August 6, 201214 yr I haven't digested all of this yet. Just came across it on Twitter and figured I'd let others have at it. Claim: Campaign coverage is biased toward Republicans | JIMROMENESKO.COM
August 6, 201214 yr http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/3/big-bash-86-percent-romney-coverage-negative/ Counterpoint. Now when Katie runs a story like this one about Romney's campaign....then we will know that that the liberal media bias may be a falsehood...
August 6, 201214 yr She said in the opening they would be running similar features on the other campaigns. :idunno: "Over the next few weeks we plan to bring you a look inside the campaigns of the three presidential candidates left standing, and the people behind-the-scenes who have helped them get this far ..."
August 6, 201214 yr She said in the opening they would be running similar features on the other campaigns. :idunno: "Over the next few weeks we plan to bring you a look inside the campaigns of the three presidential candidates left standing, and the people behind-the-scenes who have helped them get this far ..." Fair and balanced.... Not as perky of a report....but I have to admit - Its an older (and duller) group...
August 6, 201214 yr Since this thread is about the current election and coverage trends, I don't see how the above is even remotely relevant.
August 7, 201214 yr Just because they may have more Republicans than Democrats on their programs it might show they are trying to have a balance of guests. Yet when it comes to their viewpoints they lean hard left. It shows when they try to tie a non-violent group, the Tea Party, to any and all violence committed in the country, try to take away the rights to own guns and blast people for their religious beliefs, well as long as their Christian beliefs. Yes the main street media is left leaning. Fox may lean right, but they admit it.
August 7, 201214 yr Author Why am I not shocked that no one has addressed the link/study I provided and instead have given their own opinion? We all have preconceived ideas and notions. Some are right . Some are not. Anyone want to address the actual link?
August 7, 201214 yr Author Negative coverage by source: NYT: 57% Obama 43% Romney Fox News: 76% - 24% CNN : 57% to 43% NPR : 49% to 51% MSNBC: 37% to 63% WashPO: 62% to 38% How about we address these instead of your gut feel?
August 7, 201214 yr I think all media is biased, as are we. Everyone trys to get us to see their side of a position. Just as some rarely post a positive comment or story towards conservatives or republicans and some go completely the other way slamming liberals and democrats at any chance. The problem isn't necessarily media bias, but the dumbing down of Americans that only listen to sound bites and never look into any thing to make their mind up.
August 7, 201214 yr Sorry Clyde, I can't debate information from a source I know nothing about and can find nothing on them. I checked their website and it doesn't say much about who they are. How do we know they are a legitimate source? How do we know they are themselves not biased when they're the ones determining what is negative and what is not? What do you know about them? Are they legitimate? Are they truly a neutral source themselves? Let's face it, there's too many tools out there to take something at face value when we don't know about them.
August 7, 201214 yr Author Sorry Clyde, I can't debate information from a source I know nothing about and can find nothing on them. I checked their website and it doesn't say much about who they are. How do we know they are a legitimate source? How do we know they are themselves not biased when they're the ones determining what is negative and what is not? What do you know about them? Are they legitimate? Are they truly a neutral source themselves? Let's face it, there's too many tools out there to take something at face value when we don't know about them. I'm not looking for any validation. I don't know the source either. What factors might we consider in determining how accurate? Do we automatically dismiss it because it doesn't fit the narrative? Does it at least make you reconsider if you are a firm believer in the mantra?
August 7, 201214 yr Author [ATTACH=CONFIG]37093[/ATTACH] Graphic The disclaimer says that 4thestate.net contextually analyzes and counts quotes from a sampling of media sources. From the 4thestate website: http://www.4thestate.net/liberal-media-bias/ Parent company is Global News Intelligence which provides similar services for Fortune 500 companies and govt.
August 7, 201214 yr Negative coverage by source: NYT: 57% Obama 43% Romney Fox News: 76% - 24% CNN : 57% to 43% NPR : 49% to 51% MSNBC: 37% to 63% WashPO: 62% to 38% How about we address these instead of your gut feel? The fact is that these are negative times. It general, there not much to cheer about overall. Wars are still going on, un/underemployment is still very high, a government crisis is looming in January, etc. etc. So there will be more negative stories in general. And like the current coach or manager of losing team. The guy at the top takes the hits. So is a 'problem' that there are more than 50% negative articles in media 'about Obama' (how ever they really measure that). Probably not, its a reflection of the times. Should the media ensure the run the same percentage of 'negative' stories about Romney? Hopefully that is not what drives their reporting. And regardless of how much they try its probably hard to generate the same percentage. Romney has the advantage of not being the guy in charge right now. There is just less to judge him on in regards to the current situation. It seems that news media - especially papers were more about getting it right and reporting accurately. They left the spin, opinion and 'analysis' that often ends up on the front page today to the back page of the paper - the 'Opinion' page. It seems it was 80% hard news and 20% or less 'Analysis' or 'opinion'. Now its seems its 20% hard news and 80% spin, analysis, opinion. And as this thread points out. They are cognizant of the spin of an article instead of just stating the facts and letting cards fall as they may. The days of Woodward and Bernstein are gone. No one seems to be even trying to be the next W/B team anymore.
August 7, 201214 yr Author The fact is that these are negative times. It general, there not much to cheer about overall. Wars are still going on, un/underemployment is still very high, a government crisis is looming in January, etc. etc. So there will be more negative stories in general. And like the current coach or manager of losing team. The guy at the top takes the hits. So is a 'problem' that there are more than 50% negative articles in media 'about Obama' (how ever they really measure that). Probably not, its a reflection of the times. Should the media ensure the run the same percentage of 'negative' stories about Romney? Hopefully that is not what drives their reporting. And regardless of how much they try its probably hard to generate the same percentage. Romney has the advantage of not being the guy in charge right now. There is just less to judge him on in regards to the current situation. It seems that news media - especially papers were more about getting it right and reporting accurately. They left the spin, opinion and 'analysis' that often ends up on the front page today to the back page of the paper - the 'Opinion' page. It seems it was 80% hard news and 20% or less 'Analysis' or 'opinion'. Now its seems its 20% hard news and 80% spin, analysis, opinion. And as this thread points out. They are cognizant of the spin of an article instead of just stating the facts and letting cards fall as they may. The days of Woodward and Bernstein are gone. No one seems to be even trying to be the next W/B team anymore. That's what I'm looking for, BGC. So it's the content that drives it. Doesn't that seem to then take some of the "liberal bias" feeling away?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.