1
   

Even Harvard Finds the Media Biased

 
 
cjhsa
 
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 09:37 am
Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:30 PM PT
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124

Journalism: The debate is over. A consensus has been reached. On global warming? No, on how Democrats are favored on television, radio and in the newspapers.

Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy ?- hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy ?- found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. "Obama's front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton's was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative."

In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.

The study also discovered that newspaper stories "tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the 'game,' compared with 63% overall."

Television has a similar problem. Only 10% of TV stories were focused on issues, and here, too, Democrats get the better of it.

Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.

The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrows on cable TV, but it's there nonetheless. Stories about Democrats were positive in more than a third of the cases, while Republicans were portrayed favorably in fewer than 29%. Republican led in unfriendly stories 30.4% to 25.5%.

CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical.

The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition." There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program's disparaging reports.

Even talk radio, generally considered a bastion of conservatism, has been relatively rough on the GOP. On conservative shows, Obama got more favorable treatment (27.8%) than Rudy Giuliani (25%). Sen. John McCain got a 50% favorability rating while Mitt Romney led the three GOP candidates with 66.7%.

The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter's groundbreaking 1986 book "The Media Elite"; "A Measure of Media Bias," a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg's two books, "Bias" and "Arrogance." All underscore the media's leftward leanings.

The media, of course, insist they are careful to keep personal opinions out of their coverage. But the facts tell another story ?- one that can't be edited or spiked.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 705 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 09:42 am
And it seems to be having the desired effect and is motivated by reasons I have given in another place.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 10:03 am
Could it be because there is nothing positive to report about the republican party and the zero's bidding to be their candidate for president
Could anything positive be said about G.Bush and his administration?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 10:07 am
Thinking...... Confused







Nope
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 10:10 am
I can think of a few good things, the responses to the question from the A2K crowd being one...
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 10:12 am
cjhsa wrote:
I can think of a few good things, the responses to the question from the A2K crowd being one...


Is that all you can think of? Surely you must have more than that in your arsenal.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 10:12 am
The there is the assertion that "the media is biased" is quite different from finding that the "media is biased toward presidential candidates". It has been noted elsewhere in these fora that the Dems, namely Obama and Clinton, are offering some sort of platforms, some new ideas, some new ways of doing things.

The republicans on the other hand have done nothing new, and are offering a country desperate for change, nothing new.

It's not surprising to see the dems getting a "positive tone" in the media (whatever that means, and whatever criteria they use to qualify or quantify that), especially when you consider how many republicans have been trying to distance themselves from the current administration.

The media hasn't been all that kind to Britney Spears, but that doesn't mean they are biased toward Christina Agulerra because they say nice things about her....when you are worthy of good press, you normally get it. When you're not, they'll eat you up.

Face it...it's a very tough time to be a republican.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 11:06 am
The country isn't desperate for change. Only gloom and doom progressives are desperate for change. What it needs is direction, and not misdirection from the media.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 11:13 am
candidone1 wrote:
The media hasn't been all that kind to Britney Spears, but that doesn't mean they are biased toward Christina Agulerra because they say nice things about her....when you are worthy of good press, you normally get it. When you're not, they'll eat you up.


Well-put.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 11:45 am
cjhsa wrote:
The country isn't desperate for change. Only gloom and doom progressives are desperate for change. What it needs is direction, and not misdirection from the media.


Ya. Wut vee need izt a leader!! A leader vidout limits un hiz powerz!!

Any questions?


Joe(NO questions!! NO!!!)Nation
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 11:49 am
cjhsa wrote:
The country isn't desperate for change. Only gloom and doom progressives are desperate for change. What it needs is direction, and not misdirection from the media.


How is the media misdirecting anyone when they report on the front runners of the presidential race?

Besides, were you protesting all the press Bush was receiving in the wake of the 2000 election? How about all the press he and Guiliani received following 9/11? Were you screaming "bias" when those republicans were on every front page, every news station and every magazine cover?

I seriously doubt it.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 11:58 am
They were leaders, not wannabes.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 12:07 pm
As long as the media cheerleads the USA's progress towards authoritarianism, you will not hear or see any complaints from the right, but should it be mentioned that this unitary president they seek would not fit with the US Constitution as it is presently written, the howls of bias begin.

Joe(really sad state of affairs for a free country)Nation
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 12:09 pm
cjhsa wrote:
They were leaders, not wannabes.


Kindly define, in your own words, what a leader is.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 12:17 pm
Just read the report and weep c1. Stop baiting the thread.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 12:22 pm
You changed the topic from bias in the media to leadership, not me.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 02:42 pm
So, more to the point cj, is the general charge of "media bias" and "media bias toward presidential candidates" the same thing?

I think not.

The former is a sweeping charge that, by and large, the entire media (papers, television, internet, magazines etc) is left leaning, the latter is one that suggests that the general media is giving coverage to left leaning candidates. That the coverage results in some positive commentary on the leftist candidates is more a testimony of the candidates, their platforms and their relevence in contemporary American politics than it is the control the left has over the media.

If, for example, the republican candidates had anything worth saying, any platforms worth mentioning, or any direction that interested the average American, perhaps they too would receive some glowing press. It does not follow, then, that the entire "media has a leftist bias".
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 06:00 am
Re: Even Harvard Finds the Media Biased
cjhsa wrote:
Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:30 PM PT
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124

Journalism: The debate is over. A consensus has been reached. On global warming? No, on how Democrats are favored on television, radio and in the newspapers.

Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy ?- hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy ?- found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Emphasis mine.

Unwittingly, cjhsa has shown us an example of why we can't, indeed, trust some media - like the Investors Business Daily. Because this is simply factually wrong. As cjhsa could have known too, if he had taken a look at the actual report rather than just a conservative medium's take on it.

The report shows that the media have published more negative than positive stories about McCain and Giuliani - AND about Hillary Clinton and Edwards.

The balance is more unfavourable for Hillary, in fact, than it is for Giuliani. Not to mention Romney, who unlike two of the three Democrats actually received a favourable balance in coverage.

So why do the added totals show a positive balance for the Democratic candidates overall? Kevin Drum says it best:

Quote:
Two words: Barack Obama. [..] the press isn't in love with Democrats, it's in love with Barack Obama.


He provides a chart to show it, and looked at the raw numbers to reach a conclusion directly opposite to IBD's:

Quote:
The chart on the right shows the results for each of the six leading candidates, and Obama's coverage is almost stratospherically laudatory. So I grabbed the raw data and removed Obama from the analysis entirely to see what would happen. Answer: the positive vs. negative coverage was virtually identical for Democrats and Republicans.

Here's the chart:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blogphotos/Blog_PEJ_Press_Tone.gif

I think the media should indeed be ashamed for reporting with such a massive bias - but the bias is not towards "the Democrats", but towards one specific candidate, over and against the other Democratic frontrunners.

The fact that despire this apparent torrent of positive coverage, Obama is still polling in the low twenties is really quite damning for him - but perhaps a good sign for an independent civic mind.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 07:18 am
Joe Nation wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
The country isn't desperate for change. Only gloom and doom progressives are desperate for change. What it needs is direction, and not misdirection from the media.


Ya. Wut vee need izt a leader!! A leader vidout limits un hiz powerz!!

Any questions?


Joe(NO questions!! NO!!!)Nation


Wut vee need izt a GIRL in the WhiteHouse...
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 08:02 am
Miller wrote:

Wut vee need izt a GIRL in the WhiteHouse...


There was a GIRL in the previous WH but then everyone complained about what she did for the President.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Even Harvard Finds the Media Biased
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/05/2026 at 09:03:04