|
Edited on Tue Feb-03-04 09:22 PM by Turkw
supporters will be interested in the sources I found for data on media bias. I will post the sources.
It is still a little rough, I need to do a fourth edit, but it is coming along nicely. On edit, added the part that got choped off.
According to a recent Pew Research survey, released Jan. 11, 2004, a majority of Americans, 68%, rely on television coverage as their main source of campaign and election news. While this may seem like good "news" when combined with other facts and finding it becomes disturbing instead.
The growing recognition of bias in campaign coverage is at an all time high and reached across party lines. 39% of Americans now say there is bias in election coverage by news organizations. The telling factor is that only 38% see no bias, down from 48% in 2000. This decline has been steady since 1986, when a most Americans, 62%, believed that news coverage was non-partisan.
This increase of awareness is not without good reason. It is not only cable channels that have slanted coverage. Media Tenor has compiled two reports that go into great detail concerning recent campaign coverage from the three major broadcasters, ABC, CBS, and NBC. Looking at several aspects of this coverage shows a real lack of neutrality.
From Jan. 1 to Jan. 15, none of the major broadcasters focused more than a third of their converge on actual issues. For example, of the 145 statements on or by Wesley Clark only 15% were policy issue statements. Compared to the 552 statements on or by Howard Dean and 498 on or by George Bush. It is clear that very little attention is given to issues, while topics such as personality and the "horse race" aspect dominates.
From Jan. 19 - Jan. 22 there was a significant decrease in policy issues on the network coverage. During this time, Clark is identified by his personality on television news. As the issues, are under reported, other bias comes into play. John Edwards, for example, has the smallest share or negative statements, while not having the smallest share of overall coverage. It is worth remembering that a lot of this recent coverage has been disproportionately centered on South Carolina's primary, ignoring the other February 3rd states.
Another Pew Research survey, released Jan. 15, shows that Wesley Clark is viewed by Americans as being the candidate who's ideology is closest to how Americans identify themselves. Yet according to Media Tenior, Clark's attention by network news was only a fraction of the whole, only 306 statements in the two reports, out of a total of 2848. It does not take a research center to detect the difference in coverage. A Clark supporter documented an example on her web blog.
On February 2nd, ABC Good Morning America had a segment on the political campaigns. John Kerry was named five times, and pictured seven. Dean was mentioned twice and pictured five time. Edwards was mentioned twice also, and pictured four time. Clark was neither mentioned nor pictured. This lopsided coverage is not unusual for any of the television sources, cable or broadcast.
The tone of the coverage is also just as skewed. It goes beyond snide commentary, sometimes from the anchors themselves, such as Chris Matthew's Feb. 2nd comment that "We still have three candidates really out there —four, if you count Clark." On Jan. 16th, Campaigndesk.Org reported a couple of cases typical cases that show how the press is failing in their professional duty. A distorted and manufactured version of Wesley Clark's 2002 House Armed Services Committee testimony.
A single quotation was created by removing 11,500 words from that testimony to create a quote to portray Clark as supporting Bush's Iraq position. This fraud was put on Drudge's partisan web site, and still it made its way into the mainstream press. Far too many reporters quickly repeated the counterfeit statement with out doing any research on its validity. It is worth pointing out that full transcripts of the testimony are easily obtained.
On the same day, CNN corespondent Bob Fraken set a disproportionately low standard for one candidate's showing in New Hampshire. For John Edwards to have a win, he only needed to, as Woody Allen said, show up. This unequal level setting was followed over the next few days by corespondents and pundits declareing Clark a loser in New Hampshire for beating Edwards, but not the two candidates from neighboring states. Edwards was still portrayed as a winner for his finnish, behind Clark.
Even in September of 2003, when Clark's coverage was at it's peak, the other candidates did not suffer. Lieberman, who had the highest coverage in October, had an increase in the amount of coverage. Dean's coverage almost doubled, and Kerry's quadrupled. After this height, there are times where Clark disappears from coverage entirely.
Focusing on the "horse race" and not the issues is bad for several reasons. Not only does it take away from the time spent on actual issues, it then forces voters to make decisions on factors that they do not care about in the general election. Also, corespondents acquire a personal stake in who wins or is perceived as to do well. Since correspondents depend on their reputations as being reliable sources of information, when they base their views and statement on poll results, those reputations are on the line when people finally vote.
What is worse is allowing people who are directly involved in the organizations doing the polling to act as pundits on television. These people have a tremendous conflict of interest, as they want the results of their polls to be perceived as accurate. Thus when a Zogby poll shows Clark being lower than other polls, John Zogby has good reason to want Clark to do poorly. This does not even address right wing pundits who eerily echo each other consistently.
Beyond the ethical and professional reason why television new should remain neutral there is one other factor. People want equitable and accurate coverage. Pew Research shows that 67% of people want news from a source without the influence of a point of view.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(521 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
