The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University released their Election Study and they found something very interesting.
Who’s Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties. On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.
They also found that Hillary Clinton is the favorite target of all on air news. Negative target, that is...
R.I.P. Steven Malcolm Anderson
Minion
of the Week
Second, since it didn't count candidates talking about other candidates, it gets around the inconvenient Hillary bashing by Rudy McRomny played over and over and over.
Seeing as there is so much wrong right now. The constitution trashing, economy dumping, poverty increasing, health care cost exploding ... oh and still a lot of folks dying "over there" as the Taliban regroups in the Paki-Afghan hills -- I should think that any talk of the government is being disingenuous if it isn't 80% negative. But you FOX watchers wouldn't know about any of that stuff.
Though FOX's positive/negative toward Democrats, relative to the other networks, is quite interesting.
Objective analysis of news reporting, if described as a garment, has always involved much more air than cloth. The range is from the Emperor's new clothes to something named after an atoll in the Pacific.
Definitely not a nun's habit.
Yours,
Wince
“The Republicans say the Earth is flat, while the Democrats say the Earth is round - coming up: The Shape Of The Planet - Two Sides Of The Debate”
Sometimes there is no "other side" and pretending there is .. well, it's BS.
Ryan
We need more studies like this, not less, with a greater variety of methodologies. They will all be flawed, but not useless.
Yours,
Wince
The standard should not be "fairness," but rather "truth."
P.S. Sorry for putting quotes around those words, but you get the picture.
NPR is also surprisingly well-balanced; their talk show hosts and programs skew very much to the left, but their actual news coverage is very balanced. (Which similar studies have shown, by the way.)
Yours,
Wince
Ryan
That's baloney and you know it. The world is round. If someone disputes that then you, as a news reporter, report that they are wrong.
Anything less makes you a navel-gazing, pointy headed intellectual -- not a news reporter.
This "he said she said" nonsense is a game people play when they know they're wrong and they need to hide in the tall grass.
Ryan
You know, before the thread goes too far, I'd thought I'd try and kill it while it was young. That may be sad, but nothing is sadder than a young republican.
Ryan
Nothing Dean said takes away from my comment in the least. Indeed, I agree with what he said and am aware that this is not the first such study, re: NPR and FOX, that has made this observation. Note I distinguished between the "news" and editorializing, just as he did.
Five minute of arguably objective blurbs at the top and bottom of the hour cannot outweigh 50 minutes of climate-change ridiculing, liberal mocking, supply-side promoting, War on Christmas bloviating, missing blond bimbo obsessing, Bush apologizing, corporate shilling, torture enabling, civil rights abolishing, flat-earth nonsense that masquerades as programing on that network.
And neither does the rarely seen lucid and possibly sober statement from Mr. Esmay fool me into believing he is becoming a savant.
I suspect that FOX is especially careful in their "news" coverage because they know that it will be carefully scrutinized for bias due to their well known conservative editorial policy, just as much of the rest of the MSM bend over backwards to avoid being slurred as part of the so-called "Liberal Media," resulting in a "fairness" to conservative hogwash that would not otherwise be justified.
It's sorta scary reading some of this stuff. It really is. It's like that NY Times writer who said it would be a "silver lining" if global warming killed off the bulk of conservatives, and that the remainder should be "gerrymandered into impotence."
Some of you are so far gone you don't even recognize when you passed from anger to fascism.
Two, the editorial was intended to be satirical. Cut back on the Bourbon next time you take a sip of my Kool Aide.
It sounds like you "don't even recognize when you passed from" inebriation to ignorance.
And may god strike me dead if this foolish "Liberal Fascism" meme actually takes hold among the normal, non-Bush apologist population.
CC, calling you a dickhead is not fascism, merely impolite. See the difference?
No, they obviously don't. They just can't fathom that the right-wing promotion and use of fear and violence to further their ends (while only a very few nutballs on the left do any such thing) is why fascism is a reliably right-wing phenomenon. The rest is just projection.