The study is by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, and it looks at how the two candidates were covered by the media. Deciding that Foxnews and MSNBC effectively "bookended" the ideological playing field, they provide the graphic in the story to explicate.
I have a lot of problems with this story, not the least of which is the obvious bias in the conclusions of the study, all evidence to the contrary.
To wit:
1. Negative Coverage: Foxnews stories were negative about McCain 40% of the time, and negative about Obama 40% of the time. Is this discussed as balanced and fair? No. The study states that on Foxnews, "the coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall)". Of course, the "norm" was made up of a fawning, biased media, so it should come as no surprise that Foxnews was more negative. Again...what Pew considered important was not that Foxnews was just as negative about McCain as it was about Obama; what they found important was that Fox was more negative toward Obama than "the norm".
2. Positive Coverage: Surprise, surprise. Foxnews carried a higher percentage of positive stories about Obama than about McCain. Look at the numbers! So let's review again....Fox was equally negative about the two candidates, and more positive about Obama. Where is this covered? Who is talking about Fox's even-handedness? No one. Because the "norm" is so biased, Fox's fairness is conservative by relative comparison.
3. MSNBC. 73% negative of McCain, 14% negative of Obama. 40% positive for Obama, 10% positive for McCain. Not only is MSNBC ridiculously biased, it's numbers CLEARLY have an impact on what PEW considers "the norm". No wonder Foxnews appears to have a conservative bias.
4. Overall conclusion. Here's one of the big conclusions of the study: "Barack Obama’s coverage was somewhat more positive than negative (36% vs. 29%), while John McCain’s, in contrast, was substantially negative (57% vs. 14% positive). The report concluded that this, in significant part, reflected and magnified the horse race and direction of the polls." So there it is. The undeniably negative coverage of John McCain is chalked up to "the horse race and direction of the polls". It had NOTHING to do with a predilection of reporters to shade their coverage toward Obama and away from McCain.
The media have no credibility on this subject, and the folks who watch the media have even less.
Posts
14 comments:
Perhaps one of the candidates made more mistakes for the media to run with? For example, SEN McCain provided a lot more negative ammo when he claimed "the fundamentals of the economy are strong"..... or when his running mate couldn't answer relatively simple questions from main stream reports... Could the stats you mentioned represent quality of the candidates vice a bias? Joe
Oh, I don't know Joe. "I've been to all 57 states" didn't get a lot of coverage....
you certainly made your point because i never heard the quote, which i assume you are attributing to the President Elect or his running mate. However, consider this -- most people would hear "57 states" as a slip of the tongue. Where as a comment such as "the fundamentals of the economy are sound" in the midst of the greatest financial collapse in several generations as being dangerously out of touch with reality. Personally i think there is an enormous difference between the two comments and what the candidates do and do not understand about economics. Joe
Joe, the point I think is that the negative coverage fed into the poll results. If all you're hearing is negativity about a candidate, your views are going to change accordingly. Sarah Palin was resoundingly trashed by the media before she ever sat down with Katie Couric. 57 states... FDR on TV in 1929...being outraged at McCain over the Ayers issue instead of recognizing it was worthy of further scrutiny...the coverage was downright embarrassing. That doofus Chris Matthews even claimed this week that it was his job as a journalist to ensure Obama had a successful presidency.
I'm just curious what happens now. Do these guys continue to carry Obama's water? Who will MSNBC hate now? Obama has a great degree of coolness and no-drama aura around him. But there is certain to be conflict and some degree of infighting in that White House, there always is. Will we hear about it?
“After this immediate problem, we’ve got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows.” -- Barack Obama, 9/29/08
This remark came the day after the Dow tanked over 600 points. I'll give you the 57 state remark as a slip of the tongue, but it seems to me that Barack and Sen. McCain saw eye-to-eye on matters of economics.
An excellent find, CW.
It's amazing just how much these guys presented a false story by the way they chose to present the data. It's an instruction on how to be a biased news source--in a story about biased news sources! Classic!
Bush stole the election. Blah blah blah. Media coverage is biased. Blah blah blah.
I have to go to sleep now as I have a ship filled with plastic crap from China to unload tomorrow.
Good night and Good Luk.
B Bauer. I recognize the point you're making in yet another characteristically snarky posting--that we here argue about the unimportant while the Chinese are eating our lunch. A couple of things.
Press bias is not unimportant. The relentless pounding of one candidate over another has an impact on elections, and elections have an impact on events.
Secondly, while I certainly see China as a rising power, a country poised to compete with us and eventually overcome us economically...I'm old enough to remember the SAME predictions being made about the Japanese. China will get old before it gets rich, and internal turmoil driven by everyone's favorite troublemaker--young, unmarried, unemployed men--will act as a sea anchor on its economy.
Scrutinizing press bias is important. -but for most people only when their guy loses.
Is your only point that this was a bad article? What is the root of the argument? To what gain, in your opinion, is media biased? Is it not also affected by market forces which tend toward equilibrium?
To my point, I agree China is not the problem. We are the greatest threat to ourselves.
Also, there is no way I would challenge your seamanship, but I thought a sea anchor keeps a vessel heading into the seas and stable.
Points are:
1. Data did not support their conclusions.
2. Data does support a more positive view of the real balance of a much-maligned news source.
3. Data supports a view that the media were demonstrably more favorable to Obama than McCain.
To what gain? The guy they agree with wins.
I think the market forces argument works to some extent, but in this regard what is more important was the herd effect. Media predisposed to be for the Dem, Dem an attractive candidate, media begin to shade that direction, other media follow. Remember...John McCain was winning for a week or so this summer. That could not be allowed to stand.
As for questioning my seamanship, as anyone who has every sailed with me knows, one should ALWAYS question my seamanship. I'm a CIC guy...always thought driving ships was overrated. But yes, a sea anchor does do the things you suggest. It also acts as a drag on the movement of the ship through the water.
"The guy they agree with wins."
So this effect was not present in the prior two elections or was bias reversed?
"So this effect was not present in the prior two elections or was bias reversed?"
I've seen the bias since the Reagan days, but it was never as obvious and overwhelming as it was this time around. The mainstream media has become as much a part of the Democrat party as the unions and poverty pimps.
You asked "to what gain". The gain is, their guy wins (or at least that is what they hope). In the previous two elections, they were unsuccessful. This time they were successful.
I remember the first time I heard Hillary bemoan the "biased media" early in her husband's Administration and I thought, "wow, what planet is she on?" She of course was bemoaning Rush Limbaugh, the single standout among the hoardes of liberal media. And frankly, Rush is a bit of a cartoon of conservatism. He's entertaining more than informing, blusterous more than thoughtful. But he had an effect that certainly vulcanized the masses of conservatives starved for some media source reflective of their own political views. Since then others have followed but most follow the same format and style. As your data indicates, even the network bastion of conservatism, Fox(y) News biased its coverage to the liberal candidate, perhaps in an effort to lend credibility to its "fair and balanced" mantra. Problem with "fair" in my experience, whether "fairness doctrine", "fair trade", "fair hiring practices", etc. Is that it is almost always unfair to me. I like God's fairness. He accepts everyone equally. And he rejects them equally if they don't meet his very clear requirements. Of course, perhaps that is why so few liberals believe faithfully in God. Their world view of fairness is at odds with God's. Having to meet requirements is patently unfair, especially when the requirements are ones they simply don't want to meet.
Post a Comment