Fox News, Empirically the place to go for fair and balanced election coverage

[Scylla]

As a consumer of news, CNN, Fox, MSNBC and such, I am often taken aback by the hatred and the accusations made against Fox.

As it turns out, their election coverage is the fairest:

http://journalism.org/node/13436

On MSNBC over 70% of the McCain stories were Negative versus only 12% Negative stories about Obama.

Fox News had 40% negativity for McCain and 40% for Obama.


CNN was 60% negative for McCain and 39% Negative for Obama.


The overrall media had 59% negative stories about McCain and only 29% negative about Obama.

On the postive side Fox News was 22% positive on McCain versus 25% positive on Obama.


Fox news is demonstrating a slight bias in favor of Obama, yet nevertheless, as measured in terms of evenhandedness of coverage Fox News has empirically been found to be more fair and balanced than either CNN, MSNBC, and the overrall media in terms of election coverage.


Glad we could clear that up.

[askeptic]

a parody thread should include a link...

[ivylass]

Forget it, Scylla. Around here Fox News is sneered at, proof of non-bias notwithstanding. You might as well ask Hentor to have a polite tea party with Sarah Palin.

[Scylla]

Forget it, Scylla. Around here Fox News is sneered at, proof of non-bias notwithstanding. You might as well ask Hentor to have a polite tea party with Sarah Palin.


Nonsense. Liberals are fair-minded and rational people. When confronted with facts that contradict their beliefs, they are unfailingly quick and courteous in acknowledging their mistakes and correcting their viewpoints.

[Frank]

http://journalism.org/node/13436

...

Glad we could clear that up.
Yes, I'm glad you cleared up that the Project for Excellence in Journalism is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, a conservative organization.

[pulykamell]

Nonsense. Liberals are fair-minded and rational people. When confronted with facts that contradict their beliefs, they are unfailingly quick and courteous in acknowledging their mistakes and correcting their viewpoints.

Just like conservatives.

[JonScribe]

Or you could read newspapers.

[samclem]

([taken out of context, but, hey! it's your cite, Scylla ) On the Fox News Channel, the coverage was both more negative toward Obama and more positive toward both McCain and Palin than we found in the press generally. .

Just to be fair and balanced. :)

[tomndebb]

From Scylla's citation:On the evening newscasts of the three traditional networks, in contrast, there is no such ideological split. Indeed, on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere. So, among the standard broadcast media, Fox remains a slanted source while the elderly standby groups are actually neutral.

::: shrug :::

I'll be gald when all these pissing contests move on to some other topic.

[Marley23]

Thank goodness- at long last, someone has done a survey about media bias! Surely this will end all arguments forever.

[jsgoddess]

While it's generally considered "negative" to say, "Yo, McCain, you're losing!" he's still losing. There really isn't a positive way to say that he's trailing, that people despise Palin, and that a number of prominent conservatives have backed Obama.

Reality can have a negative slant. You should see the way they talk about typhus!

[Frank]

I'll be gald when all these pissing contests move on to some other topic.
In three days we'll move on to the topic of which side stole the election. Feel better now, do you? :D

[Scylla]

From Scylla's citation:So, among the standard broadcast media, Fox remains a slanted source while the elderly standby groups are actually neutral.


It's interesting, they say that, but their data suggests otherwise.

NBC was 54% negative on McCain versus 20% negative on Obama.

[Scylla]

Yes, I'm glad you cleared up that the Project for Excellence in Journalism is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, a conservative organization.

So? If you have evidence that this has created a bias that leads them to distort facts, then please show it.

[gonzomax]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072 Here is a Fair analysis of Fox guests. Lean to the right a mere 8 to 1. Fox fans want that 1 out of there.

[Revenant Threshold]

Wouldn't this tend to indicate bias only if there were precisely the same amount of actual negative and positive stories about McCain and Obama (and their campaigns) to report on?

I'm not saying there is or isn't, i'm just thinking that surely that's a factor that needs to be taken into account. Balanced reporting doesn't necessarily indicate fairness or accuracy.

[Scylla]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072 Here is a Fair analysis of Fox guests. Lean to the right a mere 8 to 1. Fox fans want that 1 out of there.


You don't have the moveon.org analysis?

[Indistinguishable]

Echoing jsgoddess, your interpretation is bizarre. Why should we expect stories to be equally negative and positive about both candidates? I guess you could call that "balanced", but depending on the facts, it may be highly undesirable.

ETA: And now echoing Revenant Threshold as well...

[ivylass]

So? If you have evidence that this has created a bias that leads them to distort facts, then please show it.

The fact that it's a conservative organization is enough for them to dismiss it. Hell, once I posted a link to some info and it got dismissed because the site had American flags at the top.

[faithfool]

Forget it, Scylla. Around here Fox News is sneered at, proof of non-bias notwithstanding. You might as well ask Hentor to have a polite tea party with Sarah Palin.

I don't know if I count (seeing as I'm not a major player in the liberal handbook here), but I watch Fox News from time to time and don't have any huge problem with them. I think they can be biased and I also think they can shoot straight. Pretty much like anyone else is capable of doing.

Do I think some specific representatives (or their programs) of their station can be biased? Sure. But, I feel that way about anything. I think you have to do independent analysis and then make a determination individually, on a case-by-case basis.

[An Arky]

Hey, I've noticed FOX occasionally acknowledge that Obama's beating McCain like a rented mule, so they might well be up for "Most Improved" this year.

Kudos to them. :D

[tomndebb]

It's interesting, they say that, but their data suggests otherwise.

NBC was 54% negative on McCain versus 20% negative on Obama.So we should trust them to get it right when it looks like thay are showing a general bias against McCain and distrust them when the same people find no bias against McCain?

Okey dokey.

Is there any particular place on the link you supplied where they actually cite the numbers you posted?

[Whack-a-Mole]

A few things before we stop the presses finding FOX is really fair and balanced.

1) The report tallies the NUMBER of stories. What is the tally on total time given to each story? What I mean is, it looks like a 30 second bit that says something favorable about Obama counts the same as a 10 minute bit where someone trashes Obama. Hardly the same thing but it looks like that is the case here. Personally I have never seen anyone on FOX wax poetic about the joys of Obama while I have seen various people go on at length about how awful he is.

2) What is the quality of the negative reports versus the favorable reports? Is it considered "favorable" if they say Obama was endorsed by The Economist magazine and they offer a quote from the piece that says something favorable? Is that balanced by Ann Coulter likening Obama to Hitler (http://www.newshounds.us/2008/10/31/coulter_likens_obama_to_hitler.php) on FOX?

3) Is FOX News considered as doing a "neutral" piece if they have a conservative and liberal pundit on while the news anchor (say O'Reilly) is clearly biased against the liberal side?

I would bet money this was purposely stage managed to put out a report like that which, looked at uncritically, makes it appear that FOX is "balanced". Simply turning on FOX for an hour will give the lie to this with ease.

[Frank]

So? If you have evidence that this has created a bias that leads them to distort facts, then please show it.
Well shit Scylla, I don't know anymore than you do how they define positive and negative. If you do know, you could cite that; that'd help.

I'm simply going to assume that a think tank funded by a conservative organization is going to espouse conservative views, just as I assume that a think tank funded by liberal organizations will espouse liberal views.

You'll forgive me, I'm sure, for applying common sense.

[BrainGlutton]

So? If you have evidence that this has created a bias that leads them to distort facts, then please show it.

I'll be sure to save that quote in case you ever challenge a cite from MediaMatters (http://mediamatters.org/) or FAIR. (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=100)

[Frank]

Is there any particular place on the link you supplied where they actually cite the numbers you posted?
He's getting it from the second chart here (http://journalism.org/node/13438).

[Kimstu]

As a consumer of news, CNN, Fox, MSNBC and such, I am often taken aback by the hatred and the accusations made against Fox.

As it turns out, their election coverage is the fairest:

:confused: You seem to be equating "fairest" with "most neutral". Your only argument in favor of Fox's "fairness" seems to be that it runs about the same number of negative stories, and about the same number of positive stories, for both candidates.

But neutrality isn't necessarily the same thing as fairness. To take a very extreme example, if you were doing a broadcast on the reign of Saddam Hussein, would it be more "fair" to present an equal number of positive and negative views about him than to present mostly negative ones?

And does that mean that you consider Fox News was unfair in its coverage of the 2004 election, when its coverage was 53% positive for Bush but only 21% positive for Kerry? After all, if sheer numerical equality is how you measure fairness, then those numbers look pretty unfair.

[tomndebb]

I would bet money this was purposely stage managed to put out a report like that which, looked at uncritically, makes it appear that FOX is "balanced". Simply turning on FOX for an hour will give the lie to this with ease.Actually, I would be surprised if the folks at Pew participated in a delibewrate slant job. This does not preclude mistakes or people misinterpreting the data*, but I would have to see evidence that the study was skewed before I leaped to a conclusion that it was a put up job.


* (It could, for example, be based on really dumb criteria in the manner of the UCLA(?) related study over the summer that counted the number of references to think tanks. (There is also, of course, the fact that there should be more negative reports about McCain simply because the majority of his campaign actions have been negative attack ads followed by his blatantly dishonest endorsement of those ads as "true."))

[Scylla]

Wouldn't this tend to indicate bias only if there were precisely the same amount of actual negative and positive stories about McCain and Obama (and their campaigns) to report on?

I'm not saying there is or isn't, i'm just thinking that surely that's a factor that needs to be taken into account. Balanced reporting doesn't necessarily indicate fairness or accuracy.


That is a truly excellent and intelligent point. For example, I have noticed that Hitler receives much more negative coverage than Ghandi.

The results of this study would prove a bias if, and only if both Obama and McCain were conducting themselves in exactly equal fashion in terms of the positive, negative, and neutral that they might potentially generate.

Clearly this cannot be the case.

It may be that Obama is creating potentially 50 times more negative stories than McCain but the bias is so strong that it is reduced in the coverage. Or it might be the other way.

There is no getting around this problem. For myself, I am taking it as a given that two candidates for President, engaged in campaigning activities produce roughly equivalent opportunities for positive, negative, and neutral coverage.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Nice, ivylass, making a personal attack in a thread I haven't even seen yet. Classy.

I saw a Media Matters piece (http://mediamatters.org/items/200810310012?f=s_search) on this Pew report recently. Seems that their methodology isn't very clear, and where it can be discerned, it leaves a bit to be desired.
Unfortunately, the few actual examples of "positive" and "negative" coverage PEJ offers do little to clarify its methodology, and less to inspire confidence. For example, PEJ notes:

"Some of that positive coverage was related to evidence that the financial crisis was aiding Obama. "Recent economic woes have given Democrat Barack Obama a clear lead over Republican John McCain," declared a story posted on AOL News on Sept. 24, citing a 9-point lead for Obama in a new Washington Post/ABC News poll."

That's what counts as "positive" coverage of Obama? A fairly straightforward report that a poll finds Obama in a "clear lead" over McCain? And, it seems, much of Obama's "positive" coverage consisted of reports like that:

"The data clearly point in this direction for some of the explanation. Of those stories that focused mostly on polls, a clear majority (57%) were positive for Obama, while less than a quarter (23%) were negative. Similarly, stories about the electoral map, swing states and campaign strategy were even more favorable (77% positive vs. 6% negative). These represent the most positive element of Obama's coverage."

So, if a candidate is winning, and the polls show that, and the media report that the polls show the candidate winning, that counts as "positive" coverage. Well, OK, it's true that such a story is "positive," but it tells us nearly nothing about the media.

Examples of "negative" coverage of McCain similarly fail to illuminate. Here's the first:

"On Sept. 24, he announced he was suspending campaigning to return to Washington to work on a rescue bill and advocated delaying the first debate, scheduled two days away in Oxford Mississippi. ... [S]ome of the coverage depicted McCain's decision-making in an unflattering light, such as a Sept. 26 CNN.com piece stating that "some fellow lawmakers said McCain hadn't contributed much to the financial debate, and senior campaign advisors told CNN they believed it was politically crucial that McCain show up in Oxford, Mississippi."

Actually, that's the only example of negative coverage of McCain.

[Kimstu]

For myself, I am taking it as a given that two candidates for President, engaged in campaigning activities produce roughly equivalent opportunities for positive, negative, and neutral coverage.

Then I trust you'll be writing (or have written) Fox News a stern letter about the appalling unfairness of their coverage in the 2004 Presidential election? 53% positive coverage for Bush compared to 21% positive for Kerry! Shamelessly biased, eh?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Actually, I would be surprised if the folks at Pew participated in a delibewrate slant job. This does not preclude mistakes or people misinterpreting the data*, but I would have to see evidence that the study was skewed before I leaped to a conclusion that it was a put up job.


* (It could, for example, be based on really dumb criteria in the manner of the UCLA(?) related study over the summer that counted the number of references to think tanks. (There is also, of course, the fact that there should be more negative reports about McCain simply because the majority of his campaign actions have been negative attack ads followed by his blatantly dishonest endorsement of those ads as "true."))

As I noted I think the most telling gap in the study is counting stories versus counting time given to those stories. As I said a 30 second bit where they say something nice of Obama is not the same as giving 5 minutes to Ann Coulter. Yet that study does not seem to account for it.

Perhaps those who did the study are not in on a put-up-job for FOX. I think it more likely someone at FOX looked at how Pew generally did their studies and gamed the system.

[Scylla]

I'll be sure to save that quote in case you ever challenge a cite from MediaMatters (http://mediamatters.org/) or FAIR. (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=100)

Neither of those even pretends to be nonpartisan.

[Scylla]

So we should trust them to get it right when it looks like thay are showing a general bias against McCain and distrust them when the same people find no bias against McCain?

Nonsense. Simply that they are the fairest and most balanced in accordance with the methodologies employed in the report.



Is there any particular place on the link you supplied where they actually cite the numbers you posted?

No. They are pretty much contained in all those big bar charts throughout the whole report which is where I accurately quoted them in a fair and balanced manner.

[tomndebb]

Nonsense. Simply that they are the fairest and most balanced in accordance with the methodologies employed in the report.According to the methodologies? GIGO.

No. They are pretty much contained in all those big bar charts throughout the whole report which is where I accurately quoted them in a fair and balanced manner.I never thought you invented the numbers. I simply did not go poking around all the pages before and after your initial link (I'm engaged in some other simultaneous tasks) and wondered whether they were on the same story or elsewhere.

[LouisB]

So, based on your consumption of news from Fox News, given it's fair and balanced reporting on the current Presidential campaign, your tendency to vote only the conservative ticket has been shaken, causing you to waver in your decision? Can you possibly be considering voting the more liberal ticket? Or is this thread merely another of the mentally stimulating exercises you enjoy?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Nonsense. Simply that they are the fairest and most balanced in accordance with the methodologies employed in the report.


But we should all know by now that methodology is critical in assessing such reports.

I am not saying Pew is wrong or bad in their methodologies but we really need to know what it is so we can accurately assess what the report is really telling us. If FOX gives you ten, 10 second soundbites and they give me ten, 10 minute long stories are we equivalent? Are we equivalent if FOX says, "WaM (that's me) is ahead in the polls" and "WaM is a terrorist"?

Till the methodology and data can be assessed we cannot really make heads or tails out of what we are being told. This does not mean Pew is deliberately faking something...just that they are not giving us enough to know what they are telling us.

[Polerius]

Studies are needed when something is not very clear or obvious.

A few minutes watching Fox News, plus a functioning brain, will demonstrate very clearly that Fox News is biased.

If a report comes out that says "Republicans love Bill Clinton more than Democrats do", it's a safer bet that the report is flawed than the report's conclusion to be true. Not that it can't be true, but "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Same as in this example. We need a well-defined and well-executed study to accept something so contrary to plain experience. Thus far, the exact methodology is not clear (what is positive, what is negative, how where they counted, should all instances count with equal weight, should networks have an equal number of positives and negatives to be fair irrespective of the behavior of the candidates?, to name a few issues), and from the few posts above, it seems that it is indeed a flawed study.

[erislover]

For myself, I am taking it as a given that two candidates for President, engaged in campaigning activities produce roughly equivalent opportunities for positive, negative, and neutral coverage.This is weird. I know of no other way to phrase it. It's just weird. That's like saying, it doesn't matter who a candidate picks for VP because they both have equal opportunity for positive, negative, or neutral picks. It is true that the classes of opportunity are equal prior to a pick. After the pick, the opportunity is gone and we have only the facts that remain which can only be one of the three. I doubt it is true that they have equal opportunity, only that they face the same class of opportunities, but really there's no way to prove it one way or another, whether they have "equal opportunity".

I have no comment on whether or not Fox News is balanced, or fair, as I don't have criteria for either adjective. Given your OP, "fair" apparently means "equal number of stories for or against a candidate." I'm not sure I agree, but this is apparently not the place to debate it. Given your criterion for "fairness," Fox News is apparently fairest of them all. What else can be said.

[5-HT]

You should see how biased the sports coverage is here in Detroit. There are overwhelmingly more negative stories about the winless, last place Detroit Lions than there are about the defending Stanley Cup Champion Detroit Red Wings!

Plus no one seems to pay attention to the Red Wings links to Socialist Sweden!

[Frank]

Neither of those even pretends to be nonpartisan.
Ah. PEJ pretends to be non-partisan and therefore can be trusted.

I get it now. Good one, Scylla.

[Frank]

You should see how biased the sports coverage is here in Detroit. There are overwhelmingly more negative stories about the winless, last place Detroit Lions than there are about the defending Stanley Cup Champion Detroit Red Wings!

Plus no one seems to pay attention to the Red Wings links to Socialist Sweden!
Frankly, any neutral story about that team would have, "Red Wings Suck!" liberally interspersed throughout the story, perhaps as frequently as every two sentences. At least, that's what the Denver Post taught me.

[Scylla]

So, based on your consumption of news from Fox News, given it's fair and balanced reporting on the current Presidential campaign, your tendency to vote only the conservative ticket has been shaken, causing you to waver in your decision? Can you possibly be considering voting the more liberal ticket? Or is this thread merely another of the mentally stimulating exercises you enjoy?

In point of fact, I'm voting for Obama.

[GIGObuster]

There is no getting around this problem. For myself, I am taking it as a given that two candidates for President, engaged in campaigning activities produce roughly equivalent opportunities for positive, negative, and neutral coverage.
Even right wing commentators mentioned how silly the Palin Choice was, seeing the embarrassing negative ads made by McCain, the bad polls, the really clumsy character assassination of Obama, etc. One has to conclude that the McCain campaign was the one that already produced too many negative activities. So many that when Fox News comes as fair and balanced in a survey like this it has to be attributed on Fox News giving a break to McCain and not covering all the underhanded McCain/Palin moves.

[Scylla]

According to the methodologies? GIGO.

Well yes. I allow for the possibility of a flawed study providing incorrect conclusions. My post here may be construed as an invitation to analyze the methodology and demonstrate that it it is invalid.

However, the simple possibility that it may be flawed is not an argument that it is.

I never thought you invented the numbers. I simply did not go poking around all the pages before and after your initial link (I'm engaged in some other simultaneous tasks) and wondered whether they were on the same story or elsewhere.

I didn't think you had. If I were inventing the numbers I would not dare make them demonstrate as much bias against MSNBC and NBC as this one does.

[Scylla]

But we should all know by now that methodology is critical in assessing such reports.

I am not saying Pew is wrong or bad in their methodologies but we really need to know what it is so we can accurately assess what the report is really telling us. If FOX gives you ten, 10 second soundbites and they give me ten, 10 minute long stories are we equivalent? Are we equivalent if FOX says, "WaM (that's me) is ahead in the polls" and "WaM is a terrorist"?

Till the methodology and data can be assessed we cannot really make heads or tails out of what we are being told. This does not mean Pew is deliberately faking something...just that they are not giving us enough to know what they are telling us.

The methodology is here:

http://journalism.org/node/13441 Go to it.

[GIGObuster]

According to the methodologies? GIGO.


Hey! I resemble that remark!


:)

[Scylla]

Studies are needed when something is not very clear or obvious.

A few minutes watching Fox News, plus a functioning brain, will demonstrate very clearly that Fox News is biased.

If a report comes out that says "Republicans love Bill Clinton more than Democrats do", it's a safer bet that the report is flawed than the report's conclusion to be true. Not that it can't be true, but "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Same as in this example. We need a well-defined and well-executed study to accept something so contrary to plain experience. Thus far, the exact methodology is not clear (what is positive, what is negative, how where they counted, should all instances count with equal weight, should networks have an equal number of positives and negatives to be fair irrespective of the behavior of the candidates?, to name a few issues), and from the few posts above, it seems that it is indeed a flawed study.

Actually, this couldn't be more wrong. This is why we have double-blind studies. Careful minds guard themselves against selection bias, adverse selection, and other biases.

The human mind will tend to find what it is looking for.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

This study doesn't include commentary, so there's the rub. Fox is like 99% commentary, but garbage like Hannity doesn't get counted in the study.

[5-HT]

Is it too simplistic to suggest the answer is simply that McCain has done more negative things?

[Frank]

Is it too simplistic to suggest the answer is simply that McCain has done more negative things?
Yes. Yes, it is.

McCain does not do negative things, and if you think he does, you are, in fact, guilty of negative thinking.

[elucidator]

I understand that Fox Gnaws coverage of the Black Death was entirely negative. Now, I'm not saying that means Fox is biased, I'm only implying that.

[Scylla]

Ah. PEJ pretends to be non-partisan and therefore can be trusted.

I get it now. Good one, Scylla.

As you know, I really don't like it when words are put in my mouth that I did not say. I do not like it when arguments are attributed to me that I didn't make.

At no point did I say PEJ pretends to be partisan. I don't appreciate your suggesting that I did.

[Frank]

As you know, I really don't like it when words are put in my mouth that I did not say. I do not like it when arguments are attributed to me that I didn't make.

At no point did I say PEJ pretends to be partisan. I don't appreciate your suggesting that I did.
Get over yourself. Seriously.

I am making logical deductions from your posts. If my deductions are incorrect, you are welcome to demonstrate why they are not. You have not done so. You have merely gone into a hissy fit.

I will no longer respond to your hissy fits here in GD. If you wish to comment appropriately to GD, I'll respond here; otherwise, feel free to Pit me.

[Whack-a-Mole]

The methodology is here:

http://journalism.org/node/13441 Go to it.

Ok I did.

That describes the how and why of who they chose to sample (which networks, newspapers, etc) and what time slots they sample from. It also describes how they assign coders and have checks and balances to no one coder can skew the results.

I see no mention of how the coders code (is saying Obama ahead in the polls a "positive" story?). Nor do I see anything controlling for time given to a story.

Frankly the methodology you linked to is totally unenlightening for our purposes (not your fault I know but still...).

[Really Not All That Bright]

In fairness, Fox News' hard news pieces have actually been pretty fair lately. In case anyone missed it (http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/sheppard-smith-blasts-joe-plumber-sayin), Sheppard Smith actually called out Joe the Plumber for being a complete freaking idiot and made a point of noting that Obama has always been pro-Israel.

Obviously, the opinion pieces are ridiculously slanted, but then they don't claim to be fair. Well, except O'Reilly, and surely nobody takes him seriously anymore?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Shep Smith is actually pretty good. He's like an oasis of professionalism and reason on that nework.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Shep Smith is actually pretty good. He's like an oasis of professionalism and reason on that nework.
Except that time he ran over another reporter on purpose while covering the 2000 election, of course.

[Polerius]

Actually, this couldn't be more wrong. This is why we have double-blind studies. Careful minds guard themselves against selection bias, adverse selection, and other biases.
Double-blind studies have to do with not knowing the source of the information or the point of the study while conducting it, among other things.

After the study has been completed, it does make sense, as a "consumer" of the study, to view the conclusion with more scrutiny if the study is claiming something highly improbable. It has nothing to do with the fact that studies have to be double-blind.

By the way, was the study you mention double-blind? That is
* Was text from the broadcasts excerpted and the news organization's name removed (so that the researchers did not know if that piece of news came from, say CNN or Fox News)?
* Also, were people hired to look for specific phrases and to count them, without telling them that the purpose of the study was to find out how biased different news organizations are?

Because if the above things were not done, the study is not double-blind and susceptible to bias.

[GIGObuster]

Actually, this couldn't be more wrong. This is why we have double-blind studies. Careful minds guard themselves against selection bias, adverse selection, and other biases.

The human mind will tend to find what it is looking for.
Like in this case?

IMHO when bias is the subject, it is the only time that then the opinion of the people on both the right and the left have to be accounted. So many times I have seen that right wingers come saying Fox is fair and balanced, many on the left then think that that is to be expected from right leaning people, it is their news after all.

However when the opinion of the left is considered the right wing is really unfair, many on the left see the corporate press as being centrist, maybe a little to the left. But overall they do not see outfits like CNN, ABC or NBC as fair and balanced or that they are news outlets that fairly deal with items that are considered important to the left like their complaints against corporations taking more control of fewer news outlets.

In other words, many on the left do not see the mainstream TV media as "their news" It is only recently that I could identify unapologetic left leaning commentators in MSNBC specially, and one has to notice that is cable/internet news, clearly they have an audience that is more left leaning than traditional TV viewers.

If we take the citation on the OP seriously, I think that the corporate press is hitting on McCain because McCain choose to run to the extreme right and it is impossible now to be fair to points that equate Obama with Muslims or terrorists. I would expect that in the future, when a more reasonable campaigner appears from the republicans (no, not Palin) that then we will see Fox news be once again unfair and unbalanced and it will be the mainstream media that will be "fair and balanced" once more for the researchers on the OP.

[Richard Parker]

Scylla, would you mind responding to Kimstu? She asks some pretty relevant questions.

And are you going to back up the premise that both candidates necessarily generate an equal amount of positive and negative stories? Just from an ex ante perspective, it seems like the losing candidate is always more likely to go negative and generate critical media coverage, no?

[Scylla]

Ok I did.

I see no mention of how the coders code (is saying Obama ahead in the polls a "positive" story?). Nor do I see anything controlling for time given to a story.

They list nineteen variables for each story in the PEJ news coverage index. Secondary coding for "tone" was done for this study.

"Tone Variable
The tone variable measures whether a story’s tone is constructed in a way, via use of quotes, assertions, or innuendo, which results in positive, neutral, or negative coverage for the primary figure as it relates to the topic of the story. While reading or listening to a story, coders tallied up all the comments that have either a negative or positive tone to the reporting. Direct and indirect quotes were counted along with assertions made by journalists themselves.

In order for a story to be coded as either “positive” or “negative,” it must have either 1.5 times the amount of positive comments to negative comments, or 1.5 times the amount of negative comments to positive comments (with an exception for 2 to 3, which is coded as “neutral”). If the headline or lead has a positive or negative tone, it was counted twice into the total value. Also counted twice for tone were the first three paragraphs or first four sentences, whichever came first.

Any story where the ratio of positive to negative comments was less than 1.5 to 1 was considered a “neutral” story."

Frankly the methodology you linked to is totally unenlightening for our purposes (not your fault I know but still...).[/QUOTE]

Not completely. Some more of the methodology is in the footnotes, such as what I put in quotation marks.

[Frank]

The tone variable measures whether a story’s tone is constructed in a way, via use of quotes, ...
A reported quote counts as positive or negative coverage?

OK, that aside, how do they determine what constitutes positive or negative? I asked you this, and you ignored it. What words or phrases are construed by the counters as positive or negative?

[Scylla]

Scylla, would you mind responding to Kimstu? She asks some pretty relevant questions.

Ok. No. I will not be writing to Foxnews about 2004. The statistics quoted require a cite.

And are you going to back up the premise that both candidates necessarily generate an equal amount of positive and negative stories?

No. I'm not. It's beyond reason to try to analyze absolutely everything they have done in their lives and decide what might create a positive, negative, or neutral story. I am simply accepting as a given that both Obama and McCain have, in the course of living and campaigning created a huge pool of potential stories to draw upon, and for lack of an alternative we may consider it substantially equal.


Just from an ex ante perspective, it seems like the losing candidate is always more likely to go negative and generate critical media coverage, no?

Hmmm. No. I don't think so. I thought Bush ran a more negative campaign then Kerry did. I thought Bush was more negative than Mccain in the Republican primary of 2000.

I think both Obama and McCain are being very negative towards each other both in their debates and in their advertising, though I'd give a generous edge to McCain in terms of negativity and degree.

But no, I do not think the loser is the more negative as a rule.

[Bryan Ekers]

There is no getting around this problem. For myself, I am taking it as a given that two candidates for President, engaged in campaigning activities produce roughly equivalent opportunities for positive, negative, and neutral coverage.

Heck, by that standard, the Disney Channel is best of all because their statements about Obama and McCain have been equally positive, negative and neutral, all around.

[Scylla]

A reported quote counts as positive or negative coverage?

According to the methodology it depends on the content of the quote.

OK, that aside, how do they determine what constitutes positive or negative? I asked you this, and you ignored it. What words or phrases are construed by the counters as positive or negative?

You have access to the same information that I do at the end of the report where the tone coding is discussed, as well as in the methodology.

I'd suggest you look at the primary source directly so you don't have to rely on my interpretation. That's why I gave the cites.

[Kimstu]

I will not be writing to Foxnews about 2004. The statistics quoted require a cite.


Here you go: (http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/4/1/6/1/pages41614/p41614-22.php)

On Fox, Bush received coverage that was 53 percent positive versus only 21 percent positive coverage for Kerry. That 32 percentage point margin favoring Bush was greater than the overall 22 percentage point gap on the three broadcast networks.


So do you admit that the 2004 election coverage by Fox was, by the "neutrality=fairness" principle you're arguing for here, much more unfair than that of the three broadcast networks?

[Whack-a-Mole]

In order for a story to be coded as either “positive” or “negative,” it must have either 1.5 times the amount of positive comments to negative comments, or 1.5 times the amount of negative comments to positive comments (with an exception for 2 to 3, which is coded as “neutral”). If the headline or lead has a positive or negative tone, it was counted twice into the total value. Also counted twice for tone were the first three paragraphs or first four sentences, whichever came first.

But again this does not account for the actual tenor of the piece. If someone says, "McCain has misconstrued what Obama's position on oil drilling is" would be marked negative reporting on McCain. If someone says, "Obama consorts with terrorists" that is a negative remark towards Obama. But they are nowhere near equivalent are they?

See the problem?

Turn on FOX News and you get lots of "Obama consorts with terrorists" stuff. Merely ticking one box for "negative" hardly covers it does it? Compiling such a tally washes out a great deal of important detail.

[erislover]

I see no immediate reason to doubt the veracity of the study.

Fox had 40% negative pieces for McCain, but only 22% positive. In the spirit of arbitrariness, let's turn it into decibels for easy addition and subtraction. The "positive noise" at Fox is 10log(.22) - 10log(0.4) = -2.6dB. In a perfectly "balanced" world, this should be 0dB, so Fox is clearly anti-McCain. This is confirmed by the "positive noise" for Obama which is only -2.0dB. So the noise about Obama is about 0.6dB more than for McCain.

For the overall media, there was about about 0.93dB loud blather for Obama, while the media's positive blather for McCain was -6.1db, for a startling pro-Obama noise of 7.0 db! My ears are ringing.

I show MSNBC to have a pro-Obama blather of 4.9dB and a pro-McCain blather of -8.2 db, for an overall pro-Obama noise of 13.1dB.

Let's suppose people, in general, are smarter than journalists, and therefore form their opinions irrespective of "obvious" bias in the media. Hey, if Scylla can suppose "fair" news coverage means equal number of pro-candidaten pieces, I can assume this, right? Relative to the 270 EC votes needed to win, current polling (which is obviously beyond question) as revealed by electoral-vote.com (which just happens to agree with intrade.com) means that the pro-Obama noise as measured by the microphones off pollsters is 1.2dB, while pro-McCain noise is -1.6dB, for an overall pro-Obama noise of 2.8dB.

My god, what does it all mean? You really can't get more scientific than this. Clearly almost all the news stations fail to reflect the man on the ground, who is shouting for Obama almost twice as loud as for McCain, but no more, damn it.

[Richard Parker]

No. I'm not. It's beyond reason to try to analyze absolutely everything they have done in their lives and decide what might create a positive, negative, or neutral story. I am simply accepting as a given that both Obama and McCain have, in the course of living and campaigning created a huge pool of potential stories to draw upon, and for lack of an alternative we may consider it substantially equal.

Well, most of us disagree with your premise. If you're trying to persuade people, it is your burden to convince them of your premises. So if you're not willing to defend it, we don't have much to debate.


I think both Obama and McCain are being very negative towards each other both in their debates and in their advertising, though I'd give a generous edge to McCain in terms of negativity and degree.

We can disagree about the general principle because in this case you concede that McCain has been more negative. So all we need to establish to refute your premise is that there will be more negative media stories when the candidate is more negative. Not sure that requires a cite, but here (http://pcl.stanford.edu/common/docs/research/iyengar/1996/goingneg.html)'s one anyway.

Political advertisements also make the nightly news because they are perfect news stories. . . .Negative advertisements make particularly tasty morsels for the media. For journalists, it is a no-lose situation when candidates attack one another. Allegations of dishonesty and incompetence lay the seeds of controversy and scandal. Even if the charges prove to be false, reporters can always rail against the candidate who aired the attack for slandering his or her opponent and engaging in sleazy campaigning. The fight itself often becomes the story.

[gonzomax]

You don't have the moveon.org analysis?

No I brought a neutral one.

[DigitalC]

It's interesting, they say that, but their data suggests otherwise.

NBC was 54% negative on McCain versus 20% negative on Obama.

What makes you think is not fair and balanced? thats like comparing the LA clippers to the LA lakers and saying sportcasters are biased because theres a lot more negative commentary about the shitty team. Obama has run a flawless campaign, McCain has not only made strategic mistakes over and over again but has taken the campaign into the gutter when he got desperate. He is also running for the party that has ruined our country for the past eight years. Expecting there to be an equal number of negative coverage of both campaigns is frankly beyond ridiculous, those numbers you are quoting is what unbiased reporting SHOULD look like.

[Revenant Threshold]

In order for a story to be coded as either “positive” or “negative,” it must have either 1.5 times the amount of positive comments to negative comments, or 1.5 times the amount of negative comments to positive comments (with an exception for 2 to 3, which is coded as “neutral”). If the headline or lead has a positive or negative tone, it was counted twice into the total value. Also counted twice for tone were the first three paragraphs or first four sentences, whichever came first.

Any story where the ratio of positive to negative comments was less than 1.5 to 1 was considered a “neutral” story." As I understand this, would it be correct to say that a story containing precisely 1.5 times one extreme of remark over the other would be recorded the same as a story where one type outweighed the other by, for example, 10 times? That is to say, a story with a reasonably positive amount of comments is recorded the same as a story with an immensely positve amount of comments?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Expecting there to be an equal number of negative coverage of both campaigns is frankly beyond ridiculous, those numbers you are quoting is what unbiased reporting SHOULD look like.

That's an important point albeit a sometimes counter intuitive one. It's like getting a random sample of numbers (say a dice roll). Most people feel a truly random sample should have no streaks (eg a string of five "1's"). In fact a truly random sample is absolutely expected to have such streaks in it.

Fair and balanced reporting by no means suggests you have five positive stories for five negative stories. If a candidate pulls a gun and shoots a puppy during a stump speech I think it is reasonable to assume fair reporting will have a lot of negative stories about that.

[Scylla]

Here you go: (http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/4/1/6/1/pages41614/p41614-22.php)


So do you admit that the 2004 election coverage by Fox was, by the "neutrality=fairness" principle you're arguing for here, much more unfair than that of the three broadcast networks?

Thank you for the cite.

I wouldn't say that I "admit it." That would imply that I am disinclined to believe it, or would argue against it, if I could. It also suggests that it has something to do with me personally.

I can assure you that I am not responsible for the content of Foxnews, so there is really nothing for me to "admit."

I simply stated that your assertion required a cite. You provided it. It appears to be a good one.

Looking at the footnotes it appears to me that they got their data from....

PEW.

So, you've done me a favor. It's going to be harder to argue that PEW would be sully the facts in an attempt to make Fox news appear unbiased when they showed them to be biased in a similar study in 2004.

Also, whether or not Fox news was biased in 2004 does little to detract from my argument that a study shows them to be fair and balanced in 2008.

[Richard Parker]

Also, whether or not Fox news was biased in 2004 does little to detract from my argument that a study shows them to be fair and balanced in 2008.

What do you think changed at Fox News between '04 and '08 that so radically altered their fairness? In the absence of some good explanation for the change in Fox News institutional bias, it seems more likely that we simply cannot conclude anything from either study about fairness.

[Whack-a-Mole]

So, you've done me a favor. It's going to be harder to argue that PEW would be sully the facts in an attempt to make Fox news appear unbiased when they showed them to be biased in a similar study in 2004.


I, for one, do not think Pew is intentionally trying to skew their numbers. I believe they approach their task fairly and try to produce meaningful datasets. As we have shown here it is very difficult to produce a reliable study on such a subjective issue (eg reporting on shooting a puppy is negative but also fair). Likewise I think the likes of Media Matters do a scholarly job. I think it far more likely that someone at FOX understood how they pulled their numbers and gamed the system.

Nevertheless I think the study is far too simplistic to give a reliable picture. The proof of this is the assertion in the OP and then going to your TV and watching FOX News for an hour or two. Go to News Hounds (http://www.newshounds.us/) who have made it their purpose in life to track Fox News bullshit.

Perhaps a really telling study of news and their bias is just too difficult or too large a task to be done well. I do not know. Clearly however there are problems with this study so should be taken with a grain of salt (I will note that I am dismayed and MSNBC going so far left as well...while I lean left to be sure to me that is as bogus as FOX going right...I am equal opportunity in wanting to see balanced reporting).

[Scylla]

As I understand this, would it be correct to say that a story containing precisely 1.5 times one extreme of remark over the other would be recorded the same as a story where one type outweighed the other by, for example, 10 times? That is to say, a story with a reasonably positive amount of comments is recorded the same as a story with an immensely positve amount of comments?

I think so.

It seems to me that a story is either positive negative or neutral according to their methodology. There appears to be no allowance made for degree.

This appears to be mitigated in the study by the other part of the tonal coding which looks at what's being discussed. "horserace, issues, personal," etc.

You really have to read and study the whole piece and it's methodologies to get a good feel for it.

It has it's flaws, but I beleive they've attempted a pretty rational and consistent approach to tackling a sticky problem.

[Scylla]

What do you think changed at Fox News between '04 and '08 that so radically altered their fairness? In the absence of some good explanation for the change in Fox News institutional bias, it seems more likely that we simply cannot conclude anything from either study about fairness.


I disagree. I don't need to explain why something happened in order to suggest that it did.

[Bryan Ekers]

Even if we were to grant that Fox was more balanced, does that make them more accurate?

[Richard Parker]

I disagree. I don't need to explain why something happened in order to suggest that it did.

We have two competing hypotheses that both explain the available evidence. Your hypothesis posits that the evidence says something about institutional bias, mine posits that the evidence is reflecting something about the content of individual campaigns. So in order to find your hypothesis more persuasive than mine, you need to offer some suggestion for why the institutional bias would so radically change in four years. In the absence of such an explanation, your hypothesis seems much more unlikely than mine.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Once more, this study only takes raw news reporting into account, not commentary, which is the vast majority of FNC content and which is almost 100% GOP talking points. McClellan even admitted that he fed White House talking points memos to Fox every morning. It has been well reported that there is a daily memo of talking points which must be strictly adhered to by all the on air bots.

There is also the fact that coverage is driven by events. It's not the media's fault that Palin says stupid thjings in interviews or that McCain looked like an ass when he fake suspended his campaign. It's not the media's fault that Obama is boning McCain up the ass in all the polls and that he rarely makes a mistep. It's not the media's fault that McCain calls his audiences "my fellow prisoners," or that he calls out to his imaginary friend during rallies. It's not the media's fault that Palin got convicted on ethics charges, or that Obama can draw 100,000 people, or that Colin Powell endorsed Obama, or that people scream "kill him" at McCain/Palin rallies. It's not the media's fault that Obama is winning this thing going away, or that a couple of Quebecois shock jocks can so easily crank yank Sarah Palin and keep her on the phone for over 6 minutes thinking she's talking to the President of France.

Shit happens, the media covers it. Well, the legit media does, anyway, not Fox so much.

[erislover]

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that given any particular time in the nation, there is a right person to be president. Furthermore, let us suppose that the mean probability of voters being able to pick the correct person is >0.5. Then majority rule is very likely to pick the correct president. Then, any fair news station should track people on the ground, as people on the ground actually know what is good and bad about candidates.

Assuming all that, if Fox News has changed its tune, if Fox News really is not biased, then this should be a very close election, given my previously impeccable calculations. If, after all, they haven't changed, then we should expect them to be about -2.2 dB off on the side of the democrat (this is using numbers from Kimstu's link, which our OP approves). In this case, we should expect a "man on the street" noise of 0.6+2.2db = 2.8db. Which is exactly what electoral-vote and intrade are calling.

Hmmm...

[The Tao's Revenge]

Is it too simplistic to suggest the answer is simply that McCain has done more negative things?

But Republicans have a direct link to Jesus AND Buddah doncha know.

[Scylla]

We have two competing hypotheses that both explain the available evidence. Your hypothesis posits that the evidence says something about institutional bias, mine posits that the evidence is reflecting something about the content of individual campaigns. So in order to find your hypothesis more persuasive than mine, you need to offer some suggestion for why the institutional bias would so radically change in four years. In the absence of such an explanation, your hypothesis seems much more unlikely than mine.

No. I can simply point out that for your hypothesis to hold water all the news agencies bias ratings would have changed to reflect the new circumstances, not just Fox's.

[Richard Parker]

No. I can simply point out that for your hypothesis to hold water all the news agencies bias ratings would have changed to reflect the new circumstances, not just Fox's.

My hypothesis says that the balance of coverage depends on a lot of interrelated factors: the tone of the respective campaigns, the campaigns' relationships with given media sources, the content of campaign ads, etc. Under my hypothesis, a fair media organization would remain constant or change, depending on the difference between the campaigns. So, no, that wouldn't be sufficient, even if you did show it. You would also have to show a number of other things.

Under your theory, that institutional bias controls the balance, one would expect no change unless something about the institution changed. If you cannot say why that may have happened, we ought to look for other explanatory theories. That's science! Yay!

____

Even if your above point made sense, there are still all the other arguments that you've skipped over in this thread. Perhaps the most significant is that negative campaigns will generate more negative stories. Really, what's your rebuttal on that one?

[BarnOwl]

Then, there are the infamous Fox graphics, like the one here,
that reduce the premise of this thread to blow job level.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/fox-news-graphic-shows-me_n_139881.html

[Kimstu]

Also, whether or not Fox news was biased in 2004 does little to detract from my argument that a study shows them to be fair and balanced in 2008.

Actually, it detracts from it significantly. It indicates that either Fox News' institutional bias has radically changed between 2004 and 2008, or your proposed "neutrality = fairness" equivalence is seriously flawed as a means of determining how fair a news organization actually is.

All that your arguments have actually accomplished is to point up the defects in equating mere neutrality with fairness or accuracy when it comes to news coverage.

[Bryan Ekers]

Then, there are the infamous Fox graphics, like the one here,
that reduce the premise of this thread to blow job level.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/fox-news-graphic-shows-me_n_139881.html

I don't know how you can say that particular effort wasn't fair and balanced, though.

[BarnOwl]

I don't know how you can say that particular effort wasn't fair and balanced, though.

Ah, so it's fair and balanced(i.e., REASONED, SANE) to show a graphic of our two presidential candidates with guns aimed at them.

[Scylla]

My hypothesis says that the balance of coverage depends on a lot of interrelated factors: the tone of the respective campaigns, the campaigns' relationships with given media sources, the content of campaign ads, etc. Under my hypothesis, a fair media organization would remain constant or change, depending on the difference between the campaigns. So, no, that wouldn't be sufficient, even if you did show it. You would also have to show a number of other things.

Again, if it were the action of the campaign working on the media you would expect all the media to respond proportionately. I.E. if McCain causes Fox news to increase positive reporting by x% than that should be reflected to some degree in the other media outlets. In this case, the most pronounced changes are in Fox News and MSNBC which appear to have moved in opposite noncorrelated directions.

For your theory to hold water there would have to be a correllation between the coverage across different media outlets.

I see none.

Under your theory, that institutional bias controls the balance, one would expect no change unless something about the institution changed. If you cannot say why that may have happened, we ought to look for other explanatory theories. That's science! Yay!

Not really. No astronomer would deny the existence of a sudden increase in sunspot activity until he could explain why it occurs. First, he would note its existence. Then, he would create hypotheses to explain it. Then, he would test those hypotheses.

That's science.

You seem to imply that one would deny the existence of a phenomenom until one could explain. That's religion, or witchcraft, or something, but it ain't science.

____

Even if your above point made sense, there are still all the other arguments that you've skipped over in this thread. Perhaps the most significant is that negative campaigns will generate more negative stories. Really, what's your rebuttal on that one?

I think I've addressed that. Again, if Mccain was say 10% more negative than Bush, than, all things being equal one would expect news media outlets to reflect that with some degree of correlation reflective of that 10% difference.

I see no such correllation. However, I am open to the possibility if you wish to demonstrate that such exists.

[Scylla]

Actually, it detracts from it significantly. It indicates that either Fox News' institutional bias has radically changed between 2004 and 2008, or your proposed "neutrality = fairness" equivalence is seriously flawed as a means of determining how fair a news organization actually is.

I have no problem with the idea that Fox news has changed in 4 years.

All that your arguments have actually accomplished is to point up the defects in equating mere neutrality with fairness or accuracy when it comes to news coverage.


I see. This being the case, would you then argue that MSNBC has been more fair and accurate in it's election coverage than FOX?

[wmfellows]

That is a truly excellent and intelligent point. For example, I have noticed that Hitler receives much more negative coverage than Ghandi.

The results of this study would prove a bias if, and only if both Obama and McCain were conducting themselves in exactly equal fashion in terms of the positive, negative, and neutral that they might potentially generate.

Clearly this cannot be the case.

It may be that Obama is creating potentially 50 times more negative stories than McCain but the bias is so strong that it is reduced in the coverage. Or it might be the other way.

There is no getting around this problem. For myself, I am taking it as a given that two candidates for President, engaged in campaigning activities produce roughly equivalent opportunities for positive, negative, and neutral coverage.

Merely reading widely in the American commentary press, I find a large number of non-Left observers, such as Larison of the American Conservative, George Will who is undoubtedly conservative, etc. who appear to be of the firm opinion that the Republican candidate has done a terrible job in his campaign, objectively and in comparison the with centre Left candidate.

It would appear, assume these commentators are reasonably fair, that an assumption that the two candidates must generate - ceteris paribus - equal levels of positive and negative coverage, might at best be described as "wilfully" naive, if not merely a faux naive rhetorical device. It would seem reasonable, with criticism of substance coming from his own side, to conclude that McCain is generating more material that must drive negative coverage.

Having gone through this sort of political cycle elsehere, it does seem to me that the American Right does itself a disservice in taking the whining "unfair" conclusion, rather than asking hard questions about how poorly the product sold as such. You are, to be frank, adopting the same kind of thinking that got American car industry into a massive pickle. Whining about unfair Japanese practises rather than actually learning where the new market is going.

Again, if it were the action of the campaign working on the media you would expect all the media to respond proportionately. I.E. if McCain causes Fox news to increase positive reporting by x% than that should be reflected to some degree in the other media outlets. In this case, the most pronounced changes are in Fox News and MSNBC which appear to have moved in opposite noncorrelated directions.

For your theory to hold water there would have to be a correllation between the coverage across different media outlets.

This would seem to assume that there is some mechanical process of reaction, which seems a rather peculiar assumption as such.

[wmfellows]

Ah, so it's fair and balanced(i.e., REASONED, SANE) to show a graphic of our two presidential candidates with guns aimed at them.

Reasoned, Sane is not the same as Fair and Balanced, but that graphic seems more like just incredibly poor graphical judgement rather than reflecting anything in particular about political orientation.

[Richard Parker]

For your theory to hold water there would have to be a correllation between the coverage across different media outlets.

I see none.

No. But I think I see why you're not understanding now. Here's what I said, "Under my hypothesis, a fair media organization would remain constant or change, depending on the difference between the campaigns." I should have been more clear in emphasizing that I think the balance of stories is determined by both institutional bias and the content of the campaign. I'm saying you cannot judge the institutional bias from the balance alone because a fair organization's coverage will be determined by the content of the campaign. It should be skewed when one campaign is objectively worse than the other.

In order to disprove my hypotheis, you can't just check whether all sources had the same drift. That presumes that all sources are otherwise fair. There need not be the sort of systemic effect you're suggesting because I don't think organizations like Fox and MSNBC are fair. (Though we could determine which is MORE fair by seeing which one most approximates the expected fair skew of balance. But that would require knowing whether there is a linear relationship between coverage and negativity or not.)



Not really. No astronomer would deny the existence of a sudden increase in sunspot activity until he could explain why it occurs. First, he would note its existence. Then, he would create hypotheses to explain it. Then, he would test those hypotheses.

That's science.

You seem to imply that one would deny the existence of a phenomenom until one could explain. That's religion, or witchcraft, or something, but it ain't science.

No, we are both offering hypotheses. No one is denying the existence of the phenomenon: differential balance of positive and negative stories.

[Knorf]

Might we conclude that "fair" or "balanced" in the mass media sense is NOT equivalent to "accurate"?

It really seems like people are trying to say the media are biased because there are news reports that show that Obama is leading in the polls, that McCain's largely negative attack doesn't seem to be working, that Obama's ground game is far, far more organized and active, and that Obama's campaign has a lot more money to spend.

To me, it seems that the media are actually biased against Obama, or maybe just holding him to increasing scrutiny as he emerges as the clear front-runner. Far more hay has been attempted to be made out of silly crud like Ayers and Wright than McCain's actual convicted criminal associates such as Keating. No major pundits in the media are trying to draw lines connecting McCain to socialists, non-Christians, Marxists, and terrorists, unlike with Obama, which really amounts to nothing more than a smear campaign. Fairness would be to point out that in fact Obama has been far, far more of a devout church-goer, and talks far more about his Christian beliefs, than McCain. I haven't such much of that, only "IS Obama connected to Islamic Terrorists!?!?!?!"

Resolved: the media are conservative biased.

[Bryan Ekers]

Ah, so it's fair and balanced(i.e., REASONED, SANE) to show a graphic of our two presidential candidates with guns aimed at them.

Sure. Now if it had been just one Presidential candidate...

[LouisB]

In point of fact, I'm voting for Obama.As a direct consequence of watching Fox News?

You've chosen the right man to vote for and I'm glad. Congratulations.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Might we conclude that "fair" or "balanced" in the mass media sense is NOT equivalent to "accurate"?

It really seems like people are trying to say the media are biased because there are news reports that show that Obama is leading in the polls, that McCain's largely negative attack doesn't seem to be working, that Obama's ground game is far, far more organized and active, and that Obama's campaign has a lot more money to spend.

To me, it seems that the media are actually biased against Obama, or maybe just holding him to increasing scrutiny as he emerges as the clear front-runner. Far more hay has been attempted to be made out of silly crud like Ayers and Wright than McCain's actual convicted criminal associates such as Keating. No major pundits in the media are trying to draw lines connecting McCain to socialists, non-Christians, Marxists, and terrorists, unlike with Obama, which really amounts to nothing more than a smear campaign. Fairness would be to point out that in fact Obama has been far, far more of a devout church-goer, and talks far more about his Christian beliefs, than McCain. I haven't such much of that, only "IS Obama connected to Islamic Terrorists!?!?!?!"

Resolved: the media are conservative biased.
I feel the same way. The media has been extraordinarily quiet about some aspects of Palin's background as well. Imagine if Michelle Obama was a member of an anti-American secessionist party. For that matter, imagine if she'd stolen from a charity to support a drug habit. I think the media routinely pursues dirt against Dems while ignoring it for Pubs.

The way the media fell right into line with swiftboating Kerry while ignoring W's desertion of duty is another case in point.

[Knorf]

I feel the same way. The media has been extraordinarily quiet about some aspects of Palin's background as well. Imagine if Michelle Obama was a member of an anti-American secessionist party. For that matter, imagine if she'd stolen from a charity to support a drug habit. I think the media routinely pursues dirt against Dems while ignoring it for Pubs.
These are both excellent points, and I entirely agree.

[Scylla]

No. But I think I see why you're not understanding now. Here's what I said, "Under my hypothesis, a fair media organization would remain constant or change, depending on the difference between the campaigns." I should have been more clear in emphasizing that I think the balance of stories is determined by both institutional bias and the content of the campaign. I'm saying you cannot judge the institutional bias from the balance alone because a fair organization's coverage will be determined by the content of the campaign. It should be skewed when one campaign is objectively worse than the other.

I am not saying the correlation should be identical across the different institutions, just that it should be in the same direction. A rising tide does carry all ships. From your hypothesis, assuming there was no change in the institutional bias, one should simply be able to examine the coverage and deduct whether one campaign was more negative than another.

The should all be reacting to the same force, in the same direction tempered to some degree by their bias. I don't see such a correllation. Do you?

In order to disprove my hypotheis, you can't just check whether all sources had the same drift.

Know, but I am saying they should drift in the same direction. Do you agree.



No, we are both offering hypotheses. No one is denying the existence of the phenomenon: differential balance of positive and negative stories.

My apologies than for the misunderstanding.

Why do you suppose, under your hypothesis, that FoxNews has had such a large change in one direction, yet NBC and MSNBC in another?

[Scylla]

As a direct consequence of watching Fox News?

You've chosen the right man to vote for and I'm glad. Congratulations.


No. As a result of MCcain's actions. He is not consistent and one of his ads was beyond the pale of what I could stomach. I fear there is a strong Marxist component to Obama. I hope I'm wrong, but I see MCcain as a big government type Republican so I'm not sure it matters.

I will note that on SNL last night McCain made a strong argument for folks to vote for him. Obama will have a lot more chances to be Prez.

[jsgoddess]

I will note that on SNL last night McCain made a strong argument for folks to vote for him. Obama will have a lot more chances to be Prez.

What, so we should be Marxist about our votes and make sure everyone has a chance to share them?

[Scylla]

Merely reading widely in the American commentary press, I find a large number of non-Left observers, such as Larison of the American Conservative, George Will who is undoubtedly conservative, etc. who appear to be of the firm opinion that the Republican candidate has done a terrible job in his campaign, objectively and in comparison the with centre Left candidate.

It would appear, assume these commentators are reasonably fair, that an assumption that the two candidates must generate - ceteris paribus - equal levels of positive and negative coverage, might at best be described as "wilfully" naive, if not merely a faux naive rhetorical device. It would seem reasonable, with criticism of substance coming from his own side, to conclude that McCain is generating more material that must drive negative coverage.

Yes. I have recognized this. As I can see no way to correct for it, it's hard to take it into account. What one can do instead is compare the reporting institutions against each other.

Having gone through this sort of political cycle elsehere, it does seem to me that the American Right does itself a disservice in taking the whining "unfair" conclusion, rather than asking hard questions about how poorly the product sold as such. You are, to be frank, adopting the same kind of thinking that got American car industry into a massive pickle. Whining about unfair Japanese practises rather than actually learning where the new market is going.

No I am not. I am not whining about anything concerning the plight of Republicans. I am just noting that a recent independent study has shown Foxnews to be the most balanced in terms of positive versus negative content in its stories.

[Scylla]

What, so we should be Marxist about our votes and make sure everyone has a chance to share them?

I'm sorrry. He said it as a joke. I was repeating it as a joke.

[Scylla]

He also did a bit on SNL rebutting Obama's infomercial.

McCain's infomercial was on QVC where he was showing his special set of "pork cutting knives."

[Richard Parker]

I am not saying the correlation should be identical across the different institutions, just that it should be in the same direction. A rising tide does carry all ships. From your hypothesis, assuming there was no change in the institutional bias, one should simply be able to examine the coverage and deduct whether one campaign was more negative than another.

Correct, but if the evidence doesn't show that change, we have three possible conclusions: the theory is wrong, there was a change in institutional biases, or there wasn't a change in distribution of negative content from the campaigns. So it isn't a very good test because the results are so inconclusive.


Why do you suppose, under your hypothesis, that FoxNews has had such a large change in one direction, yet NBC and MSNBC in another?

MSNBC has had a marked and demonstrable change in institutional bias, and Fox has a candidate they like less than Bush who I suspect has been slightly more negative than Bush.

______

In any case, that's all a bit of a red herring. The real debate is your assertion, as framed in the OP, that balance=neutrality. To test your hypothesis, we can ask a simple question: Does the negativity of a campaign skew the coverage of that campaign? If the answer is yes, then your hypothesis is busted, because the changes in balance can be the result of neutral organizations responding to a negative campaign. I've offered some evidence that a negative campaign does drive negative stories. Have you anything to offer?

[wmfellows]

Yes. I have recognized this. As I can see no way to correct for it, it's hard to take it into account. What one can do instead is compare the reporting institutions against each other.

Perhaps, however it rather strikes me that this sort of comparison verges on the absurd. The nature of the negative (e.g. self driven or other campaign driver, e.g. the Palin interviews are a self made wound) is important. Taking the premise that McCain has actually run a poor campaign (as seems to be the case given the substantive criticisms from his own side), if Fox is in fact pro McCain / Republican, their balance (say 50/50) may be in fact may be putting their thumbs on a scale that should, objectively be tilted insofar as one expects negative coverage of incompetence.

No I am not. I am not whining about anything concerning the plight of Republicans. I am just noting that a recent independent study has shown Foxnews to be the most balanced in terms of positive versus negative content in its stories.
Well, to this observer from afar, it rather looks like preemptive whining on, but as you wish.

[elucidator]

[pedantic aside]

Is there a name for a situation wherein one is invited to debate and prove the thunderingly obvious?

And if there is not, might we name it after one of our own?

[/pa]

[HMS Irruncible]

Fox News had 40% negativity for McCain and 40% for Obama.
If this is really what fair and balanced means, does that means you'd expect Fox to do equal parts positive and negative stories on, say, Kim Jong-Il or Tim McVeigh?

'Fair and balanced' doesn't always mean it's equally favorable. Tim McVeigh got a fair trial, and he was executed.

[Scylla]

Correct, but if the evidence doesn't show that change, we have three possible conclusions: the theory is wrong, there was a change in institutional biases, or there wasn't a change in distribution of negative content from the campaigns. So it isn't a very good test because the results are so inconclusive.

Partially correct. "the theory is wrong" - yes. "there was a change in institutional biases" - No. That would contradict the conditions I wrote and you quoted. "there wasn't a change in distribution of negative content from the campaigns." One would be able to determine both change or its absence through an examination as I've described.

______

In any case, that's all a bit of a red herring. The real debate is your assertion, as framed in the OP, that balance=neutrality.

Actually my assertion is "fair and balance" not "neutral."

Within the terms of the discussion I think " fair and balanced" would be presenting a roughly equal distribution of positive, negative, and neutral stories for both candidates pertaining to topics such as the horserace, policy, advertising/fundraising, public record, and personal.


To test your hypothesis, we can ask a simple question: Does the negativity of a campaign skew the coverage of that campaign? If the answer is yes, then your hypothesis is busted, because the changes in balance can be the result of neutral organizations responding to a negative campaign. I've offered some evidence that a negative campaign does drive negative stories. Have you anything to offer?

I read your cite. First off, your cite is not a study with a methodology but simply a magazine article expressing thoughts, opinions and assertions. Those thoughts opinions and assertions aren't necessarily any better than ones you or I might make.

What the article does is simply suggest that Negative campaigns create negative news stories. It shows one or two examples of over the top negativity where this has been the case to support the argument. Than it suggests that "adwatch" segments have served to mitigate that effect.

I would certainly agree that over-the-top extreme negativity in a campaign generates negative press which is what your article seems to be saying.

I don't find the "evidence" you've given to be defined or supported enough to discuss. Perhaps you could flesh it out some more.

Rather than leaving the work to you, my thoughts are:

Extreme negative campaigning produces negative news stories with a high degree of correlation.

example: If McCain creates an ad claiming that Obama is the son of Hitler that will generate negative stories 100% of the time.


Beyond that, both your cite and myself find it difficult to generalize, as content, factual nature, and institutional bias may determine the effect of a given campaign tactic.

[Scylla]

If this is really what fair and balanced means, does that means you'd expect Fox to do equal parts positive and negative stories on, say, Kim Jong-Il or Tim McVeigh?

'Fair and balanced' doesn't always mean it's equally favorable. Tim McVeigh got a fair trial, and he was executed.

This is true. But it's not like McCain is campaigning against Kim Jong-il. If you think about it, in order to become a candidate for President at either the Democratic or the Republican level, you are going to be pretty deeply homogenized.

To us, identifying with one candidate or another it may seem that they are very deeply different, but as high ranking public politicians their demeanor and comportment is not subject to a very wide variance otherwise they would not be candidates for President.

So, I feel comfortable in assuming that their are roughly equivalent opportunities for positive negative and neutral stories about both candidates.

[Richard Parker]

Partially correct. "the theory is wrong" - yes. "there was a change in institutional biases" - No. That would contradict the conditions I wrote and you quoted. "there wasn't a change in distribution of negative content from the campaigns." One would be able to determine both change or its absence through an examination as I've described.

Yes, but your assuming it to be true as a condition doesn't make it so. If the test does not yield the expected result, it could be because one or more assumptions was incorrect. And you cannot determine change or absence if there are two independent variables.


Actually my assertion is "fair and balance" not "neutral."

Within the terms of the discussion I think " fair and balanced" would be presenting a roughly equal distribution of positive, negative, and neutral stories for both candidates pertaining to topics such as the horserace, policy, advertising/fundraising, public record, and personal.

There's the rub, I suppose. We've all been assuming, I think rightly, that you intended the ordinary meaning of "fair and balanced" as something like objective, neutral, or unbiased. If you're going to arbitrarily define it as an equal number of positive and negative stories, regardless of the content of the campaign, then you're open to all the arguments people are making about Hitler, et al.

.
Beyond that, both your cite and myself find it difficult to generalize, as content, factual nature, and institutional bias may determine the effect of a given campaign tactic.

Well, you, me, and the cite make three. The problem for you is that your whole argument is that institutional bias alone determines the balance of coverage. Once you start conceding that content plays a role, you can no longer claim that Fox is more objective merely because they have an equal balance. [This is, again, assuming you are making an argument about objectivity. If not, see my second paragraph.]

[erislover]

So, I feel comfortable in assuming that their are roughly equivalent opportunities for positive negative and neutral stories about both candidates.I agree that the opportunities are about equal. Equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcome. I know you know this is true in every other case. I don't know why you are stubbornly ignoring it in this one.

This is not to say I disagree with you that other news stations show bias. I don't have a real opinion on that.

[Scylla]

I agree that the opportunities are about equal. Equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcome. I know you know this is true in every other case. I don't know why you are stubbornly ignoring it in this one.

I must not be understanding you. Of course the outcome is not equal. I never said it wasn't. In fact, I've been arguing that the outcome is different depending on which news outlet you watch. That fact is central to my thesis and is what the Pew study is actually measuring. So, I'm at a loss as to what you mean when you say that I am "stubbornly ignoring" it.

[erislover]

That the outcome of candidate choices is not equal.

[Scylla]

That the outcome of candidate choices is not equal.

I am truly sorry. I am not intentionally being difficult, but I have no idea what you are getting at.

[The Tao's Revenge]

I should think the BCC would have less of bias then any American news out let simply because there's an ocean.

What are your stats for BBC coverage of the election?

[erislover]

Actually my assertion is "fair and balance" not "neutral."

Within the terms of the discussion I think " fair and balanced" would be presenting a roughly equal distribution of positive, negative, and neutral stories for both candidates pertaining to topics such as the horserace, policy, advertising/fundraising, public record, and personal.This is what I'm getting at. I will try to state it plainly. I am interpreting that you feel that both candidates will have an equal distribution of outcomes pertaining to topics that the electorate cares about, so therefore a fair news station should apply the same standard to both candidates and report an equal distribution of stories. For support of this, you offer the very reasonable idea up that both candidates face the same opportunities. I agree they face the same opportunities. I don't agree that they will make the same choices. The media does not report on their opportunity; it reports on their choices. If they do not make the same choices, we accept the possibility that a candidate will simply run a poor election, in which case the media will have more negative stories about one candidate over the other.

IOW, the fact that they face equality of opportunity has nothing to do with it at all.

However, it is possible that, after all, your point is that regardless of inequality of outcome of the candidates choices, the news should still report the same number of +/- news stories.

Can you clarify this point for me?

[Mr. Duality]

I am compelled to pass along this little gem:

I was watching Fox News Denver (channel 31) a few nights ago when they did a piece on Obama- I believe it was his visit to Pueblo. The piece itself was straightforward. But for about one second before it began there was a clip (from a movie, I presume) of a younger black man slashing an older black man from behind with a machete.

I suppose the message was "be wary of blacks- they're an unsavory lot."

[Half Man Half Wit]

Yes. I have recognized this. As I can see no way to correct for it, it's hard to take it into account. What one can do instead is compare the reporting institutions against each other.

So, I feel comfortable in assuming that their are roughly equivalent opportunities for positive negative and neutral stories about both candidates.
If the interpretation of the data in the article were based on this assumption, its findings wouldn't constitute any evidence either for or against a bias for any network; luckily, that's not quite how it's done, since there is in fact a gauge of how many positive/negative stories are generated by each candidate for the press to report on -- the average of what has been reported on (the assumption here isn't that the media, as a whole, is fair and balanced, but that it skews in all directions according to its target demographic -- which sure seems reasonable, seeing how that's where their money comes from).

This is quoted as 14% positive and 57% negative stories for McCain, and 29% negative/36% positive stories on Obama. Thus, the article shows that FOX skews toward positive reporting on McCain, and toward negative on Obama, and MSNBC the other way 'round:


Avg FOX/diff MSNBC/diff

McCain+ 14 22/+8 10/-4

McCain- 57 40/-17 73/+16

Obama+ 36 25/-11 43/+7

Obama- 29 40/+11 14/-15

[HMS Irruncible]

This is true. But it's not like McCain is campaigning against Kim Jong-il. If you think about it, in order to become a candidate for President at either the Democratic or the Republican level, you are going to be pretty deeply homogenized.

To us, identifying with one candidate or another it may seem that they are very deeply different, but as high ranking public politicians their demeanor and comportment is not subject to a very wide variance otherwise they would not be candidates for President.

So, I feel comfortable in assuming that their are roughly equivalent opportunities for positive negative and neutral stories about both candidates.
Well, then you've bought into probably the greatest fraud in modern critical thinking, that all candidates are pretty much equal except in how they're portrayed by the news media. Think about how dangerous and foolish this assumption would be. It would blind you to recognizing any authentically bad candidate for president.

Going back to the 'fairness' of Fox, and I'm thinking of their coverage of "Obama's baby mama", the airtime given to the "Snobama" campaign gear such as coffee cupts, reporting last year that he had attended an Indonesian madrassa, reporting the fist bump as the "terrorist fist jab" (seriously, what the fuck?), and its complete misstatement of his comments in the 2001 interview on civil rights... I could go on and on. All of this was reported by Fox. I grant that 40%/40% may count as "balanced" in terms of air time, but if you think it's fair, you're completely out of your mind.

[cosmosdan]

The methodology is here:

http://journalism.org/node/13441 Go to it.

I tried to wade through the pages of methodology to see if I could find the specifics on what they considered negative and what they considered positive. I couldn't find it. They explain a lot about what they studied and why they chose certain shows.

They talk about tone and the fact that a story had to have 1.5 more negative or positive tone to make a column but I couldn't find anything that actually explained what they used as a guide to declare something negative or positive.

That's an awfully lot of work and print about methodology to then leave out those kind of specifics. Is that conspicuous by it's omission? Did I just miss it?

The terms positive and negative are pretty subjective. For a study like that to be meaningful to me I'd like to see specific examples of what they measured as positive and negative.