Bias in the News During the Presidential Campaign

[AngelaM]

Who'd have thunk it?

**************************************

Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush

Mar 14, 2005 — By Claudia Parsons

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday.

The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.


Kweisi Mfume Announces Bid for U.S. Senate
Poll: Bush's Social Security Plan Is Tough Sell
The Note: News Headlines Every 30 Seconds

Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The study looked at 16 newspapers of varying size across the country, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable programs and nine Web sites through the course of 2004.

Examining the public perception that coverage of the war in Iraq was decidedly negative, it found evidence did not support that conclusion. The majority of stories had no decided tone, 25 percent were negative and 20 percent were positive, it said.

The three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative.

Looking at public perceptions of the media, the report showed that more people thought the media was unfair to both Kerry and Bush than to the candidates four years earlier, but fewer people thought news organizations had too much influence on the outcome of the election.

"It may be that the expectations of the press have sunk enough that they will not sink much further. People are not dismayed by disappointments in the press. They expect them," the authors of the report said.

The study noted a huge rise in audiences for Internet news, particularly for bloggers whose readers jumped by 58 percent in six months to 32 million people.

Despite the growing importance of the Web, the report said investment was not keeping pace and some 62 percent of Internet professionals reported cutbacks in the newsroom in the last three years, even more than the 37 percent of print, radio and TV journalists who cited cutbacks in their newsrooms.

For all that the number of outlets has grown, the number of people engaged in collecting original information has not," the report said, noting that much of the investment was directed at repackaging and presenting information rather than gathering news.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...=578904&page=2

[BC-lisa in venice]

Realy? How did they explain the networks not investigating that bogus Swift Boat Veteran's bull pucky? They just ran the story as if it were real.

lisa

[AngelaM]

Originally posted by mod-lisa in venice
Realy? How did they explain the networks not investigating that bogus Swift Boat Veteran's bull pucky? They just ran the story as if it were real.

lisa

To my knowledge, the swiftees never said one dishonest thing (or at least noone has proven that they lied). If they had indeed lied, Kerry could've sued them for libel. Kerry has never sued them nor will he ever sue them because they did not make any false statements IMHO.

[Maddy00]

Yes, I believe Kerry threatened to sue and the Swift Vets' response was something to the effect of "bring it on". His failure to go after them legally is very telling.

[Natalie Rose]

Bias in the news? Oh yeah!

March 13, 2005
Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News
By DAVID BARSTOW and ROBIN STEIN

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.

This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/po...rint&position=

[Maddy00]

LOL, I'm sure we could all find examples of bias one way or the other if we looked. However, 36% negative coverage for Bush vs. 12% negative coverage for Kerry is a huge disparity. I'm not surprised in the least.

You know, I wish there WAS a "fair and balanced" news channel. I don't want slant...I want info!

[BC-Maura]

Originally posted by Maddy00
Yes, I believe Kerry threatened to sue and the Swift Vets' response was something to the effect of "bring it on". His failure to go after them legally is very telling.

I disagree... lots of people with legitimate claims decide not to pursue them for a whole host of reasons. You can't tell anything from someone's decision not to bring suit.... other than that they've decided not to bring suit! Furthermore, I doubt the statute of limitations has run out on his claim yet ....

+++++++++++++++
Maura

[AngelaM]

Originally posted by Natalie Rose
Bias in the news? Oh yeah!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/po...rint&position=

Natalie,

I would also like to highlight this particular piece from your referenced link that you left off.

"The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is continuing despite President Bush's recent call for a clearer demarcation between journalism and government publicity efforts."There needs to be a nice independent relationship between the White House and the press," Mr. Bush told reporters in January, explaining why his administration would no longer pay pundits to support his policies."

Yes....definitely biased by all accounts. This practice originated under Clinton and has grown under Bush.

I saw this on a blog and I think it accurately sums up my feelings on this matter:

"As the following quote illustrates, this is more of an issue related to responsible journalism on the part of television stations.

Local affiliates are spared the expense of digging up original material. Public relations firms secure government contracts worth millions of dollars. The major networks, which help distribute the releases, collect fees from the government agencies that produce segments and the affiliates that show them. The administration, meanwhile, gets out an unfiltered message, delivered in the guise of traditional reporting."

And, back to the original post....don't ya think it's interesting that Bush got so much more negative coverage during the election?

[AngelaM]

Originally posted by mod-Maura
I disagree... lots of people with legitimate claims decide not to pursue them for a whole host of reasons. You can't tell anything from someone's decision not to bring suit.... other than that they've decided not to bring suit! Furthermore, I doubt the statute of limitations has run out on his claim yet ....

+++++++++++++++
Maura

I guess Kerry and I are just cut from two different molds (now there is a surprise).

I may not have a lot of things but one of my most prized possessions is my integrity. And, I don't take too kindly to someone questioning my integrity.

I can tell you that if someone made claims against my integrity like what the Swiftees said about Kerry, I would defend myself to the fullest. Its obviously not a money problem so that can't be the reason he hasn't filed a lawsuit. Kerry has plenty of $$$. My guess is that Kerry knows he'll lose. And, heaven forbid that his complete military records had to be disclosed as a result of him opening this can of worms. That could possibly confirm more dishonesty on his side, right? And, if what the Swiftees say is true (and I believe they did speak the truth), Kerry really has no integrity to defend. So, why bother....right? If the Swiftees lied, Kerry has everything to gain by filing a lawsuit. If the Swiftees told the truth, he has everything to lose....I'm guessing that's why he hasn't filed a lawsuit. He may not be my favorite person but he is no dummy!

[LisaN]

Maybe there were more negative things to report about Bush

Lisa