Is the media biased?

[Gan]

Came across an interesting report regarding the media coverage President Bush has received during his first 100 days of his second term...

As reported by: Center for Media and Public Affairs.

http://www.cmpa.com/documents/05.07.11.100.Days.pdf

Washing Times Article:

Bush finds no friends at networks
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 11, 2005


President Bush just can't win with the broadcast networks.
More than two-thirds of the news stories on ABC, NBC and CBS covering the first 100 days of Mr. Bush's second term were negative, according to an analysis released today by the District-based Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).
It's actually a slight improvement: During the first 100 days of his initial term in office, the coverage was 71 percent negative, according to a similar CMPA study conducted in 2001.
In comparison, President Clinton's first-term news coverage was 59 percent negative in 1993.
The three networks also seem to be boycotting Mr. Bush this time around. He rated 619 stories during the study period in 2001-- but just 250 stories this year, the study found.
"Presidents tend to get bad coverage during their second terms. The press is sick of them by then. The Iraq war and the weapons-of-mass-destruction question was a particular factor for Mr. Bush this time," said CMPA director Robert Lichter.
"Many journalists felt tricked by the White House, and consequently were not going to let the president get away with anything," Mr. Lichter said.
"But the public isn't going to let the news media get away with anything either," he added. "The public is more critical and ask more questions about news coverage these days -- and what offends them most is negativism."
The CMPA study analyzed stories that aired Jan. 20 to April 29.
ABC was the most critical -- 78 percent of the coverage of the president on "ABC World News Tonight" was negative. On CBS, the coverage was 71 percent negative. The study called NBC "more balanced" at 57 percent negative.
The analysis also flagged comments deemed judgmental or overtly negative.
"Without comment about how he felt taking the nation to war on such flawed assumptions, President Bush agreed it's time to go to work," said CBS correspondent John Roberts on March 31.
NBC, meanwhile, showcased one Georgia voter saying in early February, "I'm in the working world, trying to make a living. Seems like [Bush is] screwing it all up."
The three networks also had pet targets. Seventy-eight percent of stories about Mr. Bush's Social Security reforms were negative, along with 77 percent of stories on his domestic policy and 71 percent of stories on Iraq policy.
The president got an easier ride on his foreign policies. The study found that those stories were 58 percent negative.
But Bush-bashing seems to be entrenched. The press "battered" the president during the 2004 election season, according to a Project for Excellence in Journalism analysis of 817 print and broadcast stories that ran in October.
Mr. Bush "suffered strikingly more negative press coverage than challenger John Kerry," the study stated. "Overall, 59 percent of Bush-dominated stories were clearly negative in nature," while "just 25 percent of Kerry stories were decidedly negative."
____________________________

Interesting indeed.

[Shalla]

I don't know about bush. I certainly don't care either. But the Media is always biased.

[Apotheosis]

I think the media, for the most part, attempts to be objective.

They present all the material they have to work with. Some news stations position themselves as more left, some as more right, depending on their target demographic.

Finally, I would have to say that people who think the media is too liberal or too right are only looking at the times when they feel that the media covers a subject that they support in a manner that they feel is unfair.

[Gan]

I find that the media tends to overstep its responsibility of reporting the news and actually tries to 'spin' or create impressions of how it should be interpreted by their viewing audience.

Yes, I think they are biased. From the anchors, to the editors, to the station directors, to the producers, to the owners. The sad part is we rely upon them because the only other alternative are information sources like moveon.org.

[Apotheosis]

take into account that new sources rely on advertising revenue for funding.
Because of that, they need to position a news topic to gain as much attention as possible. I would also like to suggest that it is very difficult to remove bias from anything, even statistical data.

[Gan]

If you get right down to it, as long as there's a human factor there will always be bias... no matter whats being reported, investigated, or interpreted.

[Wezas]

It couldn't possibly be because of the vacation and time he spent on his ranch (doing work, that's fine, but it still "looks bad") during his first 100 days, compared to Clinton.

And also suprisingly the article mentions Bush's second term and how negative the press was.... but not Clinton's second term.

I guess that's just my left wing slant on it.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Wezas
It couldn't possibly be because of the vacation and time he spent on his ranch (doing work, that's fine, but it still "looks bad") during his first 100 days, compared to Clinton.

And also suprisingly the article mentions Bush's second term and how negative the press was.... but not Clinton's second term.

I guess that's just my left wing slant on it.

Excellent questions Wezas. I couldnt deduce why they chose that comparison in this article. I did however, find a page where the methodology of the CMPA is discussed.

http://www.cmpa.com/ourMethodology/index.htm

[Skirmisher]

The possibility that he has done a horrible job is another option.

[Apotheosis]

http://www.luntz.com/

that company was hired by the Bush admin as part of their "constituent research".

In effect, he was responsible for helping come out with key phrases, such as "War on terror", "Estate Tax" vs. Death tax, among other things.

so in effect, alot of the buzzwords that the media gets are generated by the politicians themselves.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I couldnt deduce why they chose that comparison in this article.

Because the Washington Times is biased to the right almost as much as Drudge is.

Raven

[Gan]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Ganalon
I couldnt deduce why they chose that comparison in this article.

Because the Washington Times is biased to the right almost as much as Drudge is.

Raven

I was actually referring to the CMPA report, not the Washington Times article. Thanks for your input though.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
The possibility that he has done a horrible job is another option.

You're entitled to your opinion...:yes:

I happen to think otherwise.

[Warriorbird]

I think the media's actually pathetically wimpy and cowed by him.

Is much of it biased? Yes.

Is a fair portion of that bias conservative? Yes as well.

We have the Republicans paying prostitutes to be journalists, after all.

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Bobmuhthol]

A media report on whether or not the media is biased?!

Sign me up!

[DeV]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I think the media's actually pathetically wimpy and cowed by him.

Is much of it biased? Yes.

Is a fair portion of that bias conservative? Yes as well.

We have the Republicans paying prostitutes to be journalists, after all.
Agreed.

I believe the media goes easy on Washington in general. I believe they have been particularly cowardly regarding reporting discrepencies going on in the administration but there is a lovely thing called the internet that millions of people have access to, and that Al Gore invented mind you.

Seriously though, It's sad when the majority of impartial news can be found on the net.

But I agree the media may attempt to report unbiased but If it isn't obvious biased it's over-reporting issues that aren't extremely important to the general public or under-reporting issues of serious concern.

[CrystalTears]

I feel that the media is biased. Even though they want to bring us the news, they want to bring it in the most entertaining and controversial way.

What is going to inspire people to watch? What will cause controversy? What will stir emotion?

Just telling the news with the mere facts and leaving it at that is basically boring. The news is now part of the entertainment industry as far as I'm concerned. With so many of them running news 24/7, they have to fill that time with something. The more dramatic the better.

Hearing how someone did great today is unfortunately not interesting enough for the media and public, so they go for the gusto.

[Warriorbird]

As harsh as it is, this Hearst-ian notion is easily expressed by how many posts the Gemstone Complaints folder gets.

[Anebriated]

I say the media is biased. Everyone has their opinions. I learned the hard way when my cross country team won our region over a team that we had lost to in the same game the previous 6 years. The next day in the newspaper we had a small blurb in the bottom corner while the team we beat still managed to get a large article in the top. It wasnt even a local paper that I would expect to be biased. We went on to win states and still didnt get much recognition from the writer. Oh well.

[StrayRogue]

Watching CNN and NBC news you see how biased it is compared to the BBC and Channel 4.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
The possibility that he has done a horrible job is another option. :yes:
Originally posted by Warriorbird
I think the media's actually pathetically wimpy and cowed by him.78% negative is cowed?

[Wezas]

To be honest, if there was a conservative show comparable to the "Daily Show" - I'd likely watch it. I enjoy the humor.

And no, O'Reilly does not count.

[Warriorbird]

Yep. Media is typically negative. Has been since the beginning of the 20th century. Where they go with their "negativity" is the issue. The other remainder is likely puff pieces from Fox.

[Latrinsorm]

I think once (if :devilsmile: ) Bush gets out of office, the Daily Show will seem more balanced. Jon doesn't really cotton to BS from either side, but seems to me he's really anti-Bush for whatever reason.

[Apotheosis]

According to Maddox and his most recent post:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=banish

Liberal media: Whiny, bitching, cry-baby conservatives love to prattle on and on about the "liberal media." To be fair, except for FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, they're right.

[Ilvane]

It's biased on both sides depending on what you watch. I think Bush had it easy in some ways, but had it hard in others. Howard Dean had it hard on many fronts, because of the coverage of bits and pieces of what he said instead of the entire statement..he never really had it easy. They were remarkably nice to Kerry in a lot of ways, but also very nasty in some ways too.

I think the media is doing well to portray both sides, you just have to watch it all to get the idea of everything. I'll watch CNN for a half hour, then Fox for a half hour, and get the middle on my own.;)

-A

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Yswithe
According to Maddox and his most recent post:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=banish

Liberal media: Whiny, bitching, cry-baby conservatives love to prattle on and on about the "liberal media." To be fair, except for FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, they're right.

The Washington times is suing for being left off that list

[ElanthianSiren]

Whomever mentioned that you have to look at the sponsers of the particular station gets a cookie. You then have to look at where those sponsers contributed their own money IMO. I won't buy from certain stores after doing that kind of research.

-M