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.
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.
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…
But Republicans have a direct link to Jesus AND Buddah doncha know.
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?
Then, there are the infamous Fox graphics, like the one here,
that reduce the premise of this thread to blow job level.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have no problem with the idea that Fox news has changed in 4 years.
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?
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.
This would seem to assume that there is some mechanical process of reaction, which seems a rather peculiar assumption as such.
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.
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.)
No, we are both offering hypotheses. No one is denying the existence of the phenomenon: differential balance of positive and negative stories.
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.
Sure. Now if it had been just one Presidential candidate…
As a direct consequence of watching Fox News?
You’ve chosen the right man to vote for and I’m glad. Congratulations.
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.
These are both excellent points, and I entirely agree.