Some Evidence of Conservative Bias in The Media

[stewert]

We all see the right-wing idiots on TV who talk of the media having a liberal
bias. That is their personal opinion, it's a biased opinion because they want the
people to believe their lies. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Let's
look at the facts, read these articles and you will have proof there is a conservative
bias in the media.

These articles document facts, not opinions from biased right-wingers. I know most of you
guys have seen these articles, I am re-posting them for the people who may not know about
them, and the people who may have forgot about them. I might add they are anywhere from
2 to 5 years old, if they did these studies today it would be more biased to the right than it was
when the studies were done.

--------

Who's On the News?

Study shows network news sources skew white, male & elite

A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001
shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and,
where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.

Press Release:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/power-sources-release.html

This study was done by Media Tenor, a non-partisan German-based media analysis firm, the
study includes all reports on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News
from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001-- a total of 14,632 individual sources in 18,765
individual reports. Analysis by Ina Howard, U.S. Research Director of Media Tenor International.

Full Study:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/power_sources.html

----------

Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent

FAIR study finds democracy poorly served by war coverage

Since the invasion of Iraq began in March, official voices have dominated U.S. network newscasts,
while opponents of the war have been notably underrepresented, according to a study by FAIR.

Starting the day after the bombing of Iraq began on March 19, the three-week study
(3/20/03-4/9/03) looked at 1,617 on-camera sources appearing in stories about Iraq on the
evening newscasts of six television networks and news channels. The news programs studied
were ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports,
Fox’s Special Report with Brit Hume, and PBS’s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.*

Sources were coded by name, occupation, nationality, position on the war and the network on
which they appeared. Sources were categorized as having a position on the war if they expressed
a policy opinion on the news shows studied, were currently affiliated with governments or
institutions that took a position on the war, or otherwise took a prominent stance. For instance,
retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a hired military analyst for CNN, was not categorized as pro-war; we
could find no evidence he endorsed the invasion or was affiliated with a group supporting the war.
However, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, an NBC analyst, was classified as pro-war as a board
member of the Committee for a Free Iraq, a pro-war group.

Nearly two thirds of all sources, 64 percent, were pro-war, while 71 percent of U.S. guests favored
the war. Anti-war voices were 10 percent of all sources, but just 6 percent of non-Iraqi sources
and 3 percent of U.S. sources. Thus viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war
source as one who was anti-war; with U.S. guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1.

Full Story:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0305/warstudy.html

-----------

Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim

Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage

Executive Summary

The conservative critique of the news media rests on two general propositions: (1) journalists'
views are to the left of the public, and (2) journalists frame news content in a way that accentuates
these left perspectives. Previous research has revealed persuasive evidence against the latter
claim, but the validity of the former claim has often been taken for granted. This research project
examined the supposed left orientation of media personnel by surveying Washington-based
journalists who cover national politics and/or economic policy at US outlets.

The findings include:

On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and
taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.

Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.

The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the
"right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social
issues.

Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide
the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and
"cable news services" provide the worst.

Full Story:

http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html

-----------

Think Tank Study: Spectrum Narrows Further in 2002

Progressive, domestic think tanks see drop

The center-right slant in media citations of think tanks continued in 2002, with conservative groups
receiving 47 percent of last year’s citations, centrists 41 percent and progressives 12 percent--the
least representation for the left since 1998.

The top 25 think tanks in 2002 received 25,897 citations in major newspapers and broadcast
transcripts, according to a search of the Nexis media database. This is an 8 percent decrease from
2001, bucking the trend of increasing think tank citations since the survey began in 1996.

The centrist Brookings Institution maintained the top spot, garnering about one-sixth of the survey’s
citations, while another center-oriented group, the Council on Foreign Relations, leapfrogged several think
tanks to finish in second place. The Heritage Foundation, in third place, was the highest-ranking conservative
think tank, while the ninth-place Economic Policy Institute was the most prominent progressive think tank.

The decline in think tank citations may seem surprising, given that the year was filled with big news stories,
including the continuing aftermath of September 11, the war in Afghanistan and the build-up toward the attack
on Iraq. However, over half of the decline can be accounted for by the relative drop in citations of one think tank,
the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), whose declaration of a recession in 2001 was cited extensively.

Full Story:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0307/thinktanks2002.html

-----------

Think Tank Monitor

What's in a Label?

Right-wing think tanks are often quoted, rarely labeled

For the third year in a row, conservative or right-leaning think tanks in 1997 provided more than
half of major media's think tank citations, according to FAIR's third annual survey of major
newspaper and broadcast media citations in the Nexis computer database. Think tanks of the right
provided 53 percent of citations, while progressive or left-leaning think tanks received just 16
percent of total citations.

Half of the ten most-cited think tanks are conservative or right-leaning, including three of the top
four. The centrist Brookings Institution held the top spot as the most widely cited think tank for the
second year in a row. Three right-wing institutions--the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise
Institute and Cato Institute--maintained their respective positions as the second, third and fourth
most cited. The top four think tanks were each cited more than a thousand times, and provided 46
percent of all think tank citations.*

Full Story:

http://www.fair.org/extra/9805/think-tanks.html

[papau]

1. Think Again: Testing Media Bias by Eric Alterman

Think Again: Testing Media Bias
by Eric Alterman
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=2464
April 22, 2004
Conservatives argue that the national news media are biased for liberals and Democrats. Liberals argue the opposite. You could write a book <www.whatliberalmedia.com> 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.

The cable news executives offer all kinds of excuses about this, citing Bush's role as commander-in-chief, but as the newspaper points out, "When President Bush delivered a routine stump speech to a group of New Mexico homeowners on March 26, CNN and Fox News each carried his appearance for 35 minutes, and MSNBC for 33 minutes. Meanwhile, "when John Kerry gave what was billed as a major address on national security at George Washington University on March 17, he was knocked off the screen by a large explosion in Baghdad. CNN and Fox each dropped Kerry (who had been reduced to small box) after three minutes, and MSNBC never picked him up." It has long been true, in addition, that the cable networks they have long been far kinder to Bush than to any Democrat, and this predates 9/11, as previous studies have demonstrated.

A second type, but no less telling test may be found in the treatment that each candidate, receives from what is almost universally recognized as the premier news interview program-both in terms of influence and viewership-NBC's "Meet the Press." It is easy to take this too far, but as Tim Russert is the only interviewer to sit down with both Bush and Kerry in recent times, it offers one of the only true points of comparison. In watching both interviews back to back, here's what I noticed.

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.)

Number of times Russert plays the other candidate's campaign commercials attacking the interviewee played on the air: Kerry 1, Bush 0.

Number of times Russert asks questions designed to alienate a crucial ethnic bloc: Kerry 1, Bush 0. (RUSSERT: Why not lift the embargo and overthrow Castro...)

Number of times Russert casts aspersions on one candidate's military record asked without noting that the other candidate managed to avoid military service, despite his cushy national guard post: Kerry 1, Bush 0. (RUSSERT: The Boston Globe reports that your commanding officer, Lt. Commander Grant Hibberd has suggested that you perhaps didn't earn your first Purple Heart and question whether you should have left Vietnam after six months....)

Number of times Russert attempts to equate service in Vietnam with cushy national guard services that was not even completed: Kerry 1, Bush 0. (RUSSERT: In order to deal with those kinds of issues, when I asked President Bush about his service in the Texas Guard, he agreed to release all his military records, health records, everything. Would you agree to release all your military records?)

And finally, who has better manners?
Number of times the guest is called "sir" by host: Bush 1, Kerry 0.
Number of times Russert is called "sir" by guest: Kerry 2, Bush 0.
The numbers do not lie....

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Thanks for this info, and documentation of bias --