Study from CMPA in regards to media

**size** · 11-02-2006, 08:20 AM

I was reading this study and thought some of you may find it interesting in regards to media bias.
Here is a link to the PDF:
Study
More on the methodology can be found at cmpa.com

Major Finding:
In regards to nightly news coverage, 77% of it is good press for Democrats compared to only 12% of good press for Republicans. This is new coverage from Sept. 5 to Oct. 22 regarding election stories.

**bioman** · 11-02-2006, 12:19 PM

Might be because the dems are purposely laying low and letting the reps "enjoy" the spotlight. While I think both parties are equally corrupt, since the reps enjoy the majority their foibles make for more sensational news and thus get more coverage.

I do not belive in a "liberal media conspiracy" rather they are just sharks after the bloodiest morsels they can find. They certainly did not give Clinton a pass and that should be remembered.

The Colonel 333 · 11-04-2006, 10:11 PM

Sept- Oct. Well that does not suprise me at all considering there are over a dozen Repuplicans currently being investigated for corruption. Not to mention the Mark Foley scandal and all the Republicans who are starting to point the finger at each other about who knew what when. I personally think they have been making there bed (for quite a while) and now it's time to lie in it.

**size** · 11-07-2006, 09:41 AM

To me, this is surprising. A 77% positive compared to a 12% positive is a vast difference. One could make a case that there are more easy targets on one side than the other but it should not be so statistically different.
In research and reporting, if one begins with the decision or outcome or result already formulated before actions are taken, then one can manipulate samples or information to support the desired results. This seems to be the case to me in much of reporting.

**bioman** · 11-07-2006, 11:53 AM

The PEW Research guys put out a report back in 2000 that showed that Bush recieved far more favorable coverage than Gore.

May be something, may be nothing. I tend to think the media sides with whomever is more popular at the moment. The reps were back in 2000, and now in 2006 they have pee'd in their own well and provided the media with almost nonstop fodder...some of which has to be orchestrated by Dem operative because the timing of many of these scandals are just too perfect..but nonetheless..more fodder.

**size** · 11-07-2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bioman

May be something, may be nothing. I tend to think the media sides with whomever is more popular at the moment.

Could be the case, but again, is this what news/reporting should be for? Or should it be for reporting information as information is?

klugman · 11-07-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bioman

Might be because the dems are purposely laying low and letting the reps "enjoy" the spotlight. While I think both parties are equally corrupt, since the reps enjoy the majority their foibles make for more sensational news and thus get more coverage.

I do not belive in a "liberal media conspiracy" rather they are just sharks after the bloodiest morsels they can find. They certainly did not give Clinton a pass and that should be remembered.

Well they gave Kennedy a pass. I mean, he drowned a woman and he is still a Senator???

Let me guess...you define this a a very, very late term abortion...right?

**bioman** · 11-07-2006, 01:00 PM

If you think it's up to "them" to give people a "pass" then you are missing the point of living in a democratic republic, but don't let reality spoil your Limbaugh-esque talking points for you.

klugman · 11-07-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bioman

If you think it's up to "them" to give people a "pass" then you are missing the point of living in a democratic republic, but don't let reality spoil your Limbaugh-esque talking points for you.

The media are supposed to be watchdogs of government.

Not selectively pick and choose whose career they destroy.

A woman was murdered and the white, liberal media never reported it that way.

Maybe if you spent a little less time worshipping crystals, Earth goddess gia and Oprah and a little more time in a civics 101 class you'd get it.

Its guys like you (who think they're so educated and NUANCED) that b!tch about Fox News and somehow manages to ignore the blatant bias of CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, etc.

**bioman** · 11-07-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by size

Could be the case, but again, is this what news/reporting should be for? Or should it be for reporting information as information is?

well, that's the point..they report on who's making news. The Dems are likely laying low on purpose. They are not innocent, but savvy enough to stay as quiet as they can (ecept for doofus Kerry) while the Reps flail on and on.

**bioman** · 11-07-2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by klugman

The media are supposed to be watchdogs of government.

Not selectively pick and choose whose career they destroy.

A woman was murdered and the white, liberal media never reported it that way.

Maybe if you spent a little less time worshipping crystals, Earth goddess gia and Oprah and a little more time in a civics 101 class you'd get it.

Its guys like you (who think they're so educated and NUANCED) that b!tch about Fox News and somehow manages to ignore the blatant bias of CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, etc.

It doesn't take a crystal to see that you are an angry little fella. Maybe some Dong Quai would alleviate those PMS symtoms.

Fox, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter all selectively attack people with the intent of discrediting them. While the other stations you ranted on about are the equivalent of News for Dummies, it takes little effort to find more salient information. Most lightly sip the Kool-aide offered by either side, but you appear to have taken a bath in it.

Your rants are culmination of talking point buzzwords offered up by the pundits manufactured by the White House..that much is plain to see. I suppose you give a "Pass" to the current administration simply because they share in your hatred and anger towards the cultural and ideaological diversity this country houses? So be it, but I find what this administration has done to true conservatism to be inexcusable.

No one has tried to alter the Constitution more than they have. No one has been as fiscally irresponsible as they have. No one uses the mantra of "Support the Troops" more than them while they actively ignore the generals in the field. THIS should make you angry because these are the people in charge right now..but hey, go dredge the Chappaquiddic for more hookers if you want.

**Frank Costanza** · 11-08-2006, 09:39 AM

It doesnt take a crystal ball to see the media is completely left wing biased either. Comparing 3 people to 90% of the news media is a stretch to. Fox doens't show snipers killing soldiers. Fox doens't make deals with Saddam to stay in the country to get exculsive coverage. Fox doens't report forged and fake documents as truth (Dan Rather anyone?). Fox commentators are more conservative but don't go about actively trying to discredit an entire administration and party at the expense of soldiers lives unless you deem a snper killing a US soldier news worth to show. Nothing better to get the point across than showing your soldiers getting blown away.

The people bathing in the Kool-Aide are primarily liberal news orginizations.

Your "point buzzwords" just got the Democratic party elected.

It goes to show you, these days you don't even need a solution or plan to get elected, just complain enough, distort the fact enough and you can get elected.

**Frank Costanza** · 11-08-2006, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bioman

No one has tried to alter the Constitution more than they have.

I didn't know the Constitution applied to foreign citizens.

Quote:

No one has been as fiscally irresponsible as they have.

The proposed budget of the Democratic Party when elected to Congress is higher than the previous Republican Congress but you won't hear that above the complaints and call for peoples heads in the media.

The people just voted a party in that wants more government, not less.

Quote:

No one uses the mantra of "Support the Troops" more than them while they actively ignore the generals in the field. THIS should make you angry because these are the people in charge right now..but hey, go dredge the Chappaquiddic for more hookers if you want.

A bit misleading as the military and civilian leadership doesn't exactly get along no matter who is in power. 1946 the Democratic Congress was swept out of office for a new Republican one because the American public were sick of the war. A war they won.

Civilian leaders and the military will never get along and never agree. One wants political correctness, the other could care less. Its a situation in which in this day and age you can't win. Either way, even if you win the physical war, you will be wrong in the media.

**Frank Costanza** · 11-08-2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bioman

well, that's the point..they report on who's making news. The Dems are likely laying low on purpose. They are not innocent, but savvy enough to stay as quiet as they can (ecept for doofus Kerry) while the Reps flail on and on.

Jack Murtha, Bob Menendez, Jane Harman, William Jefferson, and Alan Mollohan are all under investigation for corruption so they aren't laying low at all. You just don't hear about it nearly as much.

**CDB** · 11-08-2006, 11:14 AM

Media bias is issue specific anyway, not necessarily candidate specific. If news organizations saw better ratings from jumping on Democrats they likely would. Likely enough people are pissed or befuddled enough with the Republicans that they are more responsive to negative stories about them than Democrats. But, you will not see a news organization telling you a school shooting was stopped by an armed citizen, as an example of issue bias. Report on the evil use of guns, not the postive use.

All media is biased. News without bias would be a ticker of basic facts: two people aged 17 and 16 shot today by another person aged 16... Senator X casts vote for legislation Y... etc. etc. If you don't want the ticker then all news has to be to some extent analysis and contextual, and that means there will always be a bias despite the best efforts of some to be objective. Best to just admit this and deal with it instead of throwing up some BS story about objectivity.

It would also do us well to remember that way back in the golden days of journalism, if they ever existed, at the turn of the century when reporters were hard boiled individuals who asked hard questions and did their best to get straight answers, news organizations were more biased than they are now and open about it. Editorial pages in papers would proudly proclaim support for this candidate and hostility toward the others. Reporters did not hide their political ideas like Victorian gentleman hiding their dirty books and sex toys. They were out there in the open for everyone to see. A much more honest time if the history I learned way back when about this era was true. It's easier to debate someone and respect them while still disagreeing with them if you at least know where they're coming from. But if someone hides behind a veil of bull**** called 'objectivity' to my mind at least they lose a lot of credibility.