Media bias

I'm sure the stats are similar in Canada.

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.
Related Topics: Media & Culture
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."
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.
Seems to me it's usual for the ruling party to take liberties and in doing so incur some bad press over it. More so in the case of the Republican president Bushco, there is just so much fodder for journalist to write a negative article or something critical of the administration while so little to be positive about
that the statistics can reasonable be expected to be skewed to some extent.
Bad news gets most of there coverage and it just happens that the Reps are full of juicy stories. Most of the bias is in their little minds.
Now now let's not be unfair to the Republicans....

George Bush et al. had an agenda and that agenda included listening to Pearle Wolfowitz and others around him....Lockheed Martin, Carlyle Group, Exxon and the petroleum government...etc. etc.

George was provided with what Martha Stewart and Ken Lay didn't enjoy, a veto power and the "presidential amnesty"......

Terry Shaivo and Katrina, the outed CIA agent, mother nature.....the problem Bush has had were the direct result of his inability to deal with women.....

Bill Clinton made national headlines with his female foibles it's only fair that Bush get the same tabloid coverage for his missteps.....
Free Thinker
Amount of coverage is never an indicator of bias, since some events deserve more coverage than others. Similarly, having a negative tone is not necessarily an indicator of bias unless it is unwarranted. A piece on a convicted felon should almost never cast said felon in a positive light, measuring bias there depends on how one defines what is warranted. Defining when negative or positive attitudes are warranted is a subjective exercise, and it is unclear from this report on a report whether the investigators conducted it.

In the end, because of these and other deficiencies, we are left with numbers without any guidelines on how to interpret them. No more information than, on 19 rolls of a given die I rolled a 7 exactly 4 times. Does that mean that the die is loaded? Who knows, it could have 8 sides, 12 sides, 4 sides with a 7 and some other numbers. Too much necessary information is missing.
Of course the media is biased. In the years after 9/11 the media bias was firmly on the other side of the spectrum. Investors Business Daily has there own bias. The NewYork Times has their own bias.

The fourth estate is a shamble of it's former self.

Similar Threads

Media bias as a political tool
by Tyr | Mar 29th, 2011
Media bias
by Walter | Nov 26th, 2008