This was a study done by a center that often finds liberal media bias and is often cited by conservatives. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,2066363,full.story In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias Cable talking heads accuse broadcast networks of liberal bias -- but a think tank finds that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Barack Obama than on John McCain in recent weeks. By JAMES RAINEY, ON THE MEDIA July 27, 2008 Haters of the mainstream media reheated a bit of conventional wisdom last week. Barack Obama, they said, was getting a free ride from those insufferable liberals. Such pronouncements, sorry to say, tend to be wrong since they describe a monolithic media that no longer exists. Information today cascades from countless outlets and channels, from the Huffington Post to Politico.com to CBS News and beyond. But now there's additional evidence that casts doubt on the bias claims aimed -- with particular venom -- at three broadcast networks. The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign. You read it right: tougher on the Democrat. During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative. Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center. Conservatives have been snarling about the grotesque disparity revealed by another study, the online Tyndall Report, which showed Obama receiving more than twice as much network air time as McCain in the last month and a half. Obama got 166 minutes of coverage in the seven weeks after the end of the primary season, compared with 67 minutes for McCain, according to longtime network-news observer Andrew Tyndall. I wrote last week that the networks should do more to better balance the air time. But I also suggested that much of the attention to Obama was far from glowing. That earned a spasm of e-mails that described me as irrational, unpatriotic and . . . somehow . . . French. But the center's director, RobertLichter, who has won conservative hearts with several of his previous studies, told me the facts were the facts. "This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage," he said. Here's a bit more on the research, so you'll understand how the communications professor and his researchers arrived at their conclusions. The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative. The positive and negative remarks about each candidate are then totaled to calculate the percentages that cut for and against them. Visual images and other more subjective cues are not assessed. But the tracking applies a measure of analytical rigor to a field rife with seat-of-the-pants fulminations. The media center's most recent batch of data covers nightly newscasts beginning June 8, the day after Hillary Rodham Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination, ushering in the start of the general-election campaign. The data ran through Monday, as Obama began his overseas trip. Most on-air statements during that time could not be classified as positive or negative, Lichter said. The study found, on average, less than two opinion statements per night on the candidates on all three networks combined -- not exactly embracing or pummeling Obama or McCain. But when a point of view did emerge, it tended to tilt against Obama. That was a reversal of the trend during the primaries, when the same researchers found that 64% of statements about Obama -- new to the political spotlight -- were positive, but just 43% of statements about McCain were positive. Such reversals are nothing new in national politics, as reporters tend to warm up to newcomers, then turn increasingly critical when such candidates emerge as front-runners. It might be tempting to discount the latest findings by Lichter's researchers. But this guy is anything but a liberal toady. In 2006, conservative cable showmen Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly had Lichter, a onetime Fox News contributor, on their programs. They heralded his findings in the congressional midterm election: that the networks were giving far more positive coverage to the Democrats. More proof of the liberal domination of the media, Beck and O'Reilly declared. Now the same researchers have found something less palatable to those conspiracy theorists. But don't expect cable talking heads to end their trashing of the networks. Repeated assertions that the networks are in the tank for Democrats represent not only an article of faith on Fox, but a crucial piece of branding. On Thursday night, O'Reilly and his trusty lieutenant Bernard Goldberg worked themselves into righteous indignation -- again -- about the liberal bias they knew was lurking. Goldberg seemed gleeful beyond measure in saying that "they're fiddling while their ratings are burning." O'Reilly assured viewers that "the folks" -- whom he claims to treasure far more than effete network executives do -- "understand what's happening." By the way, Lichter's group also surveys the first half-hour of "Special Report With Brit Hume," Fox News' answer to the network evening news shows. The review found that, since the start of the general-election campaign, "Special Report" offered more opinions on the two candidates than all three networks combined. No surprise there. Previous research has shown Fox News to be opinion-heavy. "Special Report" was tougher than the networks on Obama -- with 79% of the statements about the Democrat negative, compared with 61% negative on McCain. There's plenty of room for questioning the networks' performance and watching closely for symptoms of Obamamania. But could we at least remain focused on what ABC, NBC and CBS actually put on the air, rather than illusions that their critics create to puff themselves up? james.rainey@latimes.com
Maybe the Democrat just screwed up in those six weeks more than the other guy... are these the same guys doing the global warming forecasts?
The way the media traveled with Obama to Europe and hyped up his rock-band concert intermission-filling speech was the height of bias.
The same was true of Obama vs. Hillary in the primary. The studies showed that coverage was about equal until Hillary complained of the media coverage, and then it was more negative towards Obama. So getting more negative coverage, while his opponents complain of preferential treatment isn't new for this campaign.
That's not true, FB, IMO. The coverage was more favorable towards Obama, as I recall, until it was complained about and then the "bias" went towards the other way. That's how I recall it, and I think I posted something that showed that that was the case, back during the primaries. Impeach Bush/Cheney.
I think statiions like fox media hate for obama will backfire..sometimes bad press is better then no press.yes, obama is fairly new on the scene, but he is more knowen around the globe then john mccain is.
Major, "think tanks" are notoriously biased, left or right. If it's the Los Angeles Times think tank, then the story is out the window prima facia.
I am not surprised this is the conclusion you arrived at - because I don't believe you are very intelligent from your BBS postings.
Come on, Sam... that was a hell of a shot to take at thumbs. He's obviously very intelligent. He just isn't in an easy "box" to place on the shelf, politically. Impeach Bush/Cheney.
Thanks, Deckard. But, I don't mind Sam's opinion. He's got a right to it. Heck, half the time I'm all grins picturing him salivating on his computer as he rails against whatever is not in the SamFisher dynamic.
Well according to the Pew Research group, the statement I made was accurate. They found that positive coverage was almost equal, and then after Hillary complained it went in her favor. I did remember that you had posted something at one point which indicated that Hillary was on the short end of the stick, but the Pew Research is pretty reputable. It could be that two reputable sources found two opposing outcomes.
I do not have the time today to research the Pew Group, but here is their own description: The Center is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are best known for regular national surveys that measure public attentiveness to major news stories, and for our polling that charts trends in values and fundamental political and social attitudes. Formerly, the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (1990-1995), we are now sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts and are one of seven projects that make up the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. The Center's purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it serves as an important information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of our current survey results are made available free of charge. The research program includes five principal areas of investigation: * The People & The Press - explores public attitudes about the credibility, social value and salience of the news media. * The People, The Press & Politics - features a typology which divides the American electorate into distinct voting groups and identifies the basic values and attitudes that animate political behavior. * The News Interest Index - measures on a regular basis how closely the public follows the major news stories and links this to views about politics and policy issues. * America's Place in the World - a series of in-depth surveys and analyses of the public and opinion leaders on international policy in the post-Cold War era. * Media Use - major surveys that measure the public's use of, and attitudes toward, the Internet and traditional news outlets. With roots in a very liberal biased organization, alarm bells begin go off regarding the bias of their polls. The same happens when a conservative-biased organization conducts a poll. The results are often skewed to the orientation of those doing the polling. As in mc mark's classic mini-poll, McCain: critic or cheerleader?, you know the pre-determined result for which you are "sampling." That's why I rarely give credence to or rely heavily on polls as the basis of my opinions.
Except for the fact that there is documented evidence of the outcome of the poll. I didn't want to post it until there was some sampling. But I can if you would like. And it all comes from the horses' mouth.
Very well let's breakdown the logical turds with which we are presented this fine Monday AM: "Major, "think tanks" are notoriously biased, left or right." His first assertion is questionable in and of itself, but skipping that, he has provided zero evidence of individuals from the George Mason Univ. research center intentionally compromising their integrity to reach a politically skewed conclusion. Apparently no evidence is good enough for him to not dismiss out of hand. Incidentally, if one were to do any research at all, one would find that GMU, somewhat uniquely among universities, is rather well known as a haven of conservative scholars. So his implausible unsupported alternate reality scenario is that much less likely "If it's the Los Angeles Times think tank, then the story is out the window prima facia." Now the train goes off the tracks into the smoking pit of pitchfork-wielding, lobotomy-inducing, pseudo-populist inanity from which I fear it shall never be extricated. Initially, it's factually wrong as there's no "Los Angeles Times Think Tank" in the article - GMU is located in Northern Virginia, several thousand miles from the City of Angels. Underneath this rudimentary factual error lies the erroneous implication that, in the unlikely hypothetical event that the LA Times maintained its own think tank (which it does not) that it would skew its findings to the left. That of course is completely at odds with the history of the Los Angeles Times' editorial page which traditionally has expressed predominantly conservative viewpoints. So do we want to discuss how my reaction/assertion was arrived at? If so see above.
Did you read the article at all? This is specifically a think tank that has often found media bias against conservatives - they refer to this think tank all the time in their "liberal media bias" rants. In fact, I included that in the first sentence of the post, and then bolded it a few times in the article itself.
PEW is liberal, but that doesn't really make their research wrong. I've been following the Obama world tour mostly on NPR and PBS. They've been mostly favorable in their coverage. A few people I think are getting Obamaed out, but that's really the only negatives I've seen or heard. Shoot it seems like NPR has an endless string of Obama advisers that come on and talk about how great he is. I think even some of the NPR people are getting tired head from it. I don't know what it's been like on the major networks...
