What media bias?

What media bias?

USATODAY said:
Heavy coverage at midterm favors Democrats, study says

The media mix By Peter Johnson

Network news coverage has favored Democratic candidates in the midterm election, and the page scandal involving former congressman Mark Foley has been the main story line, drawing almost as much coverage as Iraq and terrorism combined, a new study finds.

An analysis by the Center for Media and Public Affairs of midterm election stories aired on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts Sept. 5-Oct. 22 found that 2006's coverage has been almost five times as heavy as in the 2002 midterm elections: 167 stories, compared with 35 four years ago.

The study found that three out of four evaluations of Democratic candidates' chances of winning — such as sound bites — were positive, compared with one out of eight for Republicans. Coverage has been dominated by two major themes: the effects of the Foley scandal, and the impact the Bush presidency is having on the party's congressional candidates.

The Foley scandal produced 59 stories alone, compared with 33 on Iraq and 31 on terrorism/national security issues. “What's hurting Republican candidates is the media's focus on two non-candidates: Mark Foley and George W. Bush,†says center director Robert Lichter.

Because of the focus on Foley, the re-election race of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., was featured in 42 stories. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was featured in 10 stories, even though he's not up for re-election this year. Sen. Hillary Clinton's possible 2008 presidential run was grist for nine stories.
Source
This is why I don't believe the reports the Democrats are going to win in the election. The media reports are so skewed that it's impossible to believe them anymore.
 

Road Ratt

Diabloii.Net Member
Want some cheese with your whine? :grin:

Evil Conservative Inc said:
This is why I don't believe the reports the Democrats are going to win in the election.
I highly doubt that, most likely you've been listening to your leaders, like Karl Rove, who are telling you that things won't be as bad as is being predicted by the (Evil) media. On this I actually agree, I think it won't be as bad as predicted. :shocked: (Not that it matters to me, I actually care about who is the better person for the job regardless of their party affiliation)

Evil Conservative Inc said:
The media reports are so skewed that it's impossible to believe them anymore.
"Pot calling the Kettle Black" comes to mind. :tongue:
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Smeg's article said:
The study found that three out of four evaluations of Democratic candidates' chances of winning — such as sound bites — were positive, compared with one out of eight for Republicans. Coverage has been dominated by two major themes: the effects of the Foley scandal, and the impact the Bush presidency is having on the party's congressional candidates.
So you're claiming the news is biased because:

1) They're focusing on the Foley scandal, and
2) Three quarters of evaluations of Democrat's chances are positive, vs one eigth of Republicans?

LOL. So it's political bias if news networks focus on a Republican political scandal? Or if they report that a Democrat candidate has a better chance of winning in a particular seat than a Republican?

What would be fair, if they pretended that Republicans and Democrats have exactly equal chances of winning each seat? Way to illustrate perfectly why your complaints about media bias are ridiculous; you call something biased when they are merely reporting a reality that isn't favourable to your side.
 

EliManning

Diabloii.Net Member
I'd imagine Foley got a lot of coverage because he, you know, abused his power to statutorily rape kids and had to resign over it. I'd say the coverage is light considering the severity of the crime. Compare the number of Foley stories this year to the number of Michael Jackson stories a couple years ago. Hell, Jackson is probably STILL getting more coverage than Foley. The conservative media has been very effective at damage control, and the reality is that 80% of the Foley stories are about Foley shifting the blame to his preacher for his own misconduct. It's been nothing but the media apologizing for the guy for two weeks now. If sucking up to a conservative rapist has become a democratic goal I didn't get the memo. I better get started.
 

Merick

Diabloii.Net Member
CNN has been running TONS of stuff about how democrats are going to win big. And they aired a special report "Broken government". They really won't shut up about it. I mean, I'm somewhat liberal, but being so over the top in your reporting really turns me off. I don't want to watch CNN or Fox anymore.
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
CNN has been running TONS of stuff about how democrats are going to win big. And they aired a special report "Broken government". They really won't shut up about it. I mean, I'm somewhat liberal, but being so over the top in your reporting really turns me off. I don't want to watch CNN or Fox anymore.
It would only be bias if they did not similarly report it when the predictions are that Republicans would win by a landslide.



 

PlagueBearer

Diabloii.Net Member
It would only be bias if they did not similarly report it when the predictions are that Republicans would win by a landslide.
The problem is spin: no, I do think that they think they are right and accurate. (Most of the time. That whole Rather/ANG papers thing stank of old-fasioned lying) The problem is that they report how Democrats will win with an air of "it's about time" and "people are taking America back" while Bush's win during 2004 was "Bush won, what a terrible day." and "why did this awful thing happen?"

It's why people will pick either CNN or FOX: both air the SAME facts, but the spin is always different.

What the major idustrys need to take a look at is how NPR deals with the issue of bias. Whatever they do, they do it well.



 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
The problem is spin: no, I do think that they think they are right and accurate. (Most of the time. That whole Rather/ANG papers thing stank of old-fasioned lying) The problem is that they report how Democrats will win with an air of "it's about time" and "people are taking America back" while Bush's win during 2004 was "Bush won, what a terrible day." and "why did this awful thing happen?"

It's why people will pick either CNN or FOX: both air the SAME facts, but the spin is always different.

What the major idustrys need to take a look at is how NPR deals with the issue of bias. Whatever they do, they do it well.
Can you link to CNN journalists saying any of those things?



 

Stompwampa

Diabloii.Net Member
That's a completely seperate issue, networks don't air commercials with political messages other than people running for office.
And even then they are not required to do so unless it is for a national seat, such as House, Senate or Presidency.



 

EliManning

Diabloii.Net Member
Sending an email counts as rape now?

Haha, an email? Even what's already in the open is a systematic flood of emails and instant messages to his male pages. People don't resign over suggestive emails and the House Ethics Committee doesn't stall investigations until after an election if there's nothing more than "an email" to be turned up, nor do they launch an investigation over an email at all for that matter. You don't publicly and sobbingly blame your preacher's molestation of you for your current actions if all you did was send a guy a naughty message on AOL. I guess time will tell, but mark my words, you're in for a big post-election surprise from the HEC if you think he just sent an email.

Having said that, the point remains that there is no content analysis to this study. It simply compares raw numbers of stories that mention Foley to raw numbers of stories that mention other things. This "research" is the equivalent of doing a google search for two things and deciding which one has more of quality X based on the number of hits returned. It's complete garbage. They found a lot of Foley stories in the media not because the media is a bunch of raging commies, but because it's an important story, a recent story, and the Republican media machine has been in constant motion using their proxy journalists to downplay it. It's funny how in a discussion of media bias, Republicans are quick to forget that their administration has publicly acknowledged the fact that they pay journalists to run stories that the administration has written. If you don't like what you're reading in the news, just pay your journalists to pretend to write something else.



 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Haha, an email? Even what's already in the open is a systematic flood of emails and instant messages to his male pages. People don't resign over suggestive emails and the House Ethics Committee doesn't stall investigations until after an election if there's nothing more than "an email" to be turned up, nor do they launch an investigation over an email at all for that matter. You don't publicly and sobbingly blame your preacher's molestation of you for your current actions if all you did was send a guy a naughty message on AOL. I guess time will tell, but mark my words, you're in for a big post-election surprise from the HEC if you think he just sent an email.
Yes, they do all of those things over suggestive emails to under-age boys.



 

Machina

Diabloii.Net Member
Is CNN Democrat then? It's the only American news station I get for free over here. It's boring though, I much prefer Sky News. I'll turn over to CNN to watch some news on American politics but they're never covering American politics, always 'European' politics :undecided:

Maybe it's like CNN for non-Americans or something, like BBC World service is broadcast everywhere except for the UK. I don't know the reason but they're rarely covering American politics. Grrr.
 

EliManning

Diabloii.Net Member
Yes, they do all of those things over suggestive emails to under-age boys.
Is that a fact? Do you happen to know off the top of your head 1) the number of elected representatives who have resigned over suggestive emails and 2) the number of ethics investigations launched over suggestive emails over the entirety of American history, both compared to the number of suggestive emails sent by elected representatives over the entirety of American history?

These emails have been known about for years anyway. Why would they just now be investigating if they're so trigger happy about suggestive emails? You can keep deluding yourself, but whether you're a Foley fanboy or just another victim of the Conservative media machine, you are in for an extremely rude awakening in a couple months.



 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Is CNN Democrat then? It's the only American news station I get for free over here. It's boring though, I much prefer Sky News. I'll turn over to CNN to watch some news on American politics but they're never covering American politics, always 'European' politics :undecided:

Maybe it's like CNN for non-Americans or something, like BBC World service is broadcast everywhere except for the UK. I don't know the reason but they're rarely covering American politics. Grrr.
Everything apart from FOX is liberal propaganda, apparently.

Is that a fact? Do you happen to know off the top of your head 1) the number of elected representatives who have resigned over suggestive emails and 2) the number of ethics investigations launched over suggestive emails over the entirety of American history, both compared to the number of suggestive emails sent by elected representatives over the entirety of American history?

These emails have been known about for years anyway. Why would they just now be investigating if they're so trigger happy about suggestive emails? You can keep deluding yourself, but whether you're a Foley fanboy or just another victim of the Conservative media machine, you are in for an extremely rude awakening in a couple months.
You are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.



 
Top