I went to the Fox News website and from there linked to the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. The PEJ has a detailed report analyzing the tone of media coverage for each of the four candidates for Pres/VP. I encourage my readers to visit this site and draw their own conclusions.
Here are my observations:
First of all, the study generally shows that coverage of Obama has been pretty much equally divided between positive, negative and neutral tone. The coverage of McCain has been significantly negative in tone. Based on this, it would not be right to say the MSM has been 'promoting' Obama, but rather that they have been particularly negative on McCain. It's not the same thing.
More importantly, the study finds that the tone of the reports for each candidate pretty much follows the fortunes of that candidate. For example, during the Republican convention, McCain was rising in the polls and Obama falling, and McCain was receiving significantly more positive tone in the reporting and Obama significantly more negative tone. Later, the trends reversed as Obama rose in the polls and McCain began falling.
Interestingly, while the right-leaning talking heads have been wailing and crying about how much focus the MSM has placed on Sarah Palin's personal life and family, the PEJ study showed that only 5% of the stories on Palin were about her family or personal life, and almost all of these were during or immediately after the convention when it was made known that her unmarried daughter was pregnant. So, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Bill Bennett and whoever else out there have been preaching the unfairness doctrine relative to Sarah Palin's personal life scrutiny have just been making that stuff up.
So my conclusion is that the negative tone of McCain's coverage has been the result of a combination of two factors. First, according to the PEJ study, the tone follows the polls, and McCain has been down since a week after the convention. Second, McCain's campaign decided to swing negative in their whole approach which probably would have set the tone in a negative direction for his coverage, according to the methods used in the study.
In other words, McCain chose to attack Obama on the character issues (negatives), while Obama chose to attack McCain on the policy issues (neutrals). Thus, McCain's coverage is negative while Obama's is essentially equally divided between positive, negative and neutral.
I did not get a warm and fuzzy feeling about the methodology used to characterize a story as being positive, negative or neutral. Obviously this is somewhat of a judgement call on the part of the 'coder'. Also, I don't know the political leanings of the Pew folks, but if Fox News linked to them, I have to suppose they are not left-leaning.
Another comment that has been made to me is that some people feel the journalists overall are not investigating Obama's background adequately, and so the right has had to do it for them.
The fact is, most of the 'questionable' associations and activities in Obama's past simply have not gotten very much traction in the electorate overall. Because of this, the right has redoubled its efforts in that direction hoping to push the undecideds to the right. Every time a new allegation comes up, the MSM dutifully reports it but unless it becomes a significant story on its own, they don't follow it very far. In other words, if nobody much cares, they don't cover it any further. That's the essence of the journalism business these days.
So, you may argue that the negative McCain tone percentages are equivalent to the MSM being on Obama's side, but I don't think the analysis from the PEJ report supports that, if we want to be honest about it.
Of course, honesty is in short supply during an election year.
Posts
10 comments:
When I hear a supposed neutral "journalist" say he got a tingle up his leg after hearing Obama, it kind of tears up the whole "he doesn't get more positive press theory".
And yet, the report says otherwise.
It is not the amount of press articles either way that bother me, it is the tone of the questions, the partisan feelings of the reporters that come into play. I'm not saying this because I think McCain has been treated poorly, I just don't think it has been balanced.
Take for example a local news reporter question to Liberty University's president that asked if he thought he was being biased in encouraging the students at Liberty to register and vote. They prefaced this question with a bunch of student interviews that indicated that most of them would be voting for McCain (not surprising from a conservative, bible clutching bunch of students). I'm fine with the question if applied both ways, but where was VT's or UVA's or JMU's president being asked if he/she was being biased by encouraging their students to register and vote (in far greater numbers I might add)? When it is easy to see that the majority of those students will vote Obama. See the difference?
As far as the comments about the public's interest not being there on Obama's past associations, so the press didn't dig any deeper, I say BULL! Aren't these the same news sources that rushed to Alaska to dig up any dirt they could find on Palin after her nomination? The same press that tried to insinuate that she was tied to the Alaska Independence Party and only dropped it once it was proven without a doubt that she wasn't? Is this the same press that criticized Ms. Palin for not coming on their shows yet allowed Obama to dictate the questions he would be asked?
Also in regard to the negative campaigning, have you been listening to the radio or watching TV lately? I'd say it is pretty balanced negatively on both sides. Granted Obama doesn't directly tie his campaign to some of the worst ones from the 527's, but I'm sure he would discourage it if it really bothered him.
If you are truly impartial, I say take a look at the tone and the types of questions that are asked (perhaps more importantly, question not asked or the follow up question that should be asked).
As another point, my vote on Tuesday won't be for a candidate, it will be against the policies of the other one.
Since I didn't choose which reports to include in the PEJ study, I can't really comment on your observation, although I find it valid. It is discussed in the analysis, so maybe you will find something there that can give you an answer.
As for your specific example about Liberty, I agree that on the surface this seems biased. However, if I were doing a story, I might not bother with UVA, VT or JMU either, because the 'story' is about the bible-carrying president of Liberty encouraging his students to vote, presumably for the 'right candidate', McCain. There simply is no equivalent story at VT, and probably not one at the other schools either. It's only a story because it's Liberty. Nobody would care about President Steger encouraging VT students to vote, unless of course he actually endorsed a candidate. Then it's a story...maybe.
Does that make it biased? I don't know. Maybe.
As for the Palin thing, remember, the PEJ study says that only 5% of her coverage has been about her personal life or that of her family. Digging up info on a complete unknown who was unexpectedly sprung on the electorate at the last second is to be expected. Again, it's the story.
Local TV ads that I have seen on Obama's side have been focused on McCain's support and similarity to Bush, and directly about his policies. Ads on McCain's side have, in my view, been about equally divided between attacking his policies and attacking him personally (like, the empty chair ad which is a direct attack on his abilities, not on his policies).
One thing that is left out of the PEJ study is talk radio, which is overwhelmingly anti-Obama. As for web sites and blogs, I have no clue what the breakdown is, but anecdotally I would say there are many more anti-Obama sites than anti-McCain sites.
So basically, if I read your comment accurately, you feel that the bias has been more in the diligence of the journalists with respect to one candidate or the other. You may be right, but I can't speak to it because I don't have any objective data. I know that I have heard many of the left-wing talking heads say they don't understand why the media isn't going after McCain harder.
To some degree, I think people take away from this issue what they bring to it. If they expect to see bias, they see it. It's like listening to people on each side discuss who won the debate. Both sides think their guy mopped the floor with the opponent.
So here's a related question - would you rather have neutral coverage or completely polarized coverage? Which serves us better?
I say polarized coverage is better. I know if I listen to Rush or watch Fox I will get the conservative viewpoint, complete with all the dirt they can dig up. I know if I watch MSNBC or listen to Air America, I will get the equivalent slant from the other direction. Then I get to judge for myself and make up my own mind.
On the other hand, neutral reporting is boring and not likely to turn up the dirt that partisan reporting turns up.
What do you think?
Your last couple of lines is what I am getting at. When you listen to Rush, Hannity or others, you know up front that the "commentary" is going to biased. Just like it is on the Daily Show, 30 Rock or the Colbert Report which are biased comedy commentaries. They don't claim to be unbiased or neutral.
MSNBC, CNN and the other major news networks (of course with the exception of Fox which is also guilty of it on the other side) do claim to be balanced and fair! They masquerade as such and it simply isn't true. If you are the average american that doesn't explore politics that much and gets your news from one of these sources, then you are being reported to biasedly (is that a word?) and you really don't even know it.
A similar slant can be gleaned from the RT on local issues when they were doing "opinion" pieces disguised as news. Reference Christian Trejbal's diatribes with spatterings of "some" research. Is wasn't that the public wasn't interested in the subject, it was they were getting half truths and opinions, not balanced reporting. Journalism is suppose to be without bias, but I've seen very little real journalism in a long time.
I agree it is easy to listen to reporting with your own bias, but I've tried hard to look at it from both sides of the fence. I've seen a little on the Obama side as being harsh, but much more on the McCain side when being questioned or commented on.
Oh, also they didn't ask or get an answer from Liberty's president on who he was going to vote for. It was just assumed that he would go towards McCain since Obama is pro-choice. He wasn't encouraging anyone to vote for McCain from what I saw in the report. Taking that the other way, I would probably assume that Steger, JMU's and UVA's presidents would probably vote Obama since he is pushing for more money going to education/universities. See, it works both ways.
The study may show the total number of articles or stories, but it cannot show the attitude of the reporter or the inflection of the questioning.
I agree with you pretty much, although I'm not sure MSNBC hides behind fairness any more. They have Rachel Maddows and Keith Olberman. I clearly thought the press was pro-Obama during the primaries, but again, a lot of that is just chasing the story (or creating it!). They want controversy that can be summed up in a sound bite or caption. That's all they are about anymore. When the primaries started, they were down on Clinton because that's the great story - presumptive nominee in trouble. When Obama was clearly ahead, they were back on Clinton's side again because that was the story - the new comeback kid - can she do it.
So, I also agree that the study doesn't take into account the behavior that you are pointing out. I'm still not sure how much of it is bias regarding the candidate or bias regarding the story, but I grant your point.
It sounds like a couple of your commentes have gone hook-line-and-sinker for the crap on MSM, whether it's news, commentary, or paid commercials. Election results tend to suggest MSA (Main Stream America) can't tell the difference.
About the only place to get useful presidential candidate information is the fact checking web sites (e.g., factcheck.org) because their analysis of what one says about the other usually includes both of their stances on the issue.
care to point out which comments you think are biased toward the MSM?
Post a Comment