|
Hey,
Something I've noticed, and seen others of you comment on, is the endless repetition in print and on TV that * is incredibly, extremely, popular-- whereas Clinton, at times he was getting higher approval ratings, rarely was referred to in this way. Even when the media pundits and newsreaders would acknowledge Clinton's approval ratings, it was implicitly framed as "the inexplicably popular liar" whereas references to Bush approval always imply "the deservedly popular heroic leader." I'm not paranoid enough to imagine that orders from the RNC have been going out to the TV networks and newspapers telling them "ALWAYS refer to Bush as popular" or "always refer to Clinton's approval ratings with disdain." But it sure seems that they have behaved AS IF this was happening.
Remembering studies of media bias by Jamieson, Lichter, and Nunberg, I'm thinking there ought to be a way to study this issue quantitatively. Watching zillions of hours of old news programs is not something I'm willing to do, but I keep turning over the thought of simpler ways to measure this. Just did a very quick-and-dirty measure. Googling Bush+popular produces 1,340,000 hits, whereas Clinton+popular produces 835,000. But a news-only database would be much better, and I will look into that. This could become a DU article if the results are interesting.
I invite suggestions of more refined ways to explore this phenomenon, or comments about others' observations thereof.
CYD
|