Study on election news coverage bias

[southsider2k5]

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050314/...-REPORT-DC.html

[Texsox]

It didn't mention how they determined what was positive and negative. For example, during the Monica Lewinsky craze, did the press have a responsibility to find positive things to write about to balance all the negative? Should Woodward and Bernstein been required to fill half their stories with happy news about what Nixon was engaged in?

 

Some stories are negative and that is what makes news. Fox News is reporting that no one died from Tsunamis today. We go on location around the Pacific for this breaking news

 

Elected officials are much more likely to receive negative press than the challengers. The candidate isn't doing much but delivering carefully scripted campaign speeches, while the elected official has to actually work and can not hide.

 

Of course if you drink the GOPer Kool Aid this is all a conspiracy by Americans to only allow the GOP to have 24 hours of opinion and not 55 seconds of news coverage.

[Rex Kickass]

Wouldn't that be expected though of a candidate running with four years track record in that office?

 

I remember finding difficulty in seeing/hearing stories that were really positive to either candidate.

[KipWellsFan]

Considering that Bush the elected official who has had 4 years in power already is obviously going to have more stuff to be negative about. I'm surprised it isn't more lopsided.

 

"Examining the public perception that coverage of the war in Iraq was decidedly negative, it found evidence did not support that conclusion. The majority of stories had no decided tone, 25 percent were negative and 20 percent were positive, it said.

 

The three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative."

 

Other than that, the article wasn't really about bias.

[YASNY]

Considering that Bush the elected official who has had 4 years in power already is obviously going to have more stuff to be negative about.  I'm surprised it isn't more lopsided.

 

"Examining the public perception that coverage of the war in Iraq was decidedly negative, it found evidence did not support that conclusion. The majority of stories had no decided tone, 25 percent were negative and 20 percent were positive, it said.

 

The three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative."

 

Other than that, the article wasn't really about bias.

 

I trust "public perception" more than a study on media bias. These "studies" can be just as, if not more so, biased. It's like comparing stats or watching two ballplayers over an extended period of time. I'll trust my observations over the stats every time.

[Texsox]

When a group who appeals to half the population is pushing their self serving agenda at every opportunity, it's no wonder the public is starting to agree. Too bad they aren't using that propaganda for good, instead of self serving interests.

 

What happens when we believe everything our government tells us because anyone who is critical of them can not be trusted?

[YASNY]

When a group who appeals to half the population is pushing their self serving agenda at every opportunity, it's no wonder the public is starting to agree. Too bad they aren't using that propaganda for good, instead of self serving interests.

 

What happens when we believe everything our government tells us because anyone who is critical of them can not be trusted?

 

The other group, who historically have appealed to a majority of the population, has had their agenda pushed by every major media outlet for the past 30+ years, yet agenda pushing wasn't an issue then. Only when the other side has created their own media outlets to get their voice heard, and have yanked the popularity away by doing so, has agenda pushing been a problem.

[Texsox]

What happens when the government is free of any criticism? When anyone who reports that the President authorized a break in, or had sex with an intern, or soldiers murdered civilians, is dismissed as having a bias? Are we better off?

 

By discredting the one group who has the time, resources, and opportunity to "keep the governmnent honest" our elected leaders will have no oversight. This is basically what the Soviet Union had with TASS. And we know how well their society turned out.

[southsider2k5]

What happens when the government is free of any criticism? When anyone who reports that the President authorized a break in, or had sex with an intern, or soldiers murdered civilians, is dismissed as having a bias? Are we better off?

 

By discredting the one group who has the time, resources, and opportunity to "keep the governmnent honest" our elected leaders will have no oversight. This is basically what the Soviet Union had with TASS. And we know how well their society turned out.

 

What happens when the "4th branch of government" is so biased against a single group of people, that they will do anything, including make up stories and evidence to discredit them, their beliefs, and their way of life? Is no one allowed to investigate the media and their intentions? Should no one find out why they are saying what they are saying? Should the media be allowed to favor a certian way of life over another, even while maintaining the charade that they are being fair? Why does the government (who I thought was us incidentally) deserve to be investigated and kept honest, but the people doing the investigating get off scott-free?

[YASNY]

What happens when the government is free of any criticism? When anyone who reports that the President authorized a break in, or had sex with an intern, or soldiers murdered civilians, is dismissed as having a bias? Are we better off?

 

By discredting the one group who has the time, resources, and opportunity to "keep the governmnent honest" our elected leaders will have no oversight. This is basically what the Soviet Union had with TASS. And we know how well their society turned out.

 

 

This is also basically what the Democrats had prior to Rush, Hannity, Reagan and FoxNews.

[Texsox]

What happens when the "4th branch of government" is so biased against a single group of people, that they will do anything, including make up stories and evidence to discredit them, their beliefs, and their way of life?  Is no one allowed to investigate the media and their intentions?  Should no one find out why they are saying what they are saying?  Should the media be allowed to favor a certian way of life over another, even while maintaining the charade that they are being fair?  Why does the government (who I thought was us incidentally) deserve to be investigated and kept honest, but the people doing the investigating get off scott-free?

 

Fair question and allow me show you how to answer a question.

 

They should be checked and held to a high standard. But adding up column inches and air time and calling some negative and some positive is silly. A Tsunami killing tens of thousands of people is news, millions of sun bathers is not. Politicians taking junkets from foreign agents is news, kissing babies and mailing flags is not. Any negative story is immediately met with cries of media bias.

 

The media has made mistakes on both sides. Remember Kerry and his supposed mistress? Was that media bias?

 

The GOP is not asking for fair, they want cheerleaders. DeLay has called the attacks against him as media bias as evidence mounts. Clinton called his detractors part of a vast right wing conspiracy. Both statements are jokes.

 

Now, would you care to answer my question?