LA Times: In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias

[jpyaks3]

Finds the media biased against Obama in regards to negative coverage compared to McCains

"During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center."

"But the center's director, RobertLichter, who has won conservative hearts with several of his previous studies, told me the facts were the facts.

"This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage," he said.

Here's a bit more on the research, so you'll understand how the communications professor and his researchers arrived at their conclusions.

The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story

[mjah]

Shhhh. Don't tell the McCainiacs.

Wait, what's that? Oh. There aren't any McCainiacs.

Carry on. :whoknows:

[ChocolateCitySkin]

bet those numbers look similar to the amount of negative posts vs positive on this board.

[twa]

You will note the use of "recent weeks",in other words the uproar and other studies showing media bias in Obama's favor had a effect...finally.

[FlyinO]

This study is ridiculous. What constitutes a nagative opinion? When news (political) analysts "give" advice to a campaign, does that count as negative? You know, like when some person from some panel says the Obama camp should do such and such, and McCain should do this.

Is this really a negative statement: "when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative." Or is this just reporting the news that Obama currently doesn't have much support from these demographics.

The results from a study like this can vary wildly. I'm calling :bsflag:

[mjah]

From the article:

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

Reading the guy's original results, the study covers the entire first 1.5 months of the general election, starting June 4.

You know, when the two candidates were unencumbered by other shrewish hangers-on and could compete directly.

Since that's the only time period a responsible study could use to compare the two candidates directly, one wonders what else certain posters would have expected...

:laugh:

[mjah]

This study is ridiculous. What constitutes a nagative opinion? When news (political) analysts "give" advice to a campaign, does that count as negative?

If the standard is the same for both sides, your question becomes less important. Especially in light of the disparity in the results.

Unless you think the media is secretly trying to "give" advice to Obama. On the air.

[twa]

Do you agree with the theory the only bad press is no press?

For the record McCain '08 in the first six months (Jan-Jun) logged 203 minutes. That is plenty. It is more for the first two quarters than any other candidate in the previous five cycles: more than Bush '88 (167), Perot '92 (161), Clinton '92 (158), Kerry '04 (157), Bush '04 (133), Dole '96 (130), Bush '00 (111) and so on. McCain is getting plenty of coverage, judged as an historical candidate. Yet Obama, in the first six months of 2008, just broke the mold: 389 minutes. Obama gets more positive coverage, more negative coverage and more trivial coverage.

http://tyndallreport.com/comment/20/2966

[FlyinO]

If the standard is the same for both sides, your question becomes less important. Especially in light of the disparity in the results.

Unless you think the media is secretly trying to "give" advice to Obama. On the air.

What you fail to understand is that there is no concrete definition or guideline to follow when discerning this type of data. It eventually comes down to one person's decision of "positive" or "negative". Which is why studies like this will always be almost useless.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

^^someone's feelings are hurt

[FlyinO]

^^someone's feelings are hurt

nevermind. don't wanna go there.

[FlyinO]

and for the record. I won't vote for Obama or McCain.

[Larry]

Do you agree with the theory the only bad press is no press?

For the record McCain '08 in the first six months (Jan-Jun) logged 203 minutes. That is plenty. It is more for the first two quarters than any other candidate in the previous five cycles: more than Bush '88 (167), Perot '92 (161), Clinton '92 (158), Kerry '04 (157), Bush '04 (133), Dole '96 (130), Bush '00 (111) and so on. McCain is getting plenty of coverage, judged as an historical candidate. Yet Obama, in the first six months of 2008, just broke the mold: 389 minutes. Obama gets more positive coverage, more negative coverage and more trivial coverage.

http://tyndallreport.com/comment/20/2966

So what you're saying is that all those "Obama is a Muslim" threads in Tailgate are really helping the guy a lot?

[Burgold]

There's such desperation to cling to these pre-conceived notions. If a study shows something, the study must be chocked full of validity errors, or sampling problems, or something else... basically, anything that doesn't fit into the box of propaganda that people have been led to believe (about the media) creates such dissonance that it must be disspelled. The illusion is more important than the truth.

The truth is liberal bias, the way it has been presented on talk radio more often than not doesn't exist.

[twa]

So what you're saying is that all those "Obama is a Muslim" threads in Tailgate are really helping the guy a lot?

They very well could,false stories are usually easily disproven and they attract his defenders giving them a platform...While at the same time diminishing peoples acceptance of criticism of him.

Which could result in a higher burden of proof for real shortcomings.imo

[Burgold]

They very well could,false stories are usually easily disproven and they attract his defenders giving them a platform...While at the same time diminishing peoples acceptance of criticism of him.

Which could result in a higher burden of proof for real shortcomings.imo

Nah, false stories do far more damage than good. Look at the swiftboating. Even though most of it was disproven. People remember the allegations and they caused damage. Few remember or even read the retractions hidden at the back of the newspaper.

People tend to believe the lies. Why? Usually, lies are more dramatic and therefore more memorable. Look how long the muslim and swearing on the Koran stayed afloat and even today are staying afloat after being shown to be out and out falsehoods.

[mjah]

What you fail to understand

Hahahahahahahaha.

[deep breath]

Hahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh, man. You're hilarious. Tell another one. Wait, let me catch me breath first.

Okay. Now tell another one. :laugh::laugh:

there is no concrete definition or guideline to follow when discerning this type of data. It eventually comes down to one person's decision of "positive" or "negative". Which is why studies like this will always be almost useless.

Yeah, actually that's exactly what I was talking about. Many things can't be measured with perfect objectivity. That doesn't mean they're just unmeasurable and you just close the book on comprehensive survey studies. Sometimes you can clearly define a subjective standard, apply it equally to both sides, and then clearly communicate it as part of the study. Later studies can always move that bar a bit if the original standard seems to be off -- and in the mean time, you can still extract value from the results.

And after reading the study results, the article, and your too-deep-to-comprehend post ( :laugh: ), that seems to be the case here. While it would be much better to have a fictitious objective way to do the measurement, this study is not entirely worthless for lack of one.

Once the standard of measurement is set and communicated, I'd say the larger issue is the fact that there are only 7 weeks in the study so far. It's a healthy chunk and enough to draw some conclusions, but it won't be enough to tell the whole story of the election.

[twa]

Nah, false stories do far more damage than good. Look at the swiftboating. Even though most of it was disproven. People remember the allegations and they caused damage. Few remember or even read the retractions hidden at the back of the newspaper.

People tend to believe the lies. Why? Usually, lies are more dramatic and therefore more memorable. Look how long the muslim and swearing on the Koran stayed afloat and even today are staying afloat after being shown to be out and out falsehoods.

No people believe lies because they want to,or find it easier to.

A major reason con men make a good living,playing to hopes or fears.

[Burgold]

No people believe lies because they want to,or find it easier to.

A major reason con men make a good living,playing to hopes or fears.

Can't really argue that one. Politicians have been preying on our fears since time began.

Big sharp tooth out there kill you all. I go out and protect you. You give Ugla women and food. I protect you from monsters.

(I think we're both right on this one.)

[jpyaks3]

Do you agree with the theory the only bad press is no press?

For the record McCain '08 in the first six months (Jan-Jun) logged 203 minutes. That is plenty. It is more for the first two quarters than any other candidate in the previous five cycles: more than Bush '88 (167), Perot '92 (161), Clinton '92 (158), Kerry '04 (157), Bush '04 (133), Dole '96 (130), Bush '00 (111) and so on. McCain is getting plenty of coverage, judged as an historical candidate. Yet Obama, in the first six months of 2008, just broke the mold: 389 minutes. Obama gets more positive coverage, more negative coverage and more trivial coverage.

http://tyndallreport.com/comment/20/2966

How many did Clinton have? It was one of the most contested and drawn out primaries ever so you would expect both of those contenders to get a lot more minutes then someone who wrapped up their nomination after super tuesday.

[twa]

How many did Clinton have? It was one of the most contested and drawn out primaries ever so you would expect both of those contenders to get a lot more minutes then someone who wrapped up their nomination after super tuesday.

No idea on Clinton(who cares about losers )

This however shows a marked positive bias for both Obama and Hillary in the past by the press..however the worm has turned

http://www.journalism.org/node/11266

If campaigns for president are in part a battle for control of the master narrative about character, Democrat Barack Obama has not enjoyed a better ride in the press than rival Hillary Clinton, according to a new study of primary coverage by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University.

From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates’ character, history, leadership and appeal—apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns.

The trajectory of the coverage, however, began to turn against Obama, and did so well before questions surfaced about his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Shortly after Clinton criticized the media for being soft on Obama during a debate, the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical—and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself. What’s more, an additional analysis of more general campaign topics suggests the Obama narrative became even more negative later in March, April and May.

On the Republican side, John McCain, the candidate who quickly clinched his party’s nomination, has had a harder time controlling his message in the press. Fully 57% of the narratives studied about him were critical in nature, though a look back through 2007 reveals the storyline about the Republican nominee has steadily improved with time.

[Oldskool]

The L.A. Times, the most liberal paper only second to the NY Times, says that there is no liberal bias? :laugh:

Again, die printed media, die.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

from that article:

While differences by media were minimal, some did stand out. Network morning news is notable for the degree to which it offered an exceptionally positive personal impression of Hillary Clinton. Fully 84% of the assertions studied in those programs projected positive master narratives of the former first lady, some 20 percentage points more positive than about Obama. And on cable news, the three rival channels differed markedly from each other in their treatment of the candidates.

also, it posts that chart but makes no discussion about it... in fact, the article itself discusses more that positive and negative "press" is more reflective of the way the candidate is presenting himself.

[techboy]

The truth is liberal bias, the way it has been presented on talk radio more often than not doesn't exist.

You clearly haven't read Lichter's previous work.

I shall now amuse myself by watching conservatives, who were previously thrilled and totally persuaded by such studies, now reject them as silly and far too subjective to be useful, while liberals, who previously rejected these studies as silly and far too subjective to be useful, are now thrilled and totally persuaded. :laugh:

[twa]

from that article:

in fact, the article itself discusses more that positive and negative "press" is more reflective of the way the candidate is presenting himself.

Of course ,which would mean the increased negative coverage is a result of his presentation....see my sig