No Media Bias on War - Except FoxNews
Michael Demmons
From Editor & Publisher:
...[the study] determined that Fox News was the most one-sided of all major outlets. In fact, the idea that Americans are engaged in "partisan" news consumption isn't supported by the research. With the exception of Republicans who prefer Fox, most media use mirrors the general population, the study found.
The Project for Excellence in Journalism is affiliated with the Columbia University School of Journalism. The study was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.
The Washington-based Project examined more than 2000 stories on the war in Iraq and found that 25% of the stories were negative and 20 percent were positive. “The majority of stories were just news," said the Project’s director, Tom Rosenstiel.
Fox News Channel was twice as likely to be positive than negative, while CNN and MSNBC were evenhanded.
Interesting. Although I'll say that just because the reports of negatives vs. positives was more even-handed on other networks, it does not make their coverage unbiased. The study seems to ignore the possibility that FoxNews may have been more positive because there was more positive stuff happening than negative. Or, FoxNews may have focused on other things happening in the news, like the building of schools, playgrounds, soldiers helping Iraqis, etc. - stories that were largely ignored by others.
Being "unbiased" does not mean you're obligated to a 1:1 ratio of reporting positives and negatives. If this study is correct, then I would be inclined to believe the networks that did report "fairly" were the ones that were biased.
And just because reporting "mirrors the general population" doesn't make it unbiased or right.
25% negative, 20% positive? And 55% "neutral?" Why do I think "neutral" includes all sorts of stories where they talk to both pro- and anti-democracy people, people who say we're winning and people who say we aren't, so they can provide "balance?"
And why do I think they didn't bother comparing headlines vs. page 10 stories?
And did they compare this against the absolute, known positivity/negativity of events to see how close to reality the reporting was?
Statistics is all well and good, but if you put meaningless numbers in, they don't suddenly become meaningful because you took an average of them.
How come this isn't trumpeted as heavily? Don't "more americans get their news from ABC news than anywhere else?"
also this: "but found that President Bush received more “negative” coverage in the 2004 campaign than did Senator John F. Kerry."
Do tell.
I defy anyone to tell me they have a clue about Brian Lamb's opinion about anything except for his views on how information should be presented to the public - that they should get all it so that they can make up their own minds.
I don't think so. It's not clear, but I think that "positive" is something distinct from "a news report covering a positive development". It says "The majority of stories were just news."
So, if some good thing happened in Iraq and there was a news story that said "This thing happened in Iraq", that wouldn't be counted as "positive". If the news report instead said "This thing happened in Iraq and we asked so-and-so why that proves the President was right all along," that would be positive.
Again, the article is a little less than clear, but it sounds like the study is showing that Fox News does a lot more of that second type of report, which certainly comports with my own personal experience of their coverage.
I'm sure they'd be 'biased' in favor of the military. Nothing shown that plays the US in a good light isn't propeganda, while all the lies the Ms. Sgrena of the world get pushed off as 'news'.
Sheesh, do they not realize that 'bias' doesn't mean you have to show both sides to avoid it? Giving two side of the argument doesn't make your coverage fair. Fairness is ensuring that both sides get EQUAL coverage, not degrade and demean one side while propping up the idiocies of the other argument.
For example: did the study count Abu Graib stories as negative, or positive? How did they count the near-obsessive coverage of this story by the mainstream media?
From the article: '“The majority of stories were just news," said the project’s director, Tom Rosenstiel.'
How did they objectively define what was "just news?" How did they take context into account? Did they differentiate between stories which provided background (e.g. 15 of the 18 provinces are essentially at peace, the historically low casualty rates, why reserve and logistical units are suffering higher casualties than expected, and so on) and those which didn't?
I'm willing to accept one citation; Fox probably is more honest about their point of view on a story. After all, their motto is "we report, you decide."
Too bad the rest of the MSM isn't so honest. This is yet another attempt to poo-poo the fact that the MSM are biased, and dishonest as well.
Rhianna brings up a good point: do the Sgrena stories published so far count as "positive" or "negative?" In fact, has the MSM even mentioned the inconsistencies and story changes seen so far?
They gave a lot of publicity to the original story, and Sgrena's wild claims. Will they give the same publicity to the latest data, wherein the Italians admit that they didn't coordinate her recovery with the United States? I doubt it.
Actually, I'll lay odds the entire thread counts as "just news" for this study.
'Nuff said.
Essentially, what we've got is biased people says "bias? I don't see no stinking bias!"
Mostly worthless report.
Is it any more than that? We can't know without more information. Who, for example, did the judging of what is "just news", and who determined when reporters included their opinion in the report?
First, Since the CJR was last seen defending Eason Jordan from the salivating lynch mob, I have a feeling that their definitions of negative and positive are different from mine.
Second, The choice of story can be as relentlessly negative as biased writing. I wonder if CJR also took into account which "news stories" they chose to run?
The NY Times did 50-some front-page-stories on Abu Ghraib in 2 months.
I would have considered fewer than 10 of those as "news" stories. The vast majority didn't include any new information and very few included any exculpatory information. For instance, I didn't know that Lyndie (sp?) England wasn't assigned to that cell block until I took Greyhawk's test. I also didn't know that most of the incidents took place in one night.
Were stories that left out inconvenient facts positive, negative or neutral? I especially have a problem in that, in light of CJR's reaction to Rather's Word documents and Eason Jordan's casual slandering of US troops, I don't trust them to be unbiased.