US Newspapers Biased Against Republicans

Toro

Senate Member
EDIT - Upon further review, I have come to the conclusion that this is wrong.

Accusations of political bias in the media are often made by members of both political parties, yet there have been few systematic studies of such bias to date. This paper develops an econometric technique to test for political bias in news reports that controls for the underlying character of the news reported. Our results suggest that American newspapers tend to give more positive news coverage to the same economic news when Democrats are in the Presidency than for Republicans. When all types of news are pooled into a single analysis, our results are highly significant. However, the results vary greatly depending upon which economic numbers are being reported. When GDP growth is reported, Republicans received between 16 and 24 percentage point fewer positive stories for the same economic numbers than Democrats. For durable goods for all newspapers, Republicans received between 15 and 25 percentage points fewer positive news stories than Democrats. For unemployment, the difference was between zero and 21 percentage points. Retail sales showed no difference. Among the Associated Press and the top 10 papers, the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Associated Press, and New York Times tend to be the least likely to report positive news during Republican administrations, while the Houston Chronicle slightly favors Republicans. Only one newspaper treated one Republican administration significantly more positively than the Clinton administration: the Los Angeles Times' headlines were most favorable to the Reagan administration, but it still favored Clinton over either Bush administration. We also find that the media coverage affects people's perceptions of the economy. Contrary to the typical impression that bad news sells, we find that good economic news generates more news coverage and that it is usually covered more prominently. We also present some evidence that media treats parties differently when they control both the presidency and the congress.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=588453


August 22, 2006 - A Republican Risk Premium?

Is the media more likely to accentuate the negative when Republicans hold the Presidency? In their October 2004 paper entitled "Is Newspaper Coverage of Economic Events Politically Biased?", John Lott Jr. and Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute test for political bias in the economic (durable goods, GDP, retail sales and unemployment) news coverage of American newspapers, after controlling for economic content. Using headlines from a database of newspaper and wire service articles from 389 newspapers covering January 1991 through May 2004 (and back to 1985 for the top ten newspapers: USA Today, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, New York Daily News, New York Post, Chicago Tribune, Newsday and Houston Chronicle), they find that:

- American newspapers tend to report the same economic news more positively when Democrats hold the Presidency. No newspaper shows pro-Republican bias, and the large national newspapers all tend to slant headlines favorably for Democrats.

- Specifically, controlling for economic content, Republican presidents get 20-30% less positive coverage on average from all newspapers and 20-40% less positive coverage from the top ten papers than do Democrats.

- There is no evidence that this bias varies with a President’s approval rating.

- Media coverage relates positively to perceptions about the economy. Partisan bias produces a 7-9% difference in survey respondents viewing the economy as getting better.

- Contrary to popular belief, good economic news generates more coverage than bad news.

In summary, a pro-Democrat/anti-Republican bias in the mainstream media may affect the economic risk perception of some investors/potential investors, thereby affecting stock valuations.

This bias may reflexively offset any perception that Republicans are better for business (and therefore stocks) than are Democrats.

We wonder whether the migration to online news sources is affecting either the level or the impact of mainstream media bias.

For related research, see Blog Synthesis: Sentimental Journey, encompassing a broad range of equity market sentiment measures. See also our blog entry of 8/8/06, which examines whether the stock market does better under Democratic or Republican presidents.

http://www.cxoadvisory.com/blog/Default.asp
 

agentkgb

Nominee Member
Aug 22, 2006
96
1
8
US
agentkgb.wordpress.com
RE: US Newspapers Biased

Republicans are the wealthy party, their economic stuff is corporate wewlfare and tax cuts for the rich 10% or 1%, and so it's probably better for them if it's not in the papers.
 

Gonzo

Electoral Member
Dec 5, 2004
997
1
18
Was Victoria, now Ottawa
The Republicans want people to think that the media is biased against them. The truth is Republicans own most of the media anyway. They learned allot from Vietnam. Keep the public in the dark. American news media is very biased, IN FAVOUR of the Republicans.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
RE: US Newspapers Biased

If you torture statistics long enough they'll confess anything.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Right wingers :twisted: are predisposed to believe that there is a media slant against their evil views. But the truth is that the media is pro-war and gives a very sanitized portrayal of Bush :evil: even though he is clearly the worst president in USA history.

When the NY Times and Washington Post were speaking for Bush by saying Saddam had WMD and when those papers were fomenting war hysteria, none of those right wingers said anything negative about the media. Today those same papers give all kinds of right wing crap about Iraq and North Korea thereby fomenting more war hysteria. Not a word of truth on any of those accounts and all clearly pro-Republican. So why don't those same right wingers say something about that??
 

Gonzo

Electoral Member
Dec 5, 2004
997
1
18
Was Victoria, now Ottawa
You should see the movie "Why We Fight". During the Vietnam war the media actually covered what was going on. Now journalists are only alowed to cover what the military will let them.
 

agentkgb

Nominee Member
Aug 22, 2006
96
1
8
US
agentkgb.wordpress.com
Gonzo said:
You should see the movie "Why We Fight". During the Vietnam war the media actually covered what was going on. Now journalists are only alowed to cover what the military will let them.
They "embed" journalists with military units a lot, but have they ever "embedded" with civilians anywhere?
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Oh yeah, the news media is so terribly biased, yeah right. All it did was to attack Clinton like friggin hell for his one personal indiscretion which hurt nobody. But that same media is ever so forgiving and so willing to look the other way rather than to criticize Bush for his endless lies. Clinton's lie hurt nobody - Bush's lies killed thousands of Americans. Somehow, the right wing loonies still believe that the media is slanted against Repukeblicans.


Phooey!
 

Gonzo

Electoral Member
Dec 5, 2004
997
1
18
Was Victoria, now Ottawa
I always found that funny about your country. Bill Clinton was a bad husband and they try to impeach him because he lied about a personal matter. Yet George Bush is a bad President and nothing happens. Bush lies about everything and that’s okay. Yeah, the media in the States is biased all right, against the democrats.
 

Gonzo

Electoral Member
Dec 5, 2004
997
1
18
Was Victoria, now Ottawa
I'm not denying it. I want to know how? How has Canadian media being biased against the Conservatives?
In the States it is a fact that the media was really tough on the Clinton administration but has gone soft on Bush. They dont ask the tough questions!
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Gonzo, you're a very level headed individual, at least in my view.

All media is biased. Have you ever watched PBS? (don't know if you get it in Canada). Have you ever listened to NPR? New York Times? Washington Post? NewsDay in New York? New York One News?

Do not make assumptions based solely on CNN, Fox and a few other major networks.
 

Gonzo

Electoral Member
Dec 5, 2004
997
1
18
Was Victoria, now Ottawa
All media is biased, though they say they arent (fox slogan "fair and balanced"). Not much has changed since William Randolph Hearst.
We get PBS, CNN, FOX ect in Canada. I believe that the media should always ask tough questions regardless of who is in power. When your country goes to war, it should be clear what your soldiers are fighting for. It's the job of the media to ask these things. I dont think they did leading up to the Iraq war. The reasons were so blurred that many Americans thought Iraq had something to do wit the 9/11 tragedy.
I admit that I dont read American newspapers, so my opinion is based only on t.v. news like fox and cnn. But those are major news sources.