Think Again: Testing Media Bias

[dennis4868]

By Eric Alterman

Conservatives argue that the national news media are biased for liberals and Democrats. Liberals argue the opposite. You could write a book about it. It's a difficult argument to have because neither side is willing to accept the other's evidence. Liberals point out that the punditocracy, on radio, on cable TV and in most broadcast outlets is dominated by right-wingers, who don't do too badly on the op-pages either. Conservatives counter that reporters are liberals. Liberals respond that well, only on social policy, not economic policy, but anyway, owners are conservatives and that matters more. Conservatives respond, "Oh forget it, you don't understand anything" or something like that.

It's difficult to test the proposition in any respectably scientific fashion because the nature of the issues change, as do baseline assumptions. Certainly most of the media were far kinder to George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 than they were before—to say nothing of their treatment of Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

Every once in a while, we find a test that tells us something about how the media treats the respective parties. For instance, earlier this week, the Washington Post reported on a study of time allotted to both Bush and Sen. John Kerry by the cable news outlets. They found that from March 3, the day after Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination, through April16, they devoted 12 hours and 11 minutes to live appearances by Bush and only 3 hours 47 minutes to Kerry.

more here....http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=47446&printmode=1

[LynzM]

1. Interesting....

I have a friend who swears by the 'liberal media bias' bit...

Like the bit about Kerry calling him 'sir' twice :D

[dennis4868]

5. I wish....

there was a liberal bias in the media...if there is one, where the hell is it?

[buddy22600]

2. Thank you for the info

[Killarney]

3. Alterman rocks.

[slor]

4. Send to Kerry camp.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. Amazing analysis of Russert's biased treatment of guests!

I emailed it to MTP and Russert --


....Number of times in which Russert asked Bush or Kerry to make an impossible prediction? Kerry 1, Bush 0. (RUSSERT: If you were elected one year from now, will there be 100,000 American troops in Iraq?)

Number of times Russert tried to put guest in impossible position, based on actions of his opponent: Kerry 2, Bush 0. (RUSSERT: So if Iraq is not secure, how can you possibly say the U.N. and NATO are going to come to our rescue when they don't have the troops or the interest of going in there?.... RUSSERT: Could you accept a Shiite theocracy running Iraq similar to what we have in Iran?)

Number of times Russert asked guest to defend statements he made over 30 years ago: Kerry 2, Bush 0. (RUSSERT: And people refer back to an interview when you first ran for Congress, back with The Harvard Crimson, where you said, "Kerry said the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations…. RUSSERT: You used the word "war criminals.")

Number of times Russert tried to pretend that a 30-year statement was untrue when in fact, by his own admission it was true. Kerry 1, Bush 0. (RUSSERT: But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited…" Note. As Kerry points out when he notes that "A lot of them have been documented," the fact that "a lot of those stories have been discredited," clearly implies that a number of them—perhaps most, perhaps a few, we have no way of knowing from Russert's question which ones he means, have not been discredited. So when Russert asks, "So you stand by that?" he is asking Kerry to take a position that he himself endorses with his question, but is unwilling to admit. And surely Russert has heard of My Lai, and now, Tiger Force....

More:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=47446&printmode=1

[calimary]

8. Excellent that you mailed this to that whore, Russert.

Dear God, but he is shameless! Unbelievable! I'm so tired of having to play against a stacked deck. But isn't it ironic that this is the only way these schmucks really have - to win the game: they have to rig things. It's not like they can win something fair and square with a level playing field, unloaded dice, and all-unmarked cards, is it?

[DeepModem Mom]

7. kick