'Liberal bias?' IU professors find network TV election coverage favors Republicans

[kpete]

Source: Indiana University

Last modified: Tuesday, February 24, 2009
'Liberal bias?' IU professors find network TV election coverage favors Republicans

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Feb. 24, 2009

Broadcast media: To arrange a live on-camera, studio interview with the professors via Indiana University's broadcast facilities, please contact George Vlahakis at 812-855-0846 or [e-mail].

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- A visual analysis of television presidential campaign coverage from 1992 to 2004 suggests that the three television broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS and NBC -- favored Republicans in each election, according to two Indiana University professors in a new book.

Their research runs counter to the popular conventional notion of a liberal bias in the media in favor of Democrats and against Republican candidates.

Maria Elizabeth Grabe and Erik Bucy, both associate professors in the Department of Telecommunications of IU's College of Arts and Sciences, report their findings in their book, Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections (Oxford University Press).

"We don't think this is journalists conspiring to favor Republicans. We think they're just so beat up and tired of being accused of a liberal bias that they unknowingly give Republicans the benefit in coverage," said Grabe, who also is a research associate in political science at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. "It's self-censorship that journalists might be imposing on themselves."

Read more: http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/9993.html

[ck4829]

1. K&R

[gratuitous]

2. Journalists are "just so beat up and tired of being accused"

It's called "working the refs," and the Republicans are the masters of the game. Unfortunately for Republicans, at some point you have to actually govern, and their abilities at that? Uh, not so good.

[bemildred]

3. LOL. "Can this be true?" nt

[blm]

4. it has been apparent for well over a decade that newsmedia was biased AGAINST the left and it was

never more obvious than when they shed even the appearance of fair coverage as they relentlessly smeared and lied about Gore and then ramped up their proBush stance even more after 9-11 as they proceeded to vilify Dem primary candidates and especially Kerry.

[No Elephants]

15. Yep. The Swiftboat ad paid to run exactly one time. All the other times, it was run free, in the

guise of "reporting" on the existence of the ad.

IMO, the media did Dean in as well, running that yell continuously for about a week, each time questioning his "stability." Jerks.

[livefreest]

41. I wonder why the Project for excellence in Journalism's studies show liberal bias

The PEW Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism published this study on 2008 General election: http://www.journalism.org/node/13307

I was surprised by their conclusion of liberal bias in the media. I thought during the election all cable and network news were quick to echo GOP talking points. is this PEW thing really unbiased? or their methods are flawed?

[blm]

50. Methods are flawed - they would count any bad news story for Bush as a strike against the GOP, but,

after Katrina and with all the lies being revealed daily, there was not much CHOICE for newsmedia, especially with most of the GOP candidates in 2008 speaking out against some of Bush's positions so they could distance themselves from him...it wasn't just the left doing the criticizing then. Even GOP pundits criticized Bush more often in 2008 in their efforts to redeem the party reputation.

2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 are better indicators. Bush was HEAVILY protected by the networks. When KnightRidder published in Oct2002 the article reporting that over a dozen CIA agents were saying the WH was cooking the intel books on Iraq, how many news networks discussed that article or interviewed the reporters? NONE.

When Kerry gave his speech to the Firefighters Convention on Aug19, 2004, and called out the Swiftliars and challenged Bush to stop hiding behind the lies of the Swifts and come out and publicly debate their services during that time, not one news network would broadcast that speech from the Dem nominee and few even reported it occurred. Get it? NOT ONE would carry Dem nominee's speech.

[nxylas]

52. Plus, they were only talking about election coverage

McPain-Ailing ran such a piss-poor campaign that it was hard for the coverage to be anything but negative. Notice how the amount of negative Palin coverage increased sharply after each major interview. Even given the disconnect between media reality and real reality, the M$M would have been hard-pressed to run stories about Palin's triumphant interview performance without provoking a "WTF?" reaction from anyone who actually saw her struggling to answer such softball questions as "what newspapers do you read?".

[JPettus]

58. Maybe,

But what I saw and what I read were stories that started out factual: McCain is losing points in the polls or going down. This is itself is "negative coverage" to many. I guess they aren't supposed to show such things for republicans.

From there the coverage went to WHY are his numbers dropping and the press went into speculation. This was even more negative for McCain and helped put the idea even more into the head of the people viewing that "McCain is in trouble."

Also, Palin coverage. She got a bounce at first from the base, and then as even Republican pundits turned on her for being underqualified for the position the coverage got worse from "she isn't qualified" to "why did McCain's camp pick her if she wasn't qualified for the job?"

Finally they arrived at the conclusion that "McCain's campaign is in a tailspin," but all because McCain ran an amazingly bad campaign, made one poor decision after another.

Obama, on the other hand, would be smeared in the media, but people were already so against Bush and the Republicans that no one cared. Most didn't believe the smear and even many who did would look at the differences between Obama and McCain and see that Obama was easily the better candidate, and Obama's numbers went up more. Obama's numbers went up in spite of the Ayers smears. That's a positive story for Obama, etc.

Some of this kind of "bias" is unavoidable. A - the press are going to report the numbers, which can be a plus or a minus for a campaign depending on how they are doing. B - the press will speculate on the causes of those number changes which will be even more of a plus or minus depending on how the campaign being reported is actually doing.

[area51]

5. K&R (n/t)

[Soylent Brice]

6. this "liberal media" myth needs to be SHATTERED.

i have to call BS on the lack of conspiring they're claiming though. i don't buy that.

there's no way it's this bad on this level without some kind of back alley shit going on.

call me a nut. proudly wearing my :tinfoilhat:

[tom_paine]

9. Might as well try to shatter Nazi Myths about the Jews.

For Bushies and Nazis, Leaders and Followers alike, are psychologically similar humans. VERY psychologically similar.

Further, what has been done to the M$M in Occupied America was strictly a Triumph of the Will, and because Democrats, like the German Social Democrats of yore, serially capitulated, the Nazi/Bushie False Reality has now cemented into Conventional Wisdom.

The only questions left are,

1) Has this most recent incarnation of Nazi-style Raw Power and Will, the Bushies, their increasing control of law enforcement and the criminalization/Bushification of nearly ever other "authoritative" section of our society, made us pass a certain Critical Mass, where the horrific cfuture is inevitable?

2) Is there anything Obama will do to actually strike at the core of Bushification and criminalization or just nibble at the edges?

3) If he dares try to make any substantial inroads against Bushification/Nazification of the nation, and 51 Criminal Bushie Attorneys still left in place as well as Obama's decision to help the Bushies finsihed covering up their crimes so well-documented in the 5,000,000+ missing e-mails say that he won't, how fast will the Bushies murder him?

4) If the Bushies do decide to murder him, will they do what they did to JFK, RFK, MLK, and Yithak rabin, and just use their Bushie Moles in Security and Intelligence to let the usual "lone" RW gunman in for the kill, or will they be more subtle, like a crash of AF1 or some other more Plausibly Deniable method of murder the Bushies seem to prefer now that they went ot the old "Crazed Lone RW Gunmen" one too many times?

I don't think Obama has to worry. He has already signalled he's going to hold the fort until the Bushies return for their Penultimate and Final Solutions to the Liberal Problem.

[Soylent Brice]

13. all those last few things are things i don't want to imagine,

no matter how plausible.

let's just hope you're wrong. important questions though. let's hope O is just getting warmed up.

[tom_paine]

16. None of us want to imagine it, Soylent Brice, and it is precisely that which allows Hitler and Bush

to win win win.

And yes, Hitler did lose in the end, but only after years and years of winning and winning and winning.

I also hope I am wrong, but if we turn aside from reality as it approaches closer and closer, then we play right into the hands of the Nazis and the Bushies, who, if the terminology of the Hannidiots and Stormfront is any indication, the two are seriously philosophically merged already.

I am advocating nothing besides being AWARE. And awareness is doubly important, BECAUSE it is so painful to acknowledge and therefore a prime candidate for denial.

Ask the German Liberals who saw Hitler's ends coming from the early 1920s (the closest historical analog to at least 30% of DUers), if any made it past WWII alive, how well denial served Germany during a similar period.

Our last hope is Obama, and maybe he can still do it. Maybe I am being pessimistic when I say his decision on missing Bush criminal e-mails and his retention of 51 Criminal Bushie Attorneys indicates the STRONG possibility that he will do nothing substatial to turn back the Bushie/Nazi tide, particularly in the Bushification/Criminalization of Law Enforcement, means that when the Bushies return to power, and with the M$M Infoganda wearing everyone down, they WILL, they will pick up right where they left off as if they were never gone.

Yes, I hope I am wrong, too. But I see what I see, and denial only serves the tyrants.

By the way, I have enjoyed your posts and perspctive since I have seen you monniker here at DU.

:hi:

[Soylent Brice]

26. i completely understand what you're saying.

although, what i said about not wanting to think about that is simply the thought being undesirable and somewhat devastating. we do need to be thinking about these things. and to sum up your point, history has and will continue to repeat itself, unless the cycle is broken. i don't see the 51 appointees sticking around too much longer. time will tell.

let's just make sure we make enough noise.

i've thought about the media cohorts in all this a lot lately, and the only thing that will break that is us. it's very simple: the internet will be their death. mark my words. information is evolving along with the various delivery systems that have developed over the years. free flowing information has always been the Achilles heel of those in power. all propaganda is exposed given a long enough timeline.

thanks for the flattery. i don't normally know how to respond to that sort of kindness so i'll just say thank you.

in the same regards i have enjoyed your posts as well, and am glad to see that Obama has changed your mind, and you have become a more avid supporter since the last few months.

[Doctor_J]

49. Well-reasoned as usual, tom

I always enjoy your journal.

The psychopathology of the 4th Reich (bushies, in your vernacular) is really astounding. Some kook was on with Hartmann yesterday. He's of the "The Socialists want to take all of your guns" subspecies. Thom began by asking him, "What do you mean by Socialist?", and the Bushie replied (paraphrasing), "someone who takes all of his orders from the Big Brother Government, and likes it that way". Just like their kindred 3rd Reich brethren, the Bushies don't know WHY they hate socialists (trade unionists, Bolsheviks, Jews), or even what a Socialist is, but their hatred is intense nevertheless. Richard Shelby says out loud that he isn't sure that Obama is a US-born citizen, just to keep that ultra-insane niche of the 4th Reich chewing on their window sills.

Goebbels used to meet each morning with the media and tell them what they were going to write/say that day. Rove has his blast faxes. Non-believers were soon purged from any positions of media power during the 3rd Reich. 99% of the current media has passed the Rove ideological purity test. Someone like Donahue can get fired for simply being "not pro-war enough", while people like Weiner, Medved, Coulter, Beck, Liddy, and others can openly threaten lives and continue to get more work than they can handle.

I am hoping that Obama pursues justice for the entire Bush syndicate. The reason is that we at this moment in time have the numbers and, IMO, the will power to prevail if the (inevitable) critical mass is reached. 8 years from now may well be too late. Limpballs and the rest of the American Pravda probably believe themselves to be beyond the reach of justice after 20 years of propaganda without retribution, but they are sadly mistaken. I am in the final 3rd of my life, and am hoping to see the reclaiming of the America I grew up in before I shuffle off this mortal coil. Obama can take a giant step toward that end by initiating prosecution of those who have steered us into the 4th Reich

[Enthusiast]

35. The back alley shit is

richly rewarded. You are no nut, Soylent.

[Bonhomme Richard]

7. I thought it used to be working the refs but.........

it goes way beyond that now.
It's corporate manipulation at this stage.

[tom_paine]

19. That and more...absolutely spot on.

No question about it. The Stormtroopers "working the refs" on the outside, now have the powerful Right-Wing Industrialists financing them and on their side.

Eventually, Bushification-Nazification-corruption of law enforcement at every level also comes into play, as it is just starting to now.

History is a wheel, and it's coming back around again.

America gets to play the Nazis in THIS Greater War that will follow this Greater Depression.

Maybe as far as 25 years away, but that seems wildly optimistic, given the trends and trajectories and Obama's Clintonian unwillingness to punish Bushie Treasonists.

[progressoid]

8. And the right wing response:

"What do you expect from a liberal college professors."

:eyes:

[ck4829]

12. Except they still bring up that flawed study from the UCLA

Who were actually members of the American Enterprise Institute.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003

[OnionPatch]

30. I sent this to my wingnut brother-in-law

and I'll betcha anything this is exactly what he'll say.

[otohara]

10. Pukes Will Never Concede

that this is true, because it is true and we all know they don't live in a reality based world.

[No Elephants]

17. Exactly. Caring whether they concede is the trap. Don't give a rap what they say and we'll be fine

[glitch]

22. Could not possibly agree more. nt

[Trajan]

33. I disagree ....

Not caring if they concede is a good stance ...

Beating them down by exposing their lies day in and day out is an imperative, which means we simply cannot ignore them ....

They need to be shouted down in the public square, in full view of Mom, Pop and the kiddies, so everybody can see them, exposed as liars ...

[bbgrunt]

11. "they unknowingly give Republicans the benefit..."

Really? I do think these two academics need to burrow into this story a little bit deeper than the simple "visual" analysis.

[Igel]

18. It confirms what we believe.

It must be right, since we must be right. Critical thinking has to be critical, of course (with the obligatory, and fallacy-inducing, shift of meaning for the crucial word).

We must accept the post hoc conclusion: When publicity about person was "negatively packaged" public attitudes about the person declined. Teasing out cause and effect--do networks portray somebody negatively if their star is falling or do they account for the fall--is difficult.

Same for other things: Last word is sometimes short, cut-off, and meaningless, sometimes not. (I've noticed my opinion on the importance of "last word" flip back and forth with the party designation of the 'combatants')

Visual shot from below versus from above? If you're talking about arrogance, shot from below is negative--it makes them seem authoritarian, not authoritative. If they're shot from below because the pic's from a balcony as they meet heads of state it's different from if they're shot from below as they're haranguing against benefits for the poor. Does it matter if the picture's mixed, with dems and repubs? If there's just a single pool photo, limited by circumstances, on all the networks? They must (or at least should) address these points. Can't tell if they did, from the squib in the press.

The methodology is little better (or possibly worse), it seems, than one that looked at negative and positive coverage of the candidates with a strangely lopsided, mechanistic (albeit cleanly applied) metric for "positive" and "negative". It removed PI bias and simplified the job of the munchkins that undoubtedly did most of the grunt work, but it made the conclusions rather pointless. A long, mostly glowing report on Obama that said his ratings had dipped 1 point, within the margin of error, was negative; a report on McCain that concluded that his ratings had risen greatly among partisan republicans, but still trailed Obama's by a wide margin among dems and independents, would be positive (because no word showed a setback or criticism).

Conclusion: Its contribution isn't the conclusion of the debate, but pointing out that the verbiage associated with a clip isn't the end all and be all is useful.

[Lorien]

29. Truly they do. I have friends who are news journalists

and their bosses constantly pressure them to keep the heat on Democrats and cast Repugs in a favorable light. There's nothing "unknowing" about it.

[No Elephants]

14. So beat up they unknowingly give Pubs the benefit? What bullshit. They want Pubs to win. They

knowingly give them the benefit. They are the corporate media. "Conspiring" is not necessary for them and is irrelevant anyway. The fault is not conspiring to foavor the Pubs. The fault is simply favoring the Pubs.

One lie on top of the other. These people are either very naive or part of the problem. They did reach the correct ultimate conclusion, though. Blaming the "liberal media" for anything is like blaming elves. Either way, you're out of reality.

[KamaAina]

20. But, but, but the lib'rul conspiracy controls acamademia, too!

:sarcasm:

[daleo]

21. Reporters do what corporate owners want them to do

I think it's a sort of right-wing 'natural selection' - reporters who learn how to play the game survive and rise in the ranks. Thus, the right-wing message gets out, without explicit directions.

The problem for the media is that the population has begun to tune them out, so they are losing advertising, losing money, and going bankrupt. That's another form of 'natural selection'.

[glitch]

23. That would be the 'cooperation' form which trumps (survival of the fittest) 'aggression' form

of natural selection :)

[Uncle Joe]

24. I would suggest future studies take in to account the "Law of Agency's" effect

on corporate media coverage.

They know who their daddy is, and the B.S. liberal media myth was promoted just as much by them as it was by the Republicans. The "liberal media myth" was to serve as their fig leaf and nothing more.

[JerseygirlCT]

25. Good to see what we already knew verified like this. nt

[tblue37]

27. No, it's broadcast journalists kowtowing to the demands of their

corporatist masters, regardless of their own beliefs, because they want to hang on to their cushy sinecures. It's not unconscious or accidental at all.

[librechik]

28. abuse victims= journalists

kowtowing to the assholes that beat them up over nothing. And when asked they still say, (as they MUST) sure, we're liberal! even though they can't act like it.

[sakabatou]

31. This just in: water is wet.

[Trajan]

32. "popular conventional notion"

popular conventional notion = BULLSHIT lies of the extreme and pervasive right wing whacko media ...

And THAT ain't no lie ....

[Mr. Sparkle]

34. The Righties screams of media bias is akin to playing the ref in sports.

It is a shame that the Democrats have no media in which they control. Imagine if we gave talking points to the New York Times or the Washington Post, they'd laugh in our faces. Unlike right wing radio and Fauxnews whom cant get Taliban/Republican propaganda on air quick enough.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

36. This article should be sent to the MSM so they know people are on to them nt

[iamthebandfanman]

37. dontcha know university professors are liberal elitist?

why would they believe something they say ?
lol

[aikoaiko]

38. "The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

That's the way I like my journalism.

[Cleita]

39. Why did it take them eight years to figure that out? n/t

[Juche]

40. That is because college professors have a liberal bias

$5 that will be the response from the right due to this.

[BobTheSubgenius]

42. This is NOT the first study to find this regressive bias.

This is less subjective than the most compelling study that I'm familiar with, which was conducted several years ago by the Pew Institute. That study depended on definitions of "favourable" and "unfavourable" news coverage of both parties, but was very well thought out and executed.

Hell, even major GOP players have admitted it in public. They keep crying "liberal bias" for the same reason that coaches rail at officiating crews - they know they won't get their way on the call they're arguing, but maybe it will tip the next one in their favour.

[KonaKane]

43. Awwwww! "So tired of being accused...."

Cry me a fucking river.

I'm old enough to remember the institution of journalism populated by brass-nutted adventurers who were not so easily cowed into positions they didn't believe in, or were not convinced of. The era of of McNews, dictated by the WH, is over...I THOUGHT.

Was I wrong?

[ProfessorGAC]

44. Interesting, But Unsurprising

I might have to look more deeply into their work. I'm intrigued now.
GAC

[bulloney]

45. The study doesn't include Faux Snooze and you know they're biased for Republicans.

[Optical.Catalyst]

46. No doubt the Main Stream Media takes sides in elections

A close election means higher number of viewers yielding higher returns on advertising rates.

The MSM will manipulate an election to maximize profit at the expense of good Government.

[Jackpine Radical]

54. I think it's deeper than that.

M$M are owned by a few major corporations, all of which have vested interests in continued conservative domination of American politics. The media exist to serve the bottom lines of the parent corporations. They are not necessarily responsive to simple marketplace considerations when they see themselves as having a stronger interest in pushing a particular message for the benefit of their owners. They are, in other words, the propaganda machine for the parent corporations.

[harmonicon]

47. just watching TV tells you that it favours Republicans

Did their analysis also reveal that water is wet?

[SpiralHawk]

48. D'oh = corporate media has no journalism anymore. Only right wing propaganda

Glad the facts are plainly stated.

I have no use for corporate media, and mistrust it completely. They let Commander AWOL Bush & his cabal of corrupt cronies trash America and everything good for 8 long years, and never even whimpered...

Ptooooey on the Homelander Corporate media, which does not serve the truth or the people of the USA

[snappyturtle]

51. Yesterday I felt awful to be a native Hoosier after listening to Pence's rant.

Today....I'm proud of my alma mater! Go Big Red!

[slackmaster]

53. They've done a great job of convincing themselves that it's possible to measure something like that

Objectively.

[karynnj]

55. This is also the network coverage - which was far more balanced than the

cable coverage. Fox, of course, is nearly 100% for the Republicans, but both MSNBC and CNN had more Republicans covering the conventions than Democrats. (This year, the Republican speakers got far more airtime than the Democratic ones - where instead we saw the cable talking heads speaking among themselves on what the Democrats should do. 2004 was even worse - as MSNBC had a panel covering it that included 2 or 3 Republicans (including Ginsburg, a former lawyer for both B/C and the SBVT) and Ron Reagan Jr, an independent supporting Kerry. The Republican convention's speeches were covered with almost no Democratic comments - and NO ONE questioned the despicable purple heart bandaids.

The Republicans also dominated radio.

[Duval]

56. This "liberal media" crap began back

in the late 70s and has been a right wing mantra since then. "If you repeat something enough times, etc." so it became "a fact". BS. Even PBS leans to the right. This is nothing we don't know here, but somehow we must push for regulations and less media ownership. Liberals hardly have a voice.

[Echo In Light]

57. Bullshit quote:

"We don't think this is journalists conspiring to favor Republicans. We think they're just so beat up and tired of being accused of a liberal bias that they unknowingly give Republicans the benefit in coverage."

Chomsky & Edward Herman debunked this nonsense decades ago: those who work within the medium naturally abide its euphemistic rhetoric in order to avoid ruffling feathers (and drawing unwanted attention), and both consciously and unconsciously kiss power's ass in attempt to secure and attain greater positions of privilege.

[livefreest]

59. i agree