T Nation

Liberal Bias In Media Exposed..Again

"Monday, March 14, 2005 1:01 p.m. EST
Study: Press Went Easy on Kerry

A Columbia School of Journalism study released Monday found that the media took it easy on Sen. John Kerry throughout the 2004 presidential campaign, with coverage of President Bush coming out three times more negative.

The school’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found that 36 percent of reports on Bush painted him in an unfavorable light, while only 12 percent did the same to Kerry - according to Reuters. The Massachusetts liberal also benefited more from positive coverage, garnering 50 percent more stories rated as favorable than Bush.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism monitored 16 newspapers across the country, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable programs and nine Web sites in 2004.

On the Iraq war, for instance - which was a watershed issue for Bush - the study found that the three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative, Reuters said.

The Columbia group also noted a huge rise in readers who have turned to the Internet to get their news."

Ever think it might not be bias, as in, there’s a reason for having negative reports? When the current president isn’t doing a good job (let’s not debate that, I’m giving a hypothetical), the people should know. Actually the people should know about the government’s proceedings in any event.

There was a study about the correlation between voters’ choices and where they heard their news. People who got their news from one of the major networks or newspapers were more likely to vote Kerry, while those who got their news from Fox news or talk radio were much more likely to vote for Bush. Not suprising, really. Why don’t we talk about conservative bias while we’re at it?

You do realize that this would only have any significance at all if compared to the media coverage of past elections and the relation to how the president in office is portrayed during those elections, right?

Of course, you did.

How many times can the liberal bias be debunked?
During the election cycle nothing positive happened in Iraq, we got to 1000 deaths, bombings everyday, the incompetence of Bush’s pre war planning was being revealed, the bungling and waste of the reconstruction, all of that IS bad.

Was it a conservative media bias when they thrashed clinton, and then thrashed gore? When katherine wiley was on 60 minutes? When Rather scorched Bob Kerrey? When cbs news shills for the bush privatization plan? How about Judith Miller and the WMD shit courtesy of Chalabi? The Washington Post pumping their fists in the war run-up, and on, and on…

Please give me a break with this Limbaugh crap.

[quote]100meters wrote:
How many times can the liberal bias be debunked?
During the election cycle nothing positive happened in Iraq, we got to 1000 deaths, bombings everyday, the incompetence of Bush’s pre war planning was being revealed, the bungling and waste of the reconstruction, all of that IS bad.

Was it a conservative media bias when they thrashed clinton, and then thrashed gore? When katherine wiley was on 60 minutes? When Rather scorched Bob Kerrey? When cbs news shills for the bush privatization plan? How about Judith Miller and the WMD shit courtesy of Chalabi? The Washington Post pumping their fists in the war run-up, and on, and on…

Please give me a break with this Limbaugh crap.[/quote]
Or when they killed the Juanita Broderick story about Clinton being a rapist? Or how they killed the story about that other chick who fled the country to avoid Clinton and his retalitory actions–the girl who played amanda in highlander the series…
Or the FORGED DOCUMENTS CBS tried to pass off…and then said “well, even if they’re forged they’re true”?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You do realize that this would only have any significance at all if compared to the media coverage of past elections and the relation to how the president in office is portrayed during those elections, right?

Of course, you did.
[/quote]

No. You’re arguing in circles again.
The issue is liberal bias in the media today. Not ten years, not twenty years ago.
Given that Bush was 3 times as likely to be negatively reported on, liberal bias is the best conclusion. Occam’s Razor.
The job of the media is not to present postitive or negative reporting, merely to present facts. And we still don’t have John Kerry’s service record, but we have the CBS News forged Bush records, don’t we?
Prof, you’re too smart to always argue falsely.

[quote]veruvius wrote:
Ever think it might not be bias, as in, there’s a reason for having negative reports? When the current president isn’t doing a good job (let’s not debate that, I’m giving a hypothetical), the people should know. Actually the people should know about the government’s proceedings in any event.

There was a study about the correlation between voters’ choices and where they heard their news. People who got their news from one of the major networks or newspapers were more likely to vote Kerry, while those who got their news from Fox news or talk radio were much more likely to vote for Bush. Not suprising, really. Why don’t we talk about conservative bias while we’re at it?[/quote]

But who’s decision is it whether he’s doing a good job?
Is it the Washington press corps, who’re 93% registered democrats?

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
No. You’re arguing in circles again.
The issue is liberal bias in the media today. Not ten years, not twenty years ago.
Given that Bush was 3 times as likely to be negatively reported on, liberal bias is the best conclusion. Occam’s Razor.
The job of the media is not to present postitive or negative reporting, merely to present facts. And we still don’t have John Kerry’s service record, but we have the CBS News forged Bush records, don’t we?
Prof, you’re too smart to always argue falsely.[/quote]

What if “the facts” were negative in the portrayal of Bush? Why would that not be a possibility to you? Why do you think he was doing and accomplishing such positive things during this period that they overshadowed any of the negative?

[quote]veruvius wrote:
Ever think it might not be bias, as in, there’s a reason for having negative reports? When the current president isn’t doing a good job (let’s not debate that, I’m giving a hypothetical), the people should know. Actually the people should know about the government’s proceedings in any event.

There was a study about the correlation between voters’ choices and where they heard their news. People who got their news from one of the major networks or newspapers were more likely to vote Kerry, while those who got their news from Fox news or talk radio were much more likely to vote for Bush. Not suprising, really. Why don’t we talk about conservative bias while we’re at it?[/quote]

Well…because according to the latest study there is a strong liberal bias!

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You do realize that this would only have any significance at all if compared to the media coverage of past elections and the relation to how the president in office is portrayed during those elections, right?

Of course, you did.
[/quote]

Perhaps you should take a look at previous studies done (during those times) and see if there was still a liberal bias. I would be willing to bet that there was, as I recall reading some studies during previous election cycles.

In fact, it might have even been greater than the current liberal bias, as there are currently conservative leaning media. This did not exist in years past.

You did know that…of course you did! :slight_smile:

So, the basis of your argument is that now you have conservative biased media which is now conducting studies showing a liberal bias? Would you accept the results of a study without understanding the possible bias of the institution in which it was conducted? The point is, even in most science circles, one study alone shows very little until compared with other studies on like circumstances. In this case, you are willing to overlook all other studies simply because this one tells you what you want to hear.

Odd.

To deny that most of the mainstream media has a liberal bias or that Foxnews has a conservative bias is silly.

You do not need a study to see this, you just need to read the paper and watch the news.

If you can watch CNN and not see the liberal bias, YOU have a liberal bias and are not objective.

If you can watch Foxnews and not see the conservative bias, YOU have a conservative bias and are not objective.

Open your eyes people, you might learn something!

Pro X,

“So, the basis of your argument is that now you have conservative biased media which is now conducting studies showing a liberal bias?”

The Columbia School of Journalism has a conservative bias in its studies? Do you even read what you write?

“In this case, you are willing to overlook all other studies simply because this one tells you what you want to hear”

Don’t know if that’s true or not, but there many studies that confirm the bias. Story choice is the key to determining bias, after all, I can get a sense of your politics by surveying the books on your bookshelf at home - same goes with the media.

After all, ever since Vietnam and Watergate, the prmiary drivers in MSM have an agenda to ‘speak truth to power’, rather than merely ‘speaking the truth.’

That being said, I think the bias issue is a tad overblown, but I do think is there - anyone who reads Reuters can get a sense of it you get the original article - stories featured on Yahoo! from newswires have a habit of changing text throughout the day.

My biggest concern about the media is not political bias, but really poor quality. The 24 hours news cycle is a living, breathing case study in the law of diminishing returns.

If I do one hundred tasks and five of them turn out poorly, and someone I am being compared to does three things that turn out well, by the numbers He did better than me, but only if you neglect to consider the amount of work done.
Now lets take into consideration that politics and economy are largely influenced by emotion.If you do a few things and say a few things that people realy like-they are going to form a posative association to you. If you do a few things that are considered bad and have a lot of negative emotions associated with them-like a war for example-people will form a negative association to you.

My most hated old rule of thumb-one bad job cancels 100 good ones. I don’t like it, I don’t agree with it, but that seems to be the way people respond.

And that expands far beyond the realm of politics and involves every aspect of life. It affects it even more so in professional fields. That isn’t a surprise and isn’t “liberal bias”. It is the way the world works. I wish a doctor could claim “liberal bias” on a malpractice suit if his background shows great practice for years before that one mistake.

So, ProfX, let me get this clear:
in your world, liberal = good, conservative = bad. As such, there’s no way a conservative person can possibly amount to anything or even defend him/herself, because you’ve got them screwed both directions.
Nice.

Oh please, it’s not fair to look at the stories about someone who is not in charge and making policy and compare them to those about someone who is.

Of course the person in charge is going to get critical stories done on them. What a pile of horseshit.

If you fall for such things it just shows how thick your own biases are…


An interesting article on “Fair and Balanced News” From "sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com

The Most O’Reilly Moment of the Day

March 14, 2005 - O’Reilly quotes new study, draws insane conclusions

Bill O’Reilly, you sick little fuck. If you really believe this load of crap you spewed tonight, then you’re more delusional than we even thought. Here’s your spin:

"A new study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism at Columbia University examined the
Iraq War coverage. On cable news it broke down like this:

38% of the stories Fox News ran were favorable to the war effort
62% neutral, negative, or not able to be classified

Over at CNN 20% of the stories were positive
80% were neutral, negative or not classifiable

And at MSNBC just 16% positive
84% neutral, negative, or not classifiable.

So once again, you can decide which network is fair and balanced."

Actually Bill, from the information you just gave, you can’t decide which network is fair and balanced.

You see, you chose to not give all the results. You just took the ‘positive’ category and lumped all the others together. Basically, all you proved is that FOX News does more positive stories on the war.

Here are the actual results from the study.

You see, Bill? Actually CNN and MSNBC were far more balanced in their coverage of the war. They
provided nearly equal positive and negative stories. So, for you to take a valid report from the Project for Excellence in Journalism and then spin the results in the most deceptive way possible is just irresponsible. For you to then draw a conclusion that completely contradicts the report’s findings shows that you are neither a newsman nor even a man for that matter.

As for your pathetic little network in general, the report you so proudly quoted had this to say:

Fox journalists were even more prone to offer their own opinions in the channel’s coverage of the war in Iraq. There 73% of the stories included such personal judgments. On CNN the figure was 2%, and on MSNBC, 29%.

The same was true in coverage of the Presidential election, where 82% of Fox stories included journalist opinions, compared to 7% on CNN and 27% on MSNBC.

Those findings seem to challenge Fox’s promotional marketing, particularly its slogan, “We Report. You Decide.”

Don’t you get it, Bill? The report concluded that your whole network slogan is a joke. Read the report.

Here’s a link, you pathetic little charlatan.

Bill, we know you’re reading this… god, no wonder your father knocked you around.

Whoops! I hope I didn’t starve out the thread by not feeding it enough “NANNY-NANNY-POOH-POOH!”.
O.K. Here goes. George W. is Satans bitch, and John Kerry is a saggy faced, upright standing sharpei.
Lets analyze that for bias. Just for the sake of clarity, I have nothing against sharpei or any other breed of dog.I also believe satan is cool in principal but not in practice.

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
So, ProfX, let me get this clear:
in your world, liberal = good, conservative = bad. As such, there’s no way a conservative person can possibly amount to anything or even defend him/herself, because you’ve got them screwed both directions.
Nice.
[/quote]

Read Vroom’s post and mine right above your’s. Both refer to the same thing. You all are bitching because someone in the highest position had his performance critiqued using a higher standard than someone who had not been in that position. Again, where in society does this NOT happen? If we don’t call it “liberal bias” then, why do it now?