Log In
Username

Password

Remember me

News: Politics

The U.S. Presidential Elections




"For whatever reason, the media are portraying Barack Obama as a better choice for president than John McCain. If you watch the evening news,


you'd think you should vote for Obama."


- Prof. Robert Lichter


George Mason University


 


Questionable study about media 'bias' in U.S. election coverage


On a sunny Friday, the Associated Press sent out a report, based on a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, claiming a pro-Obama bias in U.S. network news coverage of the presidential election.


I'm not so sure about the study's methodology.


Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65% of cases, compared to 31% of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.


The group mentioned ABC's World News having more balance than NBC's Nightly News or the CBS Evening News.


Meanwhile, the first half of Fox News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume showed more balance than any of the network broadcasters, although it was dominated by negative evaluations of both campaigns. The center didn't evaluate programs on CNN or MSNBC.


The center analyzed 979 separate news stories shown between Aug. 23 and Oct. 24, and excluded evaluations based on the campaign horse race, including mention of how the candidates were doing in polls. For instance, when a voter was interviewed on CBS Oct. 14 saying he thought Obama brought a freshness to Washington, that was chalked up as a pro-Obama comment.


When NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported Oct. 1 that some conservatives say that Sarah Palin is not ready for prime-time, that's marked in the negative column for McCain.


ABC recorded 57% favorable comments toward the Democrats, and 42% positive for the Republicans. NBC had 56% positive for the Democrats, 16% for the Republicans. CBS had 73% positive (Obama), versus 31% (McCain).


Hume's telecast had 39 per cent favorable comments for McCain and 28 per cent positive for the Democratic ticket.


The non-partisan Centre for Media and Public Affairs last week declared in an analysis of the media that Mr McCain received far more negative news coverage that his rival during the campaign.


A Harris Poll last week found Republicans tend to be much more critical than Democrats of bias in the media's election coverage with 65% of Republicans believing coverage to have unfairly favoured Mr Obama and only 16% believing it fair. Some 54% of Democrats meanwhile thought press coverage was fair while 12% thought it unfairly favoured Mr McCain.


 


"Winning begets winning coverage."


-Mark Jurkowitz


An author of a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism that tracked campaign coverage


Falsified claims by the Republicans


Reuters reported that there had been times during this year’s presidential elections when supporters of Republican John McCain seemed to bash journalists covering his campaign almost as hard as they did his Democratic rival, Barack Obama.


His running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, famously stoked anti-media catcalls and boos by Republican delegates at the party's national convention.


In fact, a crowd of McCain backers at a rally in Virginia were seen chanting: “Tell the truth! Tell the Truth!” at press stands.


McCain partisans were infuriated by a perception that mainstream news organizations routinely gave Obama preferential treatment en route to his election as the first black U.S. president.


But media scholars, including a former top aide to McCain, disagree. They said campaign coverage often did lean in Obama's favor, though not -- as many conservatives have suggested -- because of a hidden liberal agenda on the part of the media.


Instead, academic experts said, Obama benefited largely from the dynamics of the campaign itself and the media's tendency to focus on the "horse race," emphasizing ups and downs in the polls and political tactics.


As Obama's poll numbers rose in response to events, so did favorable press coverage for him, not the other way round.


A (financial crisis) boost for Obama


Some scholars acknowledge that Obama also generated good press by virtue of his charisma, and his place in history as the first black presidential candidate of a major political party.


The Pew study, which examined over 2,400 campaign stories from 48 news outlets, found negative McCain stories outnumbered positive ones, 57% to 14%, in the six weeks from the end of the conventions to the last presidential debate on October 7. Press treatment of Obama was more positive than negative – 36% favorable to 29% unfavorable.


Pew researchers and others concluded Obama's media advantage was amplified by the financial crisis that struck in mid-September.


The credit crunch, stock market plunge and worsening economic outlook transformed the race by providing a narrative that played to Obama's message and helped deflect character attacks from McCain and his supporters, experts said.


After getting less attention than Obama in the run-up to the conventions, McCain actually caught up to his rival by late August in terms of overall media exposure. He even pulled ahead amid an initial burst of enthusiasm for Palin.


But McCain's coverage soured as the financial crisis unfolded and he suspended his campaign to deal with it, a move widely perceived as a misstep.


Hollihan, author of the book "Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age," cited tensions between McCain and Palin supporters and the wave of high-profile Republicans who defected to endorse Obama.


Hollihan and other experts also pointed to McCain's choice of Palin as a decision that ultimately cost him in the media.


The Pew study found that Palin coverage overall was more negative than positive, though contrary to what many suggested, little of it dealt with her personal life.


 


To my mind, coverage should reflect the reality of what's being said on the ground. If you talk to 100 people, and 55 say good things about the Democrats and 45 say bad things about the Republicans, reflecting that fact in your subsequent story is not biased.


If you construct your reporting to give 50-50 positive-negative coverage regardless of what people are actually saying, then that's a form of bias.


If a news organization is actively trying to shape public opinion, that's bias. If it's reflecting public opinion, sorry, that doesn't bother me too much.





Tags: Elections , States , Obama
Rate It:
digg it


Region: United States
Views: 1244
     

More from this Reporter

More from this Region

More from Similar Tags

Help improve GroundReport




v 2.4 build: 258
0.5205