You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased
2007-11-02
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.

Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#7  OS is on it - in the pat yellow journalism was rampant, but you knew where the bias lay (lies?) - todays Journos proclaim even coverage while doing the same bias - that's the lie, and teh declining readerships convey the consequences. Is Fox "conservative"? Prolly, especially when compared to a network that employs Olbermann. At least with Fox's opinion shows, you know what you're getting, see: O'Reilly ( I don't watch him), Hannity and Colmes - who could pretend they don't know which side either is on? I think their news shows are balanced, but I guess that makes me a right wingnut
Posted by: Frank G   2007-11-02 19:00  

#6  Reminds me of that article here in 2004 with one newsweek editor confessing to a fellow insider that the msm coverage of kerry was boosting his candidacy by 15 points in the polls, or an another post-election article with a think tank finding that the 2004 campaign had been the most lopsided in term of favorable/defavorable coverage in more than 50 years.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2007-11-02 14:16  

#5  Next up for Harvard: Is water wet?
Posted by: Thraing Hatfield3414   2007-11-02 13:32  

#4  I think the press has always been partisan in one way or another. We are sensitive to it because those oxen being gored are our OUR oxen. I recently had the opportunity to read through some papers and letters from the civil war period (again). I was struck by the similarity in tone to today's journalists. There is not one to one equivalence, but the partisan bickering seemed more venomous then than today. Political fever swamps are not new.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike   2007-11-02 12:41  

#3  I'm not saying that the reporters do not have their biases- we all do, its human nature. WHat I am pointing out is that there needs to be a good distribution of bias so we get all sides fo a story, and its up to us to use our judgement, instead of being spoon fed pre-selected one-sided things.

And that is the failure of the modren MSM - its hiding thier bias and becoming a monoculture in the process. The newsroom is as friendly a place to conservvatives now as the Soviet Union was to individualists. This has to change - the so-called "openess" that liberals brag about does not exist - yet its the very thing that woudl save them and the republic - being open to conservativism individuaism, and the supporters of such.
Posted by: OldSpook   2007-11-02 12:25  

#2  Actually Spook, they started off partisan. Look around at the sheets who's titles still include Democrat, Republican, and Independent. The game that was played in the last century, was to hide that blaring fact. The lie is that they've really ever been non-partisan. It was a con game both on the public and seemingly enough upon themselves to the extent some inside believe it.

That is also coupled with the Orwellian evolution of the term 'bias'. Everyone is bias towards something in one degree or another. In the left's universe, 'bias' means 'those who don't agree with me'. That is why they don't see 'bias' in television, print or other media - only talk radio and the net. These same people argued for decades that institutions dominated by old white males were by nature bias against minorities and women. Yet, they can not fathom why institutions composed of 90% 'liberal' registered Democrats can be considered 'biased'. The term means something different between them and us.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-11-02 12:13  

#1  Interesting that newsroom bias has gotten so bad even Harvard can find it. And its not jsut politics but the war as well.

One of the "pillars of democracy" is rotting, at the head, and from the inside.

This is one of the things that alarms me so much. The Press has turned partisan, and is institutionally turning into "Pravda" supporting liberalism and the Democrats at the expense of objectivity and unbiased reporting. They are trying to push the nation into a single collectivist party state.

Its professional malpractice on an epic scale. They are not only failing to inform the public, they are actively mal-informing the public and destroying the true basis for democracy - an informed public.

If our republic fails, the cheif culprit will be the failure of the mainstream media to do their job, to inform, not indoctrinate, the public.
Posted by: OldSpook   2007-11-02 11:37  

00:00