Journalistic Bias

[Aristophanes]

This is from Powerline blog:

I can't find the full report on the organization's web site, but Reuters says that the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which is affiliated with Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism, has issued a report that finds that "U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry." They study looked at stories in newspapers, network news broadcasts, morning news shows--probably the worst offenders--cable programs and a few web sites. The report's conclusions:

36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.

Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive.

That is really a stunning difference: almost two to one negative about Bush, and an astonishing two and a half to one positive for Kerry. It is almost impossible to see how a candidate could overcome such a disparity, but for this:

Looking at public perceptions of the media, the report showed that more people thought the media was unfair to both Kerry and Bush than to the candidates four years earlier, but fewer people thought news organizations had too much influence on the outcome of the election.

"It may be that the expectations of the press have sunk enough that they will not sink much further. People are not dismayed by disappointments in the press. They expect them," the authors of the report said.

I think that's right. In a closely related development, the audience for blogs has surged:

The study noted a huge rise in audiences for Internet news, particularly for bloggers whose readers jumped by 58 percent in six months to 32 million people.

I think this is another in a series of inflated blog-reader numbers, but whatever the real number is, it's obviously pretty big--a lot bigger than it would be if people's expectations of the mainstream media weren't so dismal.

[Count of Montesano]

No offense Aristophanes, but I think this topic has been beaten to death.

I don't buy that the media is overly biased to liberals. I think many reporters are on the liberal side, but publishers know not to piss off the conservatives who feed them advertising dollars.

[Aristophanes]

Originally posted by Count of Montesano@Mar 18 2005, 01:16 AM
No offense Aristophanes, but I think this topic has been beaten to death.

I don't buy that the media is overly biased to liberals. I think many reporters are on the liberal side, but publishers know not to piss off the conservatives who feed them advertising dollars.

So you're telling me that your conjecture that 'publishers know not to piss of the conservatives who feed them advertising dollars' has greater factual strength than a study, made by a respected an well-established group, rigorously examining the media content of the last Presidential election?

Don't 'liberals' feed advertising dollars, and honestly how many so-called 'conservatives' out there are going to meticulously examine media networks merely to identify that which is least biased against whomever they support. I hate to say this, but most corporations, when they buy advertising, aren't worried about the leftist or rightist credentials of the people broadcasting said advertising, they're worrying about how many viewers they will reach with their particular product. That's why 'ratings' are so important!!! And if CBS is getting fewer advertising dollars, it's not specifically about Rathergate; but the public fallout associated with Rathergate. For example, if CBS had run a blatant propaganda piece attacking John Kerry and it had been exposed; and customers had fled that newstation because of distrust, CBS ratings would still plummet and it would still get fewer advertising dollars. The MSM are playing it safe though, and they know that fabricating stories isn't just about finding 'old Bush National Guard memos,' it's also about being selective in the facts your report, or in editing speeches, or simply not reporting on the Swift Boat Vets allegations until you've crafted the perfect hack job on them. [or until Kerry finally opens his mouth to announce he's hurting from them, and breaks the media silence]

Your problem is you only have exposure to one side of the problem, or two if you count the 'loony-left' and the 'intellectually stagnated left' as separate entities. I've ...'looked at [life] from both sides now, from win or lose and still somehow, it's those illusions I recall...'

[I beg Joni Mitchell's forgiveness]

[KingOfTheIsles]

The key here is that you are using second-hand information. You say that you took this from a blog? The blog itself provides no actual links to this sudy, so why should we believe it? Can you give me a link to this study to verify these results? How ironic, in a topic on journalistic bias, that this piece is an obvious example. It waves some nice statistics around, admits it has no source to refer to, and then convinces people it is true, despite the fact that there is every possibility it has just made these figures up. When examining the relative bias and veracity of the media, it is sometimes a good idea to look at the media that you are getting this information from and examine how it is trying to influence you.

[Profler]

If I can just be excused for simplifying the issue, even if the 'liberal' left were to dominate the mainstream media, right-wing members of the media tend to be more successful in getting their message across (be this a case of merely shouting, or better supporting their argument). For an example, support for Rush Limbaugh is rife, although the commonly quoted comparison Michael Moore enjoys mostly ridicule (largely due to his cutting process).

In this respect, the left wing media are doomed by the same curse that affects any liberal group, direct confrontation of the opposition as opposed to a detached dissection.

[removeduser_487563287433]

No, the figures are correct. I'd suggest that the fact that Bush was the incumbent would explain them more than any bias.

[Phobos]

Though a conservative and somewhat suspicious of a left-leaning slant in a number of news outlets (most notably the New York Times, CBS, and possibly CNN) I too would question the veracity of this report, particularly as it was put forth by the Powerline blog. Now I often acquire information from this very blog (of the stories I've tracked they've broken 42 of the major scandals or issues as of late, and what's more 41 of them were correct) but it is, after all, in the blog's best interest to discredit the news sources for the sake of acquiring a larger following.

That said it wouldn't surprise me if the findings were accurate, though I don't consider such a bias to be terribly detrimental if you rely on more then one source for your information. Nor is it terribly surprising in light of recent events. Over the past 5-10 years or so the internet has been phasing out the old-fashioned "report the facts and leave the opinions to the folks" major news outlets. As such many of them have turned towards a more... sensationalist approach, latching onto one idea or theme and running with it. Since the Right has Fox News, dominates talk-radio, and relies upon a number of other sources it may well be that CBS and CNN have turned towards the opposing viewpoint. After all even if they alienate a portion of the viewing base they still acquire ratings and exposure through their competition with other outlets.