shit fucking stupid that any truthful article written about them is bound to make them look bad.
When your entire parties platform is based on hate, fear, and mistrust, there aren't going to be many cozy human-interest stories written about you.
I think you have been watching too much liberal media.
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!) [Re: Madtowntripper]
#7583891 - 11/01/07 12:26 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Madtowntripper said:
Cry me a fucking river.
Maybe its the fact 50% of your party is just so jack-shit fucking stupid that any truthful article written about them is bound to make them look bad.
When your entire parties platform is based on hate, fear, and mistrust, there aren't going to be many cozy human-interest stories written about you.
What good things do you want people to write about them?
Get a fucking clue.
Damn the truth hurts!
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!) [Re: DieCommie]
#7583899 - 11/01/07 12:27 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
 Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
Madtowntripper said: Maybe its the fact 50% of your party is just so jack-shit fucking stupid that any truthful article written about them is bound to make them look bad.
When your entire parties platform is based on hate, fear, and mistrust, there aren't going to be many cozy human-interest stories written about you.
I think you have been watching too much liberal media.
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!) [Re: lonestar2004]
#7584446 - 11/01/07 03:23 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/30/21 06:37 PM)
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!) [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
#7584547 - 11/01/07 03:57 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
EntheogenicPeace said: Did the study also conclude that there are really no fundamental differences between the mainstream of the parties
Seriously if there are no fundamental differences between the two parties, why does the Media not give some Balance in the 2008 Election Coverage???
The Dem's control Congress and the Senate. its not like they're underdogs.
yet the media harps on Hillary being unbeatable and treat obama like a rock star!
newest poll 11/01/2007 "A Pew Research Center poll out this morning shows Hillary Clinton leading Rudy Giuliani 51%-43% in a 2008 trial heat. Clinton is propelled to her lead by a massive lead among women voters she tops Giuliani 57%-37% among them. Giuliani's lead among men is comparatively small at 49%-44%. Clinton also benefits from massive support from those in the lower income brackets. Among those with income of $20,000 to $29,999, Clinton leads 57%-37%. Among those with less than $20,000 in income, Clinton's lead is massive 72%-23%.
The AP reports the Pew poll also suggests there may be more trouble for Giuliani in the offing, as it finds "more than half of white evangelical Republicans would consider voting for a conservative third-party candidate should the 2008 presidential race pit Hillary Rodham Clinton against Rudy Giuliani."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_071101.htm
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!) [Re: lonestar2004]
#7585449 - 11/01/07 08:14 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/30/21 06:37 PM)
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?



Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!) [Re: lonestar2004]
#7585578 - 11/01/07 08:52 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
it seems like judging a story as 'neutral', 'positive' or 'negative' has it's own inherent subjectivity as well.
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!) [Re: afoaf]
#7587092 - 11/02/07 09:56 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
right.
I can't believe Obama’s coverage was ONLY 70% positive? I think the survey was biased.
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!) [Re: afoaf]
#7587144 - 11/02/07 10:14 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
afoaf said: it seems like judging a story as 'neutral', 'positive' or 'negative' has it's own inherent subjectivity as well.
I think EVERY source is biased towards one pole.
So the "Liberal Democrats" just happens to pull out ahead over the averges... doesn't mean either side is that less of a crappy news source 
I want to see Limbaugh and Franken together in a steel cage match with two baseball bats.
|
|