Another Study, Same Finding MSM Is Biased

[Annie]

http://www.journalism.org/node/8197

Interestingly, they are joined with PEW now, for the first nine years with Columbia School of Journalism. I mean it will be difficult to claim 'bias' of the report, such as some tried with U of Chicago and Stanford findings...

THE INVISIBLE PRIMARY—INVISIBLE NO LONGER
A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign
The Media Sectors
October 29, 2007

Did different media cover the campaign differently? Increasingly, PEJ’s New Index finds striking differences in how different media sectors approach the news. The campaign offers yet another case of this....

 

[midcan5]

Not sure this points towards bias. Remember the republicans have been in power now for a long time. It points towards their failure to govern instead. Consider Iraq, Katrina, Deficit spending, Failure to complete the task in Afghanistan, tax inequities, failed businesses with republican connects, lead filled toys under their watch, 911 under their watch, failure to supply our soldiers with gear, failure to help our soldiers once they return, the widening gap between rich and poor, the poor support for education, the poor support for children, the poor support for the environment. It has to be obvious to anyone but an ideologue that they cannot govern.

why conservatives can't rule
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not sure this points towards bias. Remember the republicans have been in power now for a long time. It points towards their failure to govern instead. Consider Iraq, Katrina, Deficit spending, Failure to complete the task in Afghanistan, tax inequities, failed businesses with republican connects, lead filled toys under their watch, 911 under their watch, failure to supply our soldiers with gear, failure to help our soldiers once they return, the widening gap between rich and poor, the poor support for education, the poor support for children, the poor support for the environment. It has to be obvious to anyone but an ideologue that they cannot govern.

why conservatives can't rule
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html

Yup us Republicans are such boobs. Thats why we won in 94 and completed the take over in 96, cause the democrats were ( after 50 years) doing such a great job. And of course this last year has been another stellar example of why the democrats lost to begin with.

We lost in 2006 cause we got to bigheaded and if we lose in 2008 it will be because we haven't learned our lesson.

 

[Alpha1]

Not sure this points towards bias. Remember the republicans have been in power now for a long time. It points towards their failure to govern instead. Consider Iraq, Katrina, Deficit spending, Failure to complete the task in Afghanistan, tax inequities, failed businesses with republican connects, lead filled toys under their watch, 911 under their watch, failure to supply our soldiers with gear, failure to help our soldiers once they return, the widening gap between rich and poor, the poor support for education, the poor support for children, the poor support for the environment. It has to be obvious to anyone but an ideologue that they cannot govern.

why conservatives can't rule
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html

Whats obvious is the fact that you like Kool-Ade....

 

[eots]

The propaganda we pass off as news around the world



David Miller
Wednesday February 15, 2006
The Guardian


A succession of scandals in the US has revealed widespread government funding of PR agencies to produce "fake news". Actors take the place of journalists and the "news" is broadcast as if it were genuine. The same practice has been adopted in Iraq, where newspapers have been paid to insert copy. These stories have raised the usual eyebrows in the UK about the pitiful quality of US democracy. Things are better here, we imply. We have a prime minister who claimed in 2004 that "the values that drive our actions abroad are the same values of progress and justice that drive us at home". Yet in 2002 the government launched a littleknown television propaganda service that seems to mimic the US government's deceptive approach to fake news.

The British Satellite News website says it is "a free television news and features service". It looks like an ordinary news website, though its lack of copyright protection might raise some questions in alert journalists. Broadcasters can put BSN material "directly into daily news programmes". In fact, BSN is provided by World Television, a company that also makes corporate videos and fake news clips for corporations such as GlaxoSmithKline, BP and Nestlé. It also produced Towards Freedom Television on behalf of the UK government. This was a propaganda programme broadcast in Iraq by US army psychological-operations teams from a specially adapted aircraft in 2003/04.
World Television produces the fake news, but its efforts are entirely funded by the Foreign Office, which spent £340m on propaganda activities in the UK alone in 2001. A comprehensive post- 9/11 overhaul means that this figure has probably markedly increased since then.

According to World Television, by November 2003 BSN "news" was being "used regularly by 14 of the 17 Middle East countries". "Over 400 stations around the world receive BSN stories," it claims. "185 are regular users of the stories, including broadcasters in Russia, Germany, Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan and Australia."

The diet of "news" received by viewers of the service includes an endless pageant of government ministers and other official spokespeople. Recent headlines on Iraq refer to happy news such as "Prime minister in surprise visit to Iraq" (December 22 2005) or "Iraqi ambassador upbeat on elections" (December 14 2005). Often Chatham House provides the venue for policy discussions, as in: "The psychology of terror - experts meet" (December 23 2005).

Questioning the occupation is out of the question, but some criticism of US policy is possible. In an extraordinary apologia for the British occupation of Iraq in 1920, the "suggested intro" reads: "This year is not the first time an outside power has sought to construct a modern, democratic, liberal state in Iraq. Britain tried to do the same in the 1920s". The benevolence of the US and the UK is simply assumed: "Today's USled coalition, like the imperial occupiers of 80 years ago, are trying to free Iraq's government and security services from corruption and abuse."

But the clumsy strategy of the US is potentially "alienating a large section of the population". So the question arises of what "useful lessons could be drawn" from the British experience. In reality the 1920 occupation led immediately to a popular revolt that was ruthlessly suppressed. A puppet monarchy was imposed, which was neither "modern" nor "democratic" but was, as argued by the historian Mark Curtis, one of the least popular in Middle Eastern history.

The BSN strategy seems to be to emphasise Britain's cultural diversity. Bulletins regularly highlight ethnicminority contributions to the UK and interview leading moderate Muslims. But it is possible to hear muted criticism of Israel. One item featured "A leading Israeli academic who has questioned both the wisdom and the effectiveness of the controversial 'separation fence'."

A clue to the thinking behind this lies in a 2003 report for the Foreign Policy Centre (FPC) thinktank, coauthored by its then director Mark Leonard. He advised the Foreign Office on its Public Diplomacy Review in 2002 and was later appointed to the resulting Public Diplomacy Strategy Board, which directs Foreign Office propaganda strategy. Leonard wrote in 2002: "If a message will engender distrust simply because it is coming from a foreign government then the government should hide that fact as much as possible." The FPC report suggests the British government should not be afraid of "bloodying the Americans' noses" in its propaganda messages on Israel/Palestine. They must "ensure that the differences between UK and American positions and thinking are emphasised". The point is to tackle the perception that Britain "apishly follows every American lead" so the "usefulness" of "UK support for the US" is increased.

This strategy of criticising the US, in order to support it better, conforms to Blair's wider Iraq strategy. It is clear from documents leaked over the past year (such as the Downing Street memo) that the plan was to use the UN as a device for gaining legitimacy for the invasion of Iraq. All this makes a mockery of Blair's claims to progressive values. Indeed it suggests that such claims are themselves cynical propaganda.

David Miller is professor of sociology at Strathclyde University

 

[mattskramer]

Eh. You can usually find what you are looking for. Start with a bias and then sift through stuff that supports your bias and skip stuff that opposes your bias. Google “liberal bias” and finds stuff. Google “conservative bias” and find stuff. It is an old game. To make the game easier, just go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Blogs_and_Websites_about_media_bias and take your pick from web sites that report liberal bias or take your pick from web sites that report conservative bias. It is a pretty easy game but it gets boring after a while. You pick a statistic that supports your bias. I counter with a statistic that supports my bias. Then you find an article that supports your contention that there is pro-liberal bias. Then I counter with an article that shows pro-conservative bias – and it goes on and on and on.

 

[Annie]

Eh. You can usually find what you are looking for. Start with a bias and then sift through stuff that supports your bias and skip stuff that opposes your bias. Google “liberal bias” and finds stuff. Google “conservative bias” and find stuff. It is an old game. To make the game easier, just go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Blogs_and_Websites_about_media_bias and take your pick from web sites that report liberal bias or take your pick from web sites that report conservative bias. It is a pretty easy game but it gets boring after a while. You pick a statistic that supports your bias. I counter with a statistic that supports my bias. Then you find an article that supports your contention that there is pro-liberal bias. Then I counter with an article that shows pro-conservative bias – and it goes on and on and on.

Hello, did you read the methodology? This isn't a goofy study, but rather a substantive one, that is going to be a bit difficult to dismiss.

 

[Adam's Apple]

We lost in 2006 cause we got to bigheaded and if we lose in 2008 it will be because we haven't learned our lesson.

What you have written is so true!

However, unless things get much, much worse than they are, when I get in the voting booth I will be very reluctant to trust the Democrats with the leadership of the country. The Democrat Party has been taken over by the ultra-left, and their leading presidential candidate is a European socialist trying to disguise herself as a centrist.

 

[jillian]

We lost in 2006 cause we got to bigheaded and if we lose in 2008 it will be because we haven't learned our lesson.

You lost in 2006 because of Iraq. People are displeased with Congress because they haven't done anything about Iraq.

You also lost because Bush needed oversight which he didn't have with a republican congress. It's called checks and balances.

Oh yeah... and you lost because Bush is incompetent and for some reason the repubs in congress wouldn't disavow his actions.

so there ya go.

 

[Stephanie]

Iraq is happening.....and for you people to pretend that the Democrats "DIDN'T HAVE A HAND IN IT....is laughable....

And just look at the Democrats so called OVERSITE...

Everything they have tried to shove down our throats, is going to cost us more in the way of taxes......

But, I guess that's the "Democratic WAY"....

This should be their new slogan...

Take from people that worked their way up, AND PROMISE to give it to some FREELOADERS ASS who didn't....

The Democrats.......will lose in 2008...
yes they were given a chance in 06 and it only took them 11 months....to show their TRUE FACE....

People will not buy their shit.......and you will LOSE BIG...IN 08..

And don't THINK...that the American people.. hasn't seen the LIBERAL Bias in the lamestream media, and most of the major newspapers...

There's a reason that Fox News, and conservative Radio is NUMBER 1, in all the ratings..
Why do you think......the Liberals, Socialist, Communist...the Democrat party is working so hard to SHUT THEM UP...
Vote for a Democrat...lose your freedoms......yippee....

 

[red states rule]

Even Harvard says the media is bias to Dems


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.

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.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124

 

[William Joyce]

The media's issues aren't America's issues.

The media cares about the environment. America is worried about earning a living.

And so on.

This will not change quickly. But with my teeny blip of light flickering across vast reaches of cyberspace, I can now fight back.

 

[mattskramer]

The media's issues aren't America's issues.

The media cares about the environment. America is worried about earning a living.

And so on.

This will not change quickly. But with my teeny blip of light flickering across vast reaches of cyberspace, I can now fight back.

The media cares about media. It is concerned with “hey, watch me”. It needs to grab attention and make ratings so that it can see advertising space.

 

[midcan5]

Again to repeat given the failure of conservative republican governance none of this should surprise anyone. But seriously MSM is conservative today; it is corporate owned, it is owned by few companies today, and its workers are under the same shadow all American workers are under. "Play the game or get lost."

In answer to why Republicans are winning, that too is easy, voting is basically divided along party lines with a few deciding the difference, those few vote single issues such as bringing a theocracy to America, abortion, guns, gays, and right wing tax greed, aka trickle down. Initiative driven elections are always iffy given the power of propaganda. "If you think the United States could never elect an Adolf Hitler to power, note that David Duke would have become governor of Louisiana if it had just been up to the white voters in that state." Robert Altemeyer