Harvard University Studyl !

[Murffieus]

I'm sitting here reading the IBD Editorial page this morning and see where Harvard University's Center for Press, Politics, and Public Policy did a nationwide study on media bias. Here's what they found:

In studying "media political tone of coverage" the study found that newspapers presented positive stories on democrat candidates 58.8% of the time and positives on Republican candidates only 26.4 of he time.

On the network evening news positives on democrats 39.5% of the time----on republicans only 18.6% of the time.

Cable news-----33.9% democrats-----and favored Republicans 28.7% of the time.

Please remember that Harvard is not exactly a bastion of conservative politics!

[augoman]

good point Murf- I haven't read mine yet- thanks.

[mu03eng]

You guys should read a book by Malcolm Gladwell called Blink.  He has two Blink and Tipping Point and I believe the story I'm going to recount is in Blink.

Anyway, Blink talks about how brains make the snap decisions with the tiniest of information and can be influenced by the nearly imperceptible.  Why its relevant is Gladwell sighted a study of Peter Jennings news casts.  The study found that no matter what the report's tone about the Republican party viewers had a more favorable opinion of Republicans than they did of another news reporters reading the exact same story.  There was something in Jennings mannerisms that influenced the viewer.  Jennings mannerisms were influenced by his own subconscious thoughts.  His body language was influenced by his bias and his body language was then influencing the viewers. 

What does this all mean?  To me it tells me that bias builds on bias and even if someone tries to be unbiased, they may give off subtle clues to a bias that can influence everyone.  Hence a perceived media bias.  Which goes back to Chico's studies of media members being liberal, they may be trying to be outwardly unbiased in their approach but their mannerisms and body language could give it all away.

I highly recommend the book it is a fascinating read

[Phi Iota Gamma 84]

I'm sitting here reading the IBD Editorial page this morning and see where Harvard University's Center for Press, Politics, and Public Policy did a nationwide study on media bias. Here's what they found:

In studying "media political tone of coverage" the study found that newspapers presented positive stories on democrat candidates 58.8% of the time and positives on Republican candidates only 26.4 of he time.

On the network evening news positives on democrats 39.5% of the time----on republicans only 18.6% of the time.

Cable news-----33.9% democrats-----and favored Republicans 28.7% of the time.

Please remember that Harvard is not exactly a bastion of conservative politics!

I think that all of the above %'s are bogus, I can't believe people have favorable impressions more than 5% for either party

[77ncaachamps]

Who cares about the news when you're smart enough to filter the crap?

[Murffieus]

The point is that there most of the public is not able to "filter out the crap" and take the news as gospel!

[Mayor McCheese]

The point is that there most of the public is not able to "filter out the crap" and take the news as gospel!

if thats true then how does Bush win a second term?  Well that question still baffles me, but all this talk about the media is against Republicans and it changes the minds of most of the public is bogus.

[Murffieus]

Bush won a second term on the basis of a very effective campaign against Al Quida and the Taliban up to that point. Plus Kerry carry wasn't a strong candidate-----too liberal!

[Pakuni]

You guys should read a book by Malcolm Gladwell called Blink.  He has two Blink and Tipping Point and I believe the story I'm going to recount is in Blink.

Anyway, Blink talks about how brains make the snap decisions with the tiniest of information and can be influenced by the nearly imperceptible.  Why its relevant is Gladwell sighted a study of Peter Jennings news casts.  The study found that no matter what the report's tone about the Republican party viewers had a more favorable opinion of Republicans than they did of another news reporters reading the exact same story.  There was something in Jennings mannerisms that influenced the viewer.  Jennings mannerisms were influenced by his own subconscious thoughts.  His body language was influenced by his bias and his body language was then influencing the viewers. 

What does this all mean?  To me it tells me that bias builds on bias and even if someone tries to be unbiased, they may give off subtle clues to a bias that can influence everyone.  Hence a perceived media bias.  Which goes back to Chico's studies of media members being liberal, they may be trying to be outwardly unbiased in their approach but their mannerisms and body language could give it all away.

I highly recommend the book it is a fascinating read

Interesting.

The flip side of that, however, is the bias of the viewer/reader and how that person, through their particular prism, reads the "nearly imperceptible" or any other signs of perceived bias.

This is how many on the right can watch Fox News and see it as truly "fair and balanced" while the left sees it as a blunt object of the Republican party. They're watching the exact same report, body language, intonations, etc., but perceiving them entirely differently.

That's why some of these polls that say "the news media is biased" are kind of worthless. The perception of bias often is the result of unhappiness people will have when a news report doesn't jibe with their own beliefs of philosophies which, undoubtedly, are biased. So while that viewer claims bias, in reality it's their bias coloring their perception of what's being presented. To put it more succinctly, people aren't so much upset about news media bias as they are over the news media not spitting their own bias back at them.

Perfect example: a Rasmussen poll earlier this year showed that many conservatives and liberals are convinced the news media is biased. However, each side is convinced the bias swings in favor of the other guy. According to the poll, 49 percent of liberals think the broadcast networks are biased in favor of conservatives, while 62 percent of conservatives believe they are biased in favor of liberals. They're watching the same news, same words, same body language, same vocal inflections, etc., but perceiving bias entirely differently.

[Murffieus]

Fox is fair & balanced to an extent------but it definetly portays the conservative agenda. Meanwhile the mainstream news media is less fair and balanced and slants it's news to the liberal point of view as the Harvard study shows!

Harvard is not a bastion of conservatism!

[Marquette84]

Perfect example: a Rasmussen poll earlier this year showed that many conservatives and liberals are convinced the news media is biased. However, each side is convinced the bias swings in favor of the other guy. According to the poll, 49 percent of liberals think the broadcast networks are biased in favor of conservatives, while 62 percent of conservatives believe they are biased in favor of liberals. They're watching the same news, same words, same body language, same vocal inflections, etc., but perceiving bias entirely differently.

I think, however, it's interesting to look at the evidence that each side presents when asked.

For example, when asked to provide examples of liberal bias, conservatives will point to things like Dan Rather's memogate, examples of asymetrical coverage (in a scandal, party affilliation is listed, on average, in the 3rd paragraph for a Rep, but the 8th on average for a Dem),  story selection that serves to advance liberal causes (virtually any story on global warming), hypocritical coverage for similar events (Bush's claims on WMD are scrutinized, while the identical claims by Clinton were accepted without scruitinty), or language chosen by democrats becomes institutionalized ("domestic spying" rather than "spying on terrorists calling the US").  Furthermore, liberal interpretations of economic events are institutionalized--for example, reports continue to suggest that there is a "cost" of tax cuts, or that they increase deficits, even though tax revenues have actually increased every time tax cuts have been implemented.

When you ask liberals for examples of conservative bias, they typically respond either with owenrship (Fox is owned by Murdoch) or cite opinion shows rather than news programming examples (Hannity and O'Reilly). 

Then of course, there are liberals who admit bias--the most famous example is Newsweek's declaration that the way the media covered the campaign was worth 15 percentage points to Kerry.

Its not surprising that each side thinks the news is biased against them.  The difference is that there is actual evidence to back up charges of liberal bias.

[Pakuni]

I think, however, it's interesting to look at the evidence that each side presents when asked.

For example, when asked to provide examples of liberal bias, conservatives will point to things like Dan Rather's memogate, examples of asymetrical coverage (in a scandal, party affilliation is listed, on average, in the 3rd paragraph for a Rep, but the 8th on average for a Dem),  story selection that serves to advance liberal causes (virtually any story on global warming), hypocritical coverage for similar events (Bush's claims on WMD are scrutinized, while the identical claims by Clinton were accepted without scruitinty), or language chosen by democrats becomes institutionalized ("domestic spying" rather than "spying on terrorists calling the US").  Furthermore, liberal interpretations of economic events are institutionalized--for example, reports continue to suggest that there is a "cost" of tax cuts, or that they increase deficits, even though tax revenues have actually increased every time tax cuts have been implemented.

Point by point:

1. Memogate wasn't example of liberal bias, it was an example of sloppy reporting in an effort to be first with a story. In fact, the indpendent panel hired by CBS to examine what went wrong found exactly that. The panel found zero evidence that the story was intentionally false or politically motivated. Just as every erroneous story about a Democrat does not prove conservative bias, every erroneous story about a Republican doesn't prove liberal bias.
2. Source on citing of party affiliation?
3. Re: Global warming ... media reports on one of the most controversial issues of the generation is advancement of a liberal cause? OK. Then would a media report on a terrorist act be advancement of a conservative cause?
 4. Source on "domestic spying" claim? And why is that an inaccurate phrase compared to your more cumbersome wording?
5.
   a. There is a cost to tax cuts, as any review of federal revenue in the wake of tax cuts will show. While in most cases revenues eventually increase - and the cause of his is debatable as you'll soon see - they typically dip in the years immediately after the cuts.
   b. Tax reveues are always increasing. In fact, they increased at much larger rates in the four decades preceding Reagan than they did after Reagan's tax cuts. In fact, as a percentage of the GDP, revenues fell as a result of Reagan's cuts.
 http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf

   c. Smart people, even those in the Bush Administration don't buy the notion that revenues today are higher because of tax cuts:

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."

Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department have reached the same conclusion. An analysis of Treasury data prepared last month by the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts, a broad package of rate reductions and tax credits that has returned an estimated $1.1 trillion to taxpayers since 2001.

Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.

But, he said, "we do think good tax policy can lead to important economic benefits. . . . The size of the tax base is larger than it would have been without the tax relief."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601121_pf.html

When you ask liberals for examples of conservative bias, they typically respond either with owenrship (Fox is owned by Murdoch) or cite opinion shows rather than news programming examples (Hannity and O'Reilly). 

a. Source on how liberals typically respond?
b. Media ownership is not a legitimate question when it comes to issues of potential bias but who a copy editor for the New York Times Food Section voted for in 2000 apparently is. Hmmm.
c. Spend some time at Media Matters (the liberal version of Newsbusters) and you'll find this is not in the least bit accurate.
http://mediamatters.org/index
Note: I'm not a fan of either Newsbusters or Media Matters because both skew the news as presented to fit their ideological conviction that the press is out to get all they hold dear, but fact he site exists proves your statement wrong.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The point is that there most of the public is not able to "filter out the crap" and take the news as gospel!

if thats true then how does Bush win a second term?  Well that question still baffles me, but all this talk about the media is against Republicans and it changes the minds of most of the public is bogus.

Because he was running against a complete turd, that's how he won.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The ownership thing of media I've never gotten. First, these are public companies owned by many people. Second, Murdoch may be the majority shareholder of NewsCorp but Peter Churnin runs it...Churnin is a Democrat.

Go through the list of leaders of the major news corporations the last ten years and most of them have been Democrats.

Michael Isner
Les Moonves
Sumner Redstone
Ted Turner

[Pakuni]

The ownership thing of media I've never gotten. First, these are public companies owned by many people. Second, Murdoch may be the majority shareholder of NewsCorp but Peter Churnin runs it...Churnin is a Democrat.

Go through the list of leaders of the major news corporations the last ten years and most of them have been Democrats.

Michael Isner
Les Moonves
Sumner Redstone
Ted Turner

I'm confused. On the one hand you're arguing that ownership doesn't matter when it's a publicly held company, then on the other listing CEOs of said companies who happen to be Democrats. Which is it?

Regarding Chernin, I know you're smart enough to know that Chernin does not call the shots at Fox News. That's Roger Ailes, who was a longtime consultant for a particular political party.

And actually, I think if you go through a list of the CEOs of major media companies you'd find both Republicans and Democrats. And questions of bias are fair game for both sides. I just find it laughable that some choose to make a big deal about who TV critic for the Chicago Tribune donates money to but not so much who the company's owners donate to.

Republicans in the media
Roger Murdoch
Lowry Mays
Mark Mays
David Hiller

[ChicosBailBonds]

You're confused often.   

It was only to point out that if you're going to use the ridiculous notion that Republicans own/run the media, then why is it that so many that run the media are Democrats, which is why I put that list down.

And yes, I do know that Roger Ailes heads up Fox News.  Just as I know Rupert Murdoch has pledged a lot of money to Hillary Clinton.

The bigger point is and always will be that the editorial/news side and the business side are two different things.

The media is largely liberal and will remain that way....and it's great to see the public trust in the media at an ALL TIME LOW.

[Marquette84]

I think, however, it's interesting to look at the evidence that each side presents when asked.

For example, when asked to provide examples of liberal bias, conservatives will point to things like Dan Rather's memogate, examples of asymetrical coverage (in a scandal, party affilliation is listed, on average, in the 3rd paragraph for a Rep, but the 8th on average for a Dem),  story selection that serves to advance liberal causes (virtually any story on global warming), hypocritical coverage for similar events (Bush's claims on WMD are scrutinized, while the identical claims by Clinton were accepted without scruitinty), or language chosen by democrats becomes institutionalized ("domestic spying" rather than "spying on terrorists calling the US").  Furthermore, liberal interpretations of economic events are institutionalized--for example, reports continue to suggest that there is a "cost" of tax cuts, or that they increase deficits, even though tax revenues have actually increased every time tax cuts have been implemented.

Point by point:

1. Memogate wasn't example of liberal bias, it was an example of sloppy reporting in an effort to be first with a story. In fact, the indpendent panel hired by CBS to examine what went wrong found exactly that. The panel found zero evidence that the story was intentionally false or politically motivated. Just as every erroneous story about a Democrat does not prove conservative bias, every erroneous story about a Republican doesn't prove liberal bias.
2. Source on citing of party affiliation?
3. Re: Global warming ... media reports on one of the most controversial issues of the generation is advancement of a liberal cause? OK. Then would a media report on a terrorist act be advancement of a conservative cause?
 4. Source on "domestic spying" claim? And why is that an inaccurate phrase compared to your more cumbersome wording?
5.
   a. There is a cost to tax cuts, as any review of federal revenue in the wake of tax cuts will show. While in most cases revenues eventually increase - and the cause of his is debatable as you'll soon see - they typically dip in the years immediately after the cuts.
   b. Tax reveues are always increasing. In fact, they increased at much larger rates in the four decades preceding Reagan than they did after Reagan's tax cuts. In fact, as a percentage of the GDP, revenues fell as a result of Reagan's cuts.
 http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf

   c. Smart people, even those in the Bush Administration don't buy the notion that revenues today are higher because of tax cuts:

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."

Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department have reached the same conclusion. An analysis of Treasury data prepared last month by the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts, a broad package of rate reductions and tax credits that has returned an estimated $1.1 trillion to taxpayers since 2001.

Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.

But, he said, "we do think good tax policy can lead to important economic benefits. . . . The size of the tax base is larger than it would have been without the tax relief."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601121_pf.html

When you ask liberals for examples of conservative bias, they typically respond either with owenrship (Fox is owned by Murdoch) or cite opinion shows rather than news programming examples (Hannity and O'Reilly). 

a. Source on how liberals typically respond?
b. Media ownership is not a legitimate question when it comes to issues of potential bias but who a copy editor for the New York Times Food Section voted for in 2000 apparently is. Hmmm.
c. Spend some time at Media Matters (the liberal version of Newsbusters) and you'll find this is not in the least bit accurate.
http://mediamatters.org/index
Note: I'm not a fan of either Newsbusters or Media Matters because both skew the news as presented to fit their ideological conviction that the press is out to get all they hold dear, but fact he site exists proves your statement wrong.

Your "point by point" is basically liberal spin.

--  The panel found zero evidence that the story was intentionally false or politically motivated.

And exactly how would they know this?  Because the guilty said they weren't politically motivated?   If they were dishonest enough to fabricate a negative story about Bush, why wouldn't they be dishonest enough to fabricate a cover story about their motivation. 

--  Source on citing of party affiliation?

Search.  You'll find examples. 

-- 3. Re: Global warming ... media reports on one of the most controversial issues of the generation is advancement of a liberal cause? OK. Then would a media report on a terrorist act be advancement of a conservative cause?

No.  Because we have proof of terrorism.  Check out the east side of West Street in NYC between the old New York Tel heqdquarters and the New York Athletic Club.

Human-caused global Warming is an open issue, no matter what the left wants us to believe.  Why the melting of polar icecaps on Mars isn't used to counter the claims that humans are the only cause of global warmsing.  Why no mention of warmer temperatures in the 30's? 

Of course, global warming gets reported like this, terming those who want to present counter evidence "the denial machine":
http://blog.sciam.com/media/newsweekglwarmhoax.jpg

-- Source on "domestic spying" claim? And why is that an inaccurate phrase compared to your more cumbersome wording?

Domestic implies either US-based and/or personal household.  A domestic flight is entirely within the US.  A domestic beer is brewed and drunk in the US.  The term "domestic" implies

Even the CBS/NYT pollsters observe:
When it comes to government monitoring of personal communications
in general, the public clearly differentiates between ordinary
Americans and those who the government is suspicious of.  Most
are willing to allow the government to monitor the communications
of the latter – but oppose that level of surveillance for
“ordinary Americans."
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/mayb-all.pdf


Yet, how does the media typically frame the type of surveillance?  84% of the time, media reports about anti-terror programs are about "Domestic" spying on "Americans" and just 16% specify that the programs in question are targeting terrorists.
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2006/textbox/box0206.jpg

So we know from the NYT and CBS that support for spying increases dramatically when people think that the syping is done on terrorists, and drops when they think that it is broader and targeting "ordinary Americans."  Given that this program targets terrorists, the less-specific language certainly has an impact on how people respond. 


--Tax reveues are always increasing. In fact, they increased at much larger rates in the four decades preceding Reagan than they did after Reagan's tax cuts. In fact, as a percentage of the GDP, revenues fell as a result of Reagan's cuts.

You can always find different reports--even by government bureaucrats--who disagree with long term performance of tax revenues under lower rates.  Despite lower rates, and adjusted for inflation, federal revenues are up sigificantly. 
www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/images/charts_R/R-2.gif
www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/images/charts_R/R-6.gif

--a. Source on how liberals typically respond?
Personal observation.

--b. Media ownership is not a legitimate question when it comes to issues of potential bias but who a copy editor for the New York Times Food Section voted for in 2000 apparently is. Hmmm.

I'll turn this back on you--if the reporters and anchors themselves--(ie. Katie Couric, Tom Browkaw, Dan Rather--not just he copy editor of the Food section) support democrats, why are they assumed to have no bias.  Yet the ownership of Fox--with on on-air responsiblity at all--taints the entire base of reporting?

--c. Spend some time at Media Matters (the liberal version of Newsbusters) and you'll find this is not in the least bit accurate.
http://mediamatters.org/index

I did. 

There doesn't seem to be any overt conservitive bias identified in news programming.

First off, Media Matters misidentifies political commentary (such as Hannity and O'Reilly) as news.  Second, the examples from news coverage are so overly narrow that one wonders why they even try if that's the best evidence they can find.  For example, MM tries to pass of as "bias" a report that Pat Robertson is a "strong supporter of Isreal" without mentioning that Robertson apparently opposed a specific policy of Ariel Sharon.  I guess it never occured to MM that you can simultaneous be a strong supporter of Isreal without agreeing with every policy of every individual politican.    And that's how it goes with Media Matters.

MRC will present the results of several weeks worth of reporting and see 86% of the time the media reports syping on terror as "domestic spying" or "spying on ordinary Americans."  Media Matters pretends theres bias if you don't dig up months-old quotes that frankly don't demonstrate any relevance to the broader issues. 

If this is the type of "evidence" you rest your case on, it's flimsy indeed.
 
What I see is exactly as I said.  Liberals either fail to provide distinction between news and commentary.  Or they rely on guilt by association.