first comprehensive study on media bias

[Truthmatters]

'Liberal bias?' IU professors find network TV election coverage favors Republicans

and guess what ?

the media gives Rs kinder coverage.



A visual analysis of television presidential campaign coverage from 1992 to 2004 suggests that the three television broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS and NBC -- favored Republicans in each election, according to two Indiana University professors in a new book.

Their research runs counter to the popular conventional notion of a liberal bias in the media in favor of Democrats and against Republican candidates.

Maria Elizabeth Grabe and Erik Bucy, both associate professors in the Department of Telecommunications of IU's College of Arts and Sciences, report their findings in their book, Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections (Oxford University Press).

"We don't think this is journalists conspiring to favor Republicans. We think they're just so beat up and tired of being accused of a liberal bias that they unknowingly give Republicans the benefit in coverage," said Grabe, who also is a research associate in political science at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. "It's self-censorship that journalists might be imposing on themselves."

 

[Xenophon]

Ha ha ha ha ha

 

[Alpha1]

first comprehensive study on media bias????

You gotta be shittin' me....

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom

AIM Report: New Evidence of Liberal Media Bias -
AIM Report: New Evidence of Liberal Media Bias - November A

In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias
In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias - Los Angeles Times

MSNBC Confirms Liberal Media Bias
MSNBC Confirms Liberal Media Bias

The Liberal Media Exposed (PDF Report):
Media Bias Basics

Liberal Bias Quantified in Media Study
Liberal Bias Quantified in Media Study

All conclude the same thing...Liberal bias in the media is real...

 

[PoliticalChic]

'Liberal bias?' IU professors find network TV election coverage favors Republicans

and guess what ?

the media gives Rs kinder coverage.



A visual analysis of television presidential campaign coverage from 1992 to 2004 suggests that the three television broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS and NBC -- favored Republicans in each election, according to two Indiana University professors in a new book.

Their research runs counter to the popular conventional notion of a liberal bias in the media in favor of Democrats and against Republican candidates.

Maria Elizabeth Grabe and Erik Bucy, both associate professors in the Department of Telecommunications of IU's College of Arts and Sciences, report their findings in their book, Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections (Oxford University Press).

"We don't think this is journalists conspiring to favor Republicans. We think they're just so beat up and tired of being accused of a liberal bias that they unknowingly give Republicans the benefit in coverage," said Grabe, who also is a research associate in political science at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. "It's self-censorship that journalists might be imposing on themselves."

This is truly the most inane post of today. Did they also find that Dumbo could fly?

 

[garyd]

Are you out of your ever loving mind? Read the study. The assumptions in that study are so unbelievably bogus it isn't worthy of being used as fish wrap or bird cage liner. He claims the Republicans frequently go last which obviates the usual negative spin the Alphabet soup media lays on the Republican Response to questions that are not infrequently of the 'Have you stopped beating your wife sort'

 

[American Horse]

'Liberal bias?' IU professors find network TV election coverage favors Republicans

and guess what ?

the media gives Rs kinder coverage.

In the liberal mind if the Rs aren't completely ridiculed it's considered better treatment than they deserve. And these two professors at IU are unbiased? hehehe!

Take reporting that at least tries to show fairness, NPR where I never heard a report on a Republican in which they didn't finally end with "But........" then a withering critique, and then the D version in glowing terms.

 

[Otter_Creek]

Freakin' idiot

 

[PoliticalChic]

Take reporting that at least tries to show fairness, NPR where I never heard a report on a Republican in which they didn't finally end with "But........" then a withering critique, and then the D version in glowing terms.

Yeah, and what is the rationale for the taxpayer hefting about 40% of NPR budget?

 

[Sky Dancer]

It was a fascinating discussion on NPR. The point is that media sources are not as biased as we think they are.

We are biased. We listen with biased ears and when we don't hear the conclusion we want, we tend to dismiss it.

It occurs on both sides, left and right.

The same story can get attacked from left and right as biased. We do the same thing on posts. The same post or POV or info can be attacked by the left and the right as biased.

 

[KittenKoder]

Weird ... why is it so hard for people to figure this out:

1. Any business, even radio, TV, and newspapers MUST make money to operate, they are not given money from the government in most cases (and should never be given money period).

2. To get that money they have to sell "ad space" or charge people to use it (often times both now).

3. To make the ad space worth something they have to be popular, this is measured by a ratings system which is actually pretty accurate (considering it uses the same techniques polls often do).

4. So they have to show stuff that boosts their ratings in the area they are viewed/heard.

5. To do this they will show some bias based on the region as well as sensationalize whenever they can get away with it.

6. Sensationalism MUST follow the regional opinions or they will be called on it, which will result ni lawsuits and thus cost them money.

What this means: Media is biased, but only because people in that area lean more toward one side of a story than the other, media lies but often does so in ways that people in the are agree so they can get more viewers/listeners/readers while avoiding huge and costly lawsuits. It's simple people.

 

[Meister]

It was a fascinating discussion on NPR. The point is that media sources are not as biased as we think they are.

We are biased. We listen with biased ears and when we don't hear the conclusion we want, we tend to dismiss it.

It occurs on both sides, left and right.

The same story can get attacked from left and right as biased. We do the same thing on posts. The same post or POV or info can be attacked by the left and the right as biased.

Hmmm, NPR huh? I guess if your a liberal it's not bias.
Nobody can tell me that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC etc. are not left leaning stations.
Having said that....have you ever tried to listen to Keith Olbermann on MSNBC? Geeze...tell me that there isn't bias. I will leave the major newspapers to another post.....

 

[KittenKoder]

It was a fascinating discussion on NPR. The point is that media sources are not as biased as we think they are.

We are biased. We listen with biased ears and when we don't hear the conclusion we want, we tend to dismiss it.

It occurs on both sides, left and right.

The same story can get attacked from left and right as biased. We do the same thing on posts. The same post or POV or info can be attacked by the left and the right as biased.

Hmmm, NPR huh? I guess if your a liberal it's not bias.
Nobody can tell me that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC etc. are not left leaning stations.
Having said that....have you ever tried to listen to Keith Olbermann on MSNBC? Geeze...tell me that there isn't bias. I will leave the major newspapers to another post.....

I have to disagree on CBS and NBC, at least in our area.

 

[Shadow]

It was a fascinating discussion on NPR. The point is that media sources are not as biased as we think they are.

We are biased. We listen with biased ears and when we don't hear the conclusion we want, we tend to dismiss it.

It occurs on both sides, left and right.

The same story can get attacked from left and right as biased. We do the same thing on posts. The same post or POV or info can be attacked by the left and the right as biased.

Hmmm, NPR huh? I guess if your a liberal it's not bias.
Nobody can tell me that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC etc. are not left leaning stations.
Having said that....have you ever tried to listen to Keith Olbermann on MSNBC? Geeze...tell me that there isn't bias. I will leave the major newspapers to another post.....

Yes, I will be waiting for one of Keith's frothing at the mouth Obama rants any day,month,year now with baited breath....not...

And I used to Like Hardball with Chris Matthews and used to watch it regularly, but he has trashed his credibility and is just the same ol wacko nutburger as Olberman is now..

 

[Toro]

Hmmm, NPR huh? I guess if your a liberal it's not bias.

And likewise, if you are conservative, it is biased.

I listen to a lot of NPR - not because it is liberal, but because it is intelligent and has no ads - and I do think they lean left, but as the UCLA study posted above states

Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media.

Whereas conservative talk radio is just horrible, not because it is conservative but because it is primarily bombast.

Similarly, I read the Wall Street Journal every day, and I completely agree with this statement in the same study.

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times.

The WSJ is an excellent paper of unbiased journalism.

 

[American Horse]

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times.

The WSJ is an excellent paper of unbiased journalism.

This is an example of a company's Editorial leaning not being applied to their journalists in the news room which we are often told is something that doesn't happen. Too bad we can't get the same fair treatment of the news versus their editorials from the New York Times. This might explain why NYT has to go to a Mexican Banker to get a high intererest lone for $250 Million to stay in business; one assumes because their readership and advertising copy is losing its appeal while the WSJ's readership (like Fox News audience) continues growing. This along with the shrinking appeal of so many newspapers and broadcast and cable networks is a good sign that people believe they can do better, and given a choice they will.

 

[garyd]

Trouble is the worst of the bias is lying on the cutting room floor. It happens in the matter of story selection what gets printed or not printed said or not said. This story doesn't even make an attempt to cover that aspect of the problem.