|
rulemylife -> RE: do you think the media is bias? (9/23/2008 9:02:41 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKy
Interesting study about press coverage during the Democratic primary:
Obama’s Margin of Victory: The Media
Extracts:
Key Findings:
# The three broadcast networks treated Obama to nearly seven times more good press than bad — 462 positive stories (34% of the total), compared with only 70 stories (just 5%) that were critical.
# NBC Nightly News was the most lopsided, with 179 pro-Obama reports (37%), more than ten times the number of anti-Obama stories (17, or 3%). The CBS Evening News was nearly as skewed, with 156 stories spun in favor of Obama (38%), compared to a mere 21 anti-Obama reports (5%). ABC’s World News was the least slanted, but still tilted roughly four-to-one in Obama’s favor (127 stories to 32, or 27% to 7%).
# Barack Obama received his best press when it mattered most, as he debuted on the national scene. All of the networks lavished him with praise when he was keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and did not produce a single negative story about Obama (out of 81 total reports) prior to the start of his presidential campaign in early 2007.
# The networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama’s relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other stories. CBS and NBC also initially downplayed controversial statements from Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, but heavily praised Obama’s March 18 speech on race relations.
# While Obama’s worst media coverage came during the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, even then the networks offered two positive stories for every one that carried a negative spin (21% to 9%). Obama’s best press of the year came after he won the North Carolina primary on May 6 — after that, 43 percent of stories were favorable to Obama, compared to just one percent that were critical.
# The networks minimized Obama’s liberal ideology, only referring to him as a "liberal" 14 times in four years. In contrast, reporters found twice as many occasions (29) to refer to Obama as either a "rock star," "rising star" or "superstar" during the same period.
# In covering the campaign, network reporters highlighted voters who offered favorable opinions about Obama. Of 147 average citizens who expressed an on-camera opinion about Obama, 114 (78%) were pro-Obama, compared to just 28 (19%) that had a negative view, with the remaining five offering a mixed opinion.
Since this study doesn't cover the "Republican/Democratic" divide, I found it particularly entertaining.
Just as an example of the "reporters" (and editors) choice in framing the news ... take the number of positive "man in the street" interviews. I seriously doubt that anyone set out to ensure that the majority of the interviews were pro-Obama. It's just that they were the ones most likely to actually make the broadcast.
There are several books worth of analysis that can be (and have been) done on the subject.
Firm
Explain to me how you can credibly quote a study done by a group that already had its outcome predetermined.
I mean, the whole purpose of the Media Research Center is to prove that the media has a liberal bias. That's why the group was formed.
So, how can their results be considered as anything but biased?
|
|
|
|
