Media biased toward Democrats -- Harvard Report

Jesus Christ!!! I thought I wouldn't have to come here and clean up the mess but I guess I was wrong. You guys can't find the study, can't find the original press release, can't find harvard.edu.

I guess the bias isn't only in the press. There's enough of it here to go around.
 
I guess the authors blatantly misread the study also.

Why would you think that? Looks like they kept their comments to just the coverage of the current candidates instead of trying to make it much more than it is like ibdeditorials.

Interesting how Guliani and Clinton are getting equal amounts of negative coverage.
 
Why would you think that? Looks like they kept their comments to just the coverage of the current candidates instead of trying to make it much more than it is like ibdeditorials.

Interesting how Guliani and Clinton are getting equal amounts of negative coverage.

How is what the article in the thread header stated different from what the Harvard press release said?
 
For starters the press release made no mention of bias. Yet your article ran with it in their title.

Ah, yes, the Harvard press release used the word "tone"; a far nicer word for "bias" than the actual word "bias".

See if you can find any similarities in the two items below.

Tone

Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: disposition
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: temperament
Synonyms: bag*, being, bent, bias, cast, character, complexion, constitution, druthers*, emotions, flash, groove*, habit, humor, identity, inclination, individualism, individuality, leaning, make-up, mind-set*, mood, nature, penchant, personality, predilection, predisposition, proclivity, proneness, propensity, readiness, spirit, stamp, temper, tendency, tenor, thing*, tone, type, veing
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
* = informal or slang


Bias

Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: bias
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: partiality
Synonyms: bent, bigotry, disposition, favoritism, flash, head-set*, illiberality, inclination, inclining, intolerance, leaning, mind trip*, mind-set*, narrow-mindedness, one-sidedness, penchant, preconception, predilection, predisposition, preference, prejudice, prepossession, proclivity, proneness, propensity, standpoint, tendency, tilt, turn, unfairness, viewpoint
Antonyms: fairness, justness
Notes: a person's bias is based on facts, but prejudice occurs without a person knowing or examining the facts
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
* = informal or slang
 
all this is about the wrapper and not the candy bar. i don't care what people in media are saying. effectively the function of the media in inherently conservative.

on another note... i wonder how much of the quoted figures are the result of there being a very unpopular republican regime in power at the moment. perhaps things may have been different during the carter administration..?
 
So bias means the same thing as personality and habit?


Yes.

If your personality has a tendency to be tilted toward a predilection, predisposition, proclivity, and propensity to a tenor, tone, and tendency of a biased viewpoint then, yes, they mean the same thing when used in proper context; which seems to escape the ability of liberals to do.

It seems they grasp at straws when the unvarnished truth is placed before them in plain black and white from irrefutable sources. Yet they continue to attempt to refute the irrefutable and equivocate the unequivocable; usually through the means of semantics and distortion of the language.
 
The study was about coverage of the current crop of candidates not general media bias.

The front runners from both sides have received equal amounts of negative tone. Have both of them deserved a negative tone? Probably.

Leave it to some wacky conservative to take something black and white specific to a particular subject and extrapolate it into some unfounded far-reaching non-existing consensus on bias in the media in general while blatantly ignoring all other studies to the contrary.
 
The study was about coverage of the current crop of candidates not general media bias.

So basically you believe that when they spoke of the "tone" of the various media outlets they were not speaking to the bias of those outlets? Like I said, you want to argue semantics when the facts are clear. When they say "tone" they mean "bias".

Leave it to some wacky conservative to take something black and white specific to a particular subject and extrapolate it into some unfounded far-reaching non-existing consensus on bias in the media in general while blatantly ignoring all other studies to the contrary.

Try this:

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

And a good deal of her negative coverage can be attributed to a media platform that has been taking on the Clinton family since they moved into the White House in 1993. Nearly 20% of the nearly 300 Clinton stories examined in this report aired on conservative talk radio, a genre that many observers believe found its voice and primary target after Bill Clinton’s 1992 election. In this campaign, conservative talkers in the early months have a new target. Nearly nine-out-of ten Clinton segments in conservative talk (86%) were clearly negative in tone. The enmity of some of those hosts toward the New York Senator is so pronounced that both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have on occasional lauded her Democratic rival Barack Obama, with his chief virtue apparently being that he is not Hillary Clinton.

So the next time you want to talk about Limbaugh's conservative bias I want you to use the word "tone" instead ie: Limbaugh's conservative tone. Now doesn't that sound just so much warmer and friendlier than that ol' "bias" thing?
 
So basically you believe that when they spoke of the "tone" of the various media outlets they were not speaking to the bias of those outlets? Like I said, you want to argue semantics when the facts are clear. When they say "tone" they mean "bias".

The argument is simple "The study was about coverage of the current crop of candidates not general media bias". In some cases there is bais in either direction, in some cases the tone is negative because the subject matter is negative. If Guliani makes up some more facts and the press points out that they are faulty it might have a negative tone to the article.

This is about the coverage of specific candidates.
 
Besides op-ed shows o'reilly llimbaugh etc. most of the bias is with the news reader\watcher

If you are conservative and they report on an error a conservative made, it's bias, if it was a liberal it was good journalism, and vice-versa
 
Besides op-ed shows o'reilly llimbaugh etc. most of the bias is with the news reader\watcher

If you are conservative and they report on an error a conservative made, it's bias, if it was a liberal it was good journalism, and vice-versa





Probably the most accurate and truthful statement that this thread is going to have on it.




And all media outlets have a bias. Some are stronger than others.
 
Besides op-ed shows o'reilly llimbaugh etc. most of the bias is with the news reader\watcher

If you are conservative and they report on an error a conservative made, it's bias, if it was a liberal it was good journalism, and vice-versa

:thumbup:
 
Here is a study that the synopsis does not use either the words bias or tone. Slanted? Yes. Tilted? Yes.

Now the worst thing that could be said of this study is that the wrong people did it. They are Conservative; they have an agenda; but how does that change the numbers? If the numbers are correct then the "bias" or "tone" of the morning shows goes without saying.

The Media Research Center is merely the opposite of Media Matters For America. One is Conservative and the other Liberal. Believe the one you choose to believe.

SOURCE

Below is the text of a Media Reality Check study conducted by MRC
Research Director Rich Noyes with the assistance of news analyst
Scott Whitlock.

For the PDF, which matches the hard copy, of the 2-page report:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2007/pdf/fax1107.pdf

The HTML version, with colorful charts:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20071107.asp

Now, the text of the November 7 Media Reality Check:

Slanted Morning TV Helps 2008 Democrats
Study: ABC, CBS and NBC Morning Shows Promote Democratic Candidates,
Push Liberal News Agenda

A Pew Research Center poll released late last month found that while
four out of five American adults (81%) could name one of the
Democratic presidential candidates, far fewer (just 59%) could recall
any of the GOP candidates. Even among self-described Republican
voters, Pew found "Clinton and Obama are much more visible than
Giuliani or any other GOP presidential candidate."

Pew's poll: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=364

One reason may be that the big broadcast networks have treated the
Democratic frontrunners like celebrities worthy of intense coverage,
while the Republican candidates have received far less TV time. A new
Media Research Center study of the ABC, CBS and NBC morning news
shows has found that in the first 10 months of 2007, the networks
spent more time covering the Democratic race and spent far more time
interviewing the Democratic candidates than the Republicans. And
those interviews were much friendlier to the Democrats, with the
morning show anchors emphasizing a predominantly liberal agenda.

These results echo those presented in MRC's Special Report, "Rise and
Shine on Democrats," which examined how TV's morning shows covered
the presidential campaign from January 1 through July 31.
See: http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2007/Riseandshine/report0829_exec.asp

For this new report, MRC analysts studied all 797 campaign stories that aired on NBC's Today, ABC's Good Morning America and CBS's The Early Show from January 1 through October 31. Key findings:

TV's DEMOCRATIC NEWS AGENDA
All three networks spent more time covering the Democrats' nomination
race than the contest for the GOP nomination. Overall, 431 out of the
total 797 campaign segments (54%) focused on the Democrats, compared
to 247 (31%) devoted to the Republicans. The remaining 119 stories
(15%) either dealt with both parties about equally, or dealt with a
nonpartisan campaign topic, such as the growing use of YouTube by all
candidates.

Of the three morning shows, ABC's Good Morning America was the most
tilted, airing 167 Democratic stories (59%), vs. 83 about the
Republicans (29%). CBS's Early Show and NBC's Today were nearly
identical in emphasizing Democrats in just over half of all campaign
stories (51% on NBC, 52% on CBS), with the GOP featured in less than
one-third of stories (32%) on each show.

The reason for the disparity: ABC, CBS and NBC have chosen to cover
the top Democrats as celebrities, elevating them above the ranks of
ordinary candidates. Back in January, the networks excitedly jumped
on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's official announcements with
heavier coverage than any Republican received. Since then, the
morning shows have covered the Democratic duo as "rock stars,"
providing national TV coverage for otherwise trivial campaign events.

In August, for example, NBC's Lee Cowan chronicled the day Obama
spent posing as a home health care worker as demanded by the SEIU
labor union. "Mr. Mom, he's not. But on a day after some big rallies
and high-priced fundraisers, Barack Obama seemed genuinely at home,"
Cowan warmly reported. A few weeks later, NBC's Andrea Mitchell
similarly touted Clinton's day spent shadowing a nurse. Back at the
nurse's home for dinner, Mitchell recounted, "[Hillary] pitched right
in. She was clearing the table, washing the dishes....She got her
hands wet."

In October, all three networks covered Clinton's 60th birthday
fundraiser, with ABC's Kate Snow swooning the hardest: "On the eve of
this birthday, Hillary is trumpeting the strength of their
marriage....Clinton says she never doubted her decision to stay in
her marriage, and she says Bill is romantic, buying impromptu gifts
like a gift of a wooden giraffe from this shop in Africa over the summer."

Beyond the day-to-day coverage, TV's morning shows offer candidates a
generally friendly forum to speak to millions of viewers. Once again,
the networks have given the Democrats an advantage. Since January 1,
MRC analysts counted 102 morning show appearances by an announced or
prospective presidential candidate or one of their representatives.
Of these, nearly two-thirds (64) featured Democrats, compared to just
36 for the Republicans and two for potential independent candidate
Michael Bloomberg.

When it came to airtime, the Democratic advantage was even more
pronounced. Interviews with the various Democratic campaigns totalled
6 hours 24 minutes, compared to just over three hours (184 minutes)
for the GOP, a greater than two-to-one disparity. Top Democrats
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards all received more
interview airtime than any Republican candidate. For the GOP, John
McCain was granted the most airtime, but his 62 minutes amounted to
less than half of the 2 hours 12 minutes received by Clinton's campaign

LIBERAL QUESTIONS FOR BOTH PARTIES
In addition to tallying the airtime each campaign received, MRC
analysts also analyzed the questions posed by the network hosts.
While most of the questions were about campaign strategy or the
candidates' personal attributes, 191 were policy-oriented questions
that could be categorized as reflecting a liberal or conservative
view.

An even-handed approach would be to confront candidates of both
parties with the best arguments of their opponents. But regardless of
whether their guests were Democrats or Republicans, network reporters
proposed questions reflecting largely liberal agenda. Of the 137
agenda questions posed to Democrats, 72 percent reflected liberal
priorities, as were 80 percent of the 54 agenda questions posed to Republicans.

For example, NBC's Matt Lauer interviewed Hillary Clinton on
September 18 and hit her from the left, suggesting her health care
plan was too pro-industry and not aggressive enough. "Critics are
saying that this in some ways is the kind of plan you would have
rejected back in 1993," Lauer scolded. "Have you watered down reform?"

Ten days later, ABC's Good Morning America framed a segment on
government-mandated family leave in liberal terms. "There are paid
leave proposals in Congress right now. So, what's stopping the
government from making the law truly family friendly?" co-host Robin
Roberts urged. She cued up Democratic candidate Chris Dodd. "I know
you have been very passionate about this in recent years," Roberts
told Dodd. "So why isn't Congress moving a little faster on this issue?"

While such liberal questions were a frequent gift to Democratic
candidates, Republican candidates were seldom treated to friendly
conservative questions. On September 25, after liberal PBS host Tavis
Smiley claimed that GOP candidates who skipped his debate were
insensitive, ABC's Robin Roberts adopted Smiley's outrage as her
premise. "Why are Republicans so reluctant to talk to minorities?"
she demanded of Newt Gingrich. On October 15, ABC's Diane Sawyer
confronted Iraq war supporter John McCain with the criticisms of
retired General Ricardo Sanchez: "America is living in a nightmare
with no end in sight."

As for the rare conservative-oriented questions, back on August 13
NBC's Meredith Vieira hit Mitt Romney with the charge that Romney's
pro-life position was inauthentic. And as Clinton made the rounds to
tout her health care plan on September 18, ABC's Diane Sawyer
confronted her with the notion that her plan could be far more
expensive than advertised. "Medicare is already $16 trillion over
what has been funded," Sawyer told Clinton, asking of her new
program, "can you realistically keep it at $110 billion?"

The broadcast networks have a responsibility to cover both parties in
a fair and even-handed manner. These early returns suggest that ABC,
CBS and NBC are instead using their airwaves to boost the Democrats
in 2008.

END of Media Reality Check study
 
Back
Top