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?
Know, but I am saying they should drift in the same direction. Do you agree.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Well, to this observer from afar, it rather looks like preemptive whining on, but as you wish.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.]
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.
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.
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.
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.”