Media biased toward Democrats -- Harvard Report

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Nothing really new, here. This has been reported numerous times in the past but was always decried as untrue and due to some kind of evil conservative plot.

Now the liberal of the liberal are saying the same thing. Harvard must have been infiltrated by conservatives, I guess.

I won't be participating in any discussion on this as I am merely posting it for general information purposes and it speaks for itself.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124

Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:30 PM PT

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."

issues03110207.gif


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.
 
:hippy:" . . Maaaaaaaan. . . .*sucks on bong* . . . thats bullshit man, like whad'bout faux nooze . . . *exhales* . . "
 
Media coverage of the Iraq war by the American media was not biased in favour or against the war, according to new research, despite claims the coverage was generally biased and negative.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism, a Washington think tank affiliated with Columbia University's school of journalism, looked at more than 2000 stories in newspapers and on television and websites.

Most were "straight" news reports, according to the survey's director, Tom Rosenstiel, with 25 per cent of the stories positive and 20 per cent negative. The rest could not be classified one way or the other.

The survey is unlikely to pacify conservative critics of the mainstream media who have argued the media has concentrated on all the things that have gone wrong in Iraq while downplaying positive developments.

Conservative bloggers - who far outnumber liberal ones - have run a relentless campaign against what they see as the liberal bias of the mainstream media.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Blogs-of-war-wrong-on-bias-says-media-analysis/2005/03/14/1110649129577.html
 
This project did something that has never been done before: It amassed data on the syndicated columnists published by nearly every daily newspaper in the country. While a few publications, most notably Editor & Publisher, cover the syndicated newspaper industry, no one has attempted to comprehensively assemble this information prior to now. Because the syndicates refuse to reveal to the public exactly where their columnists are published, when Media Matters for America set out to make a systematic assessment of the syndicated columnist landscape, we had no choice but to contact each paper individually and ask which syndicated columnists are published on their op-ed pages.

The results show that in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts. As Editor & Publisher paraphrased one syndicate executive noting, "U.S. dailies run more conservative than liberal columns, but some are willing to consider liberal voices."1

Though papers may be "willing to consider" progressive syndicated columnists, this unprecedented study reveals the true extent of the dominance of conservatives:

* Sixty percent of the nation's daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.
* In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 152 million.2
* The top 10 columnists as ranked by the number of papers in which they are carried include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.
* The top 10 columnists as ranked by the total circulation of the papers in which they are published also include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.
* In 38 states, the conservative voice is greater than the progressive voice -- in other words, conservative columns reach more readers in total than progressive columns. In only 12 states is the progressive voice greater than the conservative voice.
* In three out of the four broad regions of the country -- the West, the South, and the Midwest -- conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists. Only in the Northeast do progressives reach more readers, and only by a margin of 2 percent.
* In eight of the nine divisions into which the U.S. Census Bureau divides the country, conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists in any given week. Only in the Middle Atlantic division do progressive columnists reach more readers each week.

Though they have suffered slow but steady declines in readership over the last couple of decades, newspapers remain in many ways the most important of all news media. The Newspaper Association of America estimates that each copy of a weekday paper is read by an average of 2.1 adults, while each Sunday paper is read by an average of 2.5 adults,3 pushing total newspaper readership for daily papers to more than 116 million and Sunday papers to more than 134 million. This means that some columnists reach tens of millions of readers, and one, conservative George Will, actually reaches more than 50 million.

Furthermore, newspapers are the preferred news medium of those most interested in the news. According to a 2006 Pew Research Center study, 66 percent of those who say they follow political news closely regularly read newspapers, far more than the number who cite any other medium.4 And an almost identical proportion of those who say they "enjoy keeping up with the news" -- more than half the population -- turn to newspapers more than any other medium. These more aware citizens are in turn more likely to influence the opinions of their families, friends, and associates.

Syndicated newspaper columnists have a unique ability to influence public opinion and the national debate. And whether examining only the top columnists or the entire group, large papers or small, the data presented in this report make clear that conservative syndicated columnists enjoy a clear advantage over their progressive counterparts.

http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/
 
I thought you quit the drugs?

Lets see, when my dog stares at me (like she is right now) I do caffine and sucrose. every winter I get my rocks off with triptaphan. Sometimes, when I have on my favorite T-shirt, feeling good and the moon is full, I'll ocasionally drop some melatonin. But mostly, most all the time, like everyday, my personal drug of choice would be sarcasm. mmmmm
 
You mean it took a fuggin Hahhhvahhhhd study to tell some of you numbskulls the damn media's biased and leaning so far left they walk in counter-clockwise circles? Dayum. Newsflash, y'all...the world ain't flat neither. :retard3:
 
It's amamzing that Harvard actually 'went there'

Are you saying that you oppose the Harvard study?

. . . but $pike . . . .*piss2*MediaMatters. . I thought you quit the drugs?
 
Fortunately, there are no republicans in the Ivy League to skew the results. More bread please. More circuses too, okay?

:lol:
 
Lets see, when my dog stares at me (like she is right now) I do caffine and sucrose. every winter I get my rocks off with triptaphan. Sometimes, when I have on my favorite T-shirt, feeling good and the moon is full, I'll ocasionally drop some melatonin. But mostly, most all the time, like everyday, my personal drug of choice would be sarcasm. mmmmm

Endorphins for me, thanks.
 
Media Matters

You got a problem with Media Matters but of course you have no problem with the original link to ibdeditorials.com who blatantly misread the study. :laugh:

All the study shows is that the current dem candidates are getting more favorable coverage than the current republican candidates. Maybe because the *piss2* republican candidates suck so bad republicans don't even like 'em.

They're even considering third party candidates.
 
Media Matters, the one Hillary Clinton said she 'help to found and create', then MM denied anything of the sorts, that media matters? Yeah, they wreak with objectivity. :finger:


blatantly misread the study

Did Cleo tell you this? or did you go beyond the pict-0-graph and read the study? :fap:


Dude, it's a fairly safe bet that I'm gonna oppose purt near everything in Naingland. It goes back a ways...:evilgrin:

Yeah, I've figured out there's certain lines you don't cross, like the mason dixon. It was a poor attempt to ask a spikey type of 'already answered' question to spikey, but those hi-heels hard to fill.

You know what they say, - there's a fine-line between fishing and just standing on the shore with a stick in your hand.

:hump:
 
All the study shows is that the current dem candidates are getting more favorable coverage than the current republican candidates. Maybe because the *piss2* republican candidates suck so bad republicans don't even like 'em.


So are you ass.u.ming that this study was limited to just the canidates? Not including the the wunderful job of Nan and Harry, S-CHUMP, no war, waterboarding or illegal idigents and wet-dreamsACT. All the great things the Dems have done lately :retard3:

Yeah thats to deep for the baby pool.
 
Yeah, they wreak with objectivity.

Sure so does idveditorials


Did Cleo tell you this? or did you go beyond the pict-0-graph and read the study?

I checked out the study. Why don't you give it a try before you spurt any more nonsense.

Or do you prefer to childishly just run off at the mouth about shit you don't know about?
 
They said Rush said shit he didn't say. Would MM lie to us about this too?

MM is the beat-all source of everyt'ing. That filthy drug addict Rush, everyone knows a drug addict is burned-out lying piece of shit once they've done drugs, . . . unless ofcourse they din't inhale





I checked out the study. Why don't you give it a try before you spurt any more nonsense.

Or do you prefer to childishly just run off at the mouth about shit you don't know about?


Yeah, but . . .














Looky whut I'candoo . . . . . .*piss2* *piss*



Tim Russert - the difficult question said:
So are you ass.u.ming that this study was limited to just the canidates? Not including the the wunderful job of Nan and Harry, S-CHUMP, no war, waterboarding or illegal idigents and wet-dreamsACT. All the great things the Dems have done lately
 
You got a problem with Media Matters but of course you have no problem with the original link to ibdeditorials.com who blatantly misread the study. :laugh:

I guess the authors blatantly misread the study also.

The original Harvard press release linked at http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/index.htm

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/miscellaneous/invisible_primary_press_release.doc

For Immediate Release: Monday, October 29
Contacts: PEJ—Tom Rosenstiel or Amy Mitchell at 202-419-3650
Shorenstein Center—Marion Just at 617-496-4858

The Invisible Primary No Longer:
A First Look at 2008 Presidential Campaign Coverage

Monday, Oct. 29— Nearly 11 months before anyone could cast a vote, the press had already narrowed the presidential horserace to five candidates. And while the coverage provided ample information on political tactics and fundraising, it offered citizens relatively little information on the candidates’ records or where they proposed to take the country, according to a joint study released today by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

While Hillary Clinton received the most press exposure (17% of stories), fellow Democratic candidate Barack Obama was the candidate covered the most favorably—followed by Fred Thompson, during the first five months of 2007. In contrast, Republican hopeful John McCain received the most negative coverage. The tone of the stories about Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani were nearly identical: more negative than positive, according to the study.

The most striking finding is how oriented to tactics and polling the coverage was, even though experts know that a race so early is fluid, and polls are mostly about name recognition. Fully 63% of stories focused on such matters—and by most of these were polls and strategy rather than fundraising or other political matters. Another 17% of stories examined the personal backgrounds of the candidates. A mere 15% of stories focused on candidate policy proposals and ideas, which marks a sharp turn from what the public says it wants from campaign coverage.

And this tactical focus is even more pronounced when one looks at how stories were framed rather than the topic of the story. Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election, while nearly nine-out-of-ten stories (86%) focused on matters that largely impacted only the parties and the candidates.

The public, moreover, says it wants something different from the media. A new poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted for this report finds that about eight-in-ten of Americans say they want more coverage of the candidates’ stances on issues, and majorities want more on the record and personal background, and backing of the candidates, more about lesser-known candidates and more about debates.

These are some key conclusions from this study, which analyzed 1,742 campaign stories that appeared from January to May 2007 in 48 different news outlets from print, cable, online, network TV and radio. This study was designed and produced jointly by PEJ, a non-partisan, non-political institute that is part of the Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C., and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, which is part of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

http://journalism.org/node/8187

Read the full report.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/miscellaneous/invisible_primary.pdf

Among the report’s major findings:

Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, McCain, and Mitt Romney were the focus of more than half of the total coverage.

Democrats have enjoyed more positive coverage than Republicans (35% vs. 26%); for both parties a plurality of 39% of stories were neutral or balanced.
The difference in tone can be related to the 47% positive coverage of Obama and the only 12% positive coverage of McCain. With these candidates excluded, tone coverage is strikingly similar.

Democrats generally got more coverage than Republicans, (49% of stories versus 31%). One reason was that major Democratic candidates began announcing their candidacies a month earlier than key Republicans, but that alone does not fully explain the discrepancy.

Different media segments covered the election in distinct manners: Newspapers were more positive about Democrats; talk radio was more negative overall and network TV tended to spotlight the personal aspects of the candidates.

However, all media focused on strategy above all other story topics. Focusing on strategy directly contrasts the public’s desire to know what candidates will do in office, according to a HYPERLINK "http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=364" new poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
 
Back
Top