Validating our Opinions: Media Bias

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Some of us will have our opinions validated by the
following poll information. Some won't Smile

Voters See All Networks with Bias

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters

September 18, 2004

Is Presidential campaign coverage unbiased, biased to help Kerry, or biased to help Bush?

No Bias - Help Kerry - Help Bush
CBS 33% 37% 10%
ABC 36% 30% 10%
NBC 39% 28% 11%
CNN 39% 25% 12%
Fox 38% 7% 34%
RasmussenReports.com

September 19, 2004--Television news networks would like to see themselves as a team of impartial journalists working on behalf of their audience. However, a Rasmussen Reports survey found that voters see an entirely different picture. Generally speaking, they believe ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, and the Fox News Channel are biased to help one campaign or the other.

Between 33% and 39% of Americans believe that each of the five major broadcast news outlets is unbiased. On balance, four of the five are believed to be helping the Kerry campaign. One, Fox News, is believed to be helping the Bush campaign.

CBS is seen as the most biased--37% believe that network news team is trying to help the Kerry campaign. Only 33% believe it presents the news in an unbiased manner. This may be a reaction to the recent flap over memos aired by CBS--38% believe that Dan Rather used his broadcasts to help the Kerry campaign.

Bias is clearly in the eye of the beholder and there is a very strong partisan tint to all the data. Fifty-four percent (54%) of all Kerry voters believe that Fox News is trying to help elect Bush. At least 50% of Kerry voters believe that each of the other four news sources are unbiased.

At the other end of the spectrum, 60% of Bush voters believe Fox News is unbiased. Seventy percent (70%) of Bush voters believe that CBS is trying to help Kerry. Between 48% and 55% believe the same is true about CNN, ABC, and NBC.

Twenty-one percent (21%) of Kerry voters believe CNN is biased to help Bush. That may shock conservatives who used to routinely dismiss CNN as the "Clinton News Network."

At the same time, those who dismiss Fox as propaganda may be shocked that the other networks are viewed by voters in essentially the same light.

Similar perceptions of bias were found for major newspapers. Additionally, a survey conducted last year found that only 46% of Americans viewed the New York Times as a reliable source of information.

Rasumussen 9/20/04
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Broadcast%20Bias.htm

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,589 • Replies: 34

No top replies

Heh.

It just SEEMS biased becuase Bush hasn't done anything positive worth commentating on in a long time.

Almost EVERY story that has come out has been a negative one for the president lately.

Why, it's almost as if the FACTS are biased against him!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

60% of Bush voters believe Fox News is unbiased.

60% of Bush voters who watch Fox cannot think for themselves (and perhaps more, to be sure). Anyone with half a brain and who may be privy to the documentary "Outfoxed" should know better.

This is very sad.

0 Replies

Try out these stats for starters - note that the sources for all are posted and the information is verifiable.

http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=3547

Sources:

Employment and Job Growth: www.bls.gov
Unemployment: www.bls.gov
Taxes and Income: "America Celebrates Tax Freedom Day," Tax Foundation, 4/04; Real disposable income, per capita, Bureau of Economic Analysis; Real Earnings in July 2004," BLS, 7/16/04; Productivity & Costs," BLS, 6/3/04; "Employment Cost Index - March 2004," BLS, 4/29/04;
Economy: Richard Rahn, "Tallying Presidential Economic Success," Washington Times, 6/18/2004; Equity Ownership in America, SIA and Investment Company Institute, 2002; Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 5/21/2004; U.S. Census Bureau, "Statistical Abstract of the United States," 1996 and 2003; BLS
Homeownership: www.census.gov; www.hud.gov; National Realtors Association
Quality of Life: "Trends in Student Aid," College Board, 2003; National Restaurant Association; Cruise Line International Association; "The 'personalities' of cruise ships," MSNBC, 12/12/2003; Giving USA 1996, 2003

0 Replies

That ANYONE thinks Fox is unbiased is frightening. People are always found to be stupider than I could have imagined.

0 Replies

Who is actually claiming that ehBeth?

0 Replies

Um, where's the cost of living index, national debt index, or the fact that MANY Americans have stopped looking for jobs, and therefore are not counted in the unemployment rolls?

Also, where is the disparity growth chart, showing more people below the poverty line? Where's the outsourcing index, or the current rate of exchange?

There is just so much not included. Not a very complete picture, IMO.

0 Replies

Re: Validating our Opinions: Media Bias

Foxfyre wrote:

At the other end of the spectrum, 60% of Bush voters believe Fox News is unbiased. Seventy percent (70%) of Bush voters believe that CBS is trying to help Kerry. Between 48% and 55% believe the same is true about CNN, ABC, and NBC.

Bizarre.
I accept that all the newspapers/mags I look at (and those I don't, but are available somewhere) are biased. I just try to sort of organize them from rightish to leftish, and read them with that filter on.

Everyone's got an angle. Not recognizing that is naive.

0 Replies

Feel free to put up your own statistics Dookiestix. There are definitely some negatives for Bush out there. I can point you to them if you like. The statistics in the site I posted are all verifiable, however, and get precious little media coverage while the negatives generally get mentioned once and not infrequently many times.

As nearly as I can tell, the positives outnumber the negatives about....oh I'll take a wild guess here.....5 to 1?

Wouldn't you think an unbiased media would be talking about that? ehBeth is correct, however, that everyone has an angle. And if the Rasmussen poll is correct, that angle is mostly pro-Kerry.

Now I'm sure the media will be fair in publishing Kerry's accomplishments too just as soon as they can find some. His record over the last 20 years, however, is sort of being avoided by the mainstream media. Why do you suppose that is?

0 Replies

Did you factor the Rasmussen bias into your assessment, Foxfyre?

0 Replies

I honestly haven't detected any Rasmussen bias ehBeth and I have taken some of their polls to verify my opinion about that. But on the possibility that they are tilted right, I also weigh Zogby and a couple of others against Rasmussen before drawing much of a conclusion.

My assessment of media bias was formulated long before Rasmussen came out with this poll and is well documented here on A2K. If you will note, my thesis re the poll is qualified as well.

0 Replies

With all due respect, Foxfyre, unless you can post statistics from a non-partisan web site, I can only assume you are using your "own" statistics to bolster your "angle."

Georgewbush.com? Oy...

0 Replies

Quote:

His record over the last 20 years, however, is sort of being avoided by the mainstream media. Why do you suppose that is?

Because the nature of what 'media' is has changed.

Remember: it isn't any longer the media's job to tell the truth, or to report accurately; it's the media's job to make money.

That's it. And Kerry's accomplishments in the senate don't make money, because they aren't breaking news, or accusatory, or slander, or mudslinging, or people dying in Iraq, or Vietnam.

Therefore; you don't hear anything about it.

Tell me, do they talk a lot about Bush's accomplishments before he was made president? Hmm? Because that might be kindof, yaknow, revealing.... must be that right-wing bias keeping those stories out.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I don't guess anyone is wondering why those statistics cited in foxfyre's article are for 1996 and not 2000? I find that they present an incomplete picture. Here's another perspective...

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

0 Replies

Dookie writes:

Quote:

With all due respect, Foxfyre, unless you can post statistics from a non-partisan web site, I can only assume you are using your "own" statistics to bolster your "angle."

The sources cited to support the stats are sources generally accepted as objective Dookie. Again, please feel free to post your own stats and sources. They're out there.

Cyclop, I will agree that the media does seem to be more interested in 'gotcha' than in printing the facts, both good and bad. And, again, if the Rasmussen poll is anywhere near accurate, however, they are far more likely to print a 'gotcha' concerning Bush than they are Kerry.

While I do believe Fox's base is the political and social conservative, to their credit they do not withhold negative stores to protect Bush or the GOP. They are far more likely to counter the negative with something positive than are the other news sources howeer.

0 Replies

Freeduck it is four years compared to four years. That is about as fair using statistics as you can get. But using the stats you posted, the poverty level rose in Clinton's first four years when compared to the previous four years too. Smile

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
His record over the last 20 years, however, is sort of being avoided by the mainstream media. Why do you suppose that is?

Because the nature of what 'media' is has changed.

Remember: it isn't any longer the media's job to tell the truth, or to report accurately; it's the media's job to make money.

That's it. And Kerry's accomplishments in the senate don't make money, because they aren't breaking news, or accusatory, or slander, or mudslinging, or people dying in Iraq, or Vietnam.

Therefore; you don't hear anything about it.

Tell me, do they talk a lot about Bush's accomplishments before he was made president? Hmm? Because that might be kindof, yaknow, revealing.... must be that right-wing bias keeping those stories out.

Cycloptichorn

The difference being is that Bush has been President for the last 3+ years. They have been using what he has done in that time frame. No one talks about Kerry's record, unless it has to do with a Vietnam story. The media doesn't mention it, because he didn't do anything thus the reason there is nothing to vote on. What they do mention comes in the form of being for something and then against and then for and then against. It's worse then watching a professional ping pong match.

Find one thing Kerry stood for from the start to finish that was of a true benefit.

0 Replies

Quote:

While I do believe Fox's base is the political and social conservative, to their credit they do not withhold negative stores to protect Bush or the GOP.

LOL!!! If one were to understand the policies behind FOX news, one would immediately understand that they are mearly an arm of the GOP.

http://mediamatters.org/

0 Replies

Why is Kerry (and the Dem party) so outrageously afraid of Kerry's Senate record?

They won't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

0 Replies

I agree that's Kerry's albatross, Baldimo. He has sponosored or cosponsored no bills of substance in his entire 20-year Senate career. Why? I don't have a clue except that it is rumored that his colleagues don't like him much. But with nothing to run on other than having the most liberal voting record in the Senate, the questions re his Navy career raised by the Swiftboat guys, and his mistakes taking all sides of almost every issue, he's having a hard time coming up with a theme that has legs.

He is getting a lot of media exposure and help, but the greatest candidate in the world needs more of a reason to vote for him other than he just wants to be president.

0 Replies

Validating our Opinions: Media Bias

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know