Comments on: Your “liberal” media in action (part 486)

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:28:30 +0000

quite possibly one of the dumbest articles ever posted…then again, it does explain how JFK, Clinton, and potentially Obama could get elected….ALL style and NO substance…saxophone, boxer shorts and CHOPE.

By: Millard Fillmore

Millard Fillmore — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:41:36 +0000

Well that’s true, and subjectivity is often in the eye of the beholder. But here they are using a subjective assessment to make an objective point. Hardly the scientific point the survey writers claim to have made.

By: Pat Cunningham

Pat Cunningham — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:03:00 +0000

Millard: A certain amount of subjectivity is unavoidable in an exercise like this, just as it is in your own formulation of opinion on such matters.

By: Millard Fillmore

Millard Fillmore — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:41:07 +0000

Pat - according to the article the study codes “statements” as positive or negative…not stories. My point is, coding individual statements without considering context really is nonsensical. And also, that there can be differing standards on “positive” and “negative” depending on who is doing the coding.

By: Pat Cunningham

Pat Cunningham — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:06:20 +0000

Millard: Whether a negative story on Obama or McCain is justifiable is not the point. The study focused on negative vs. positive vs. neutral stories on the candidates. For example, a story on McCain or Obama flip-flopping might be fully supported by the facts and demonstrated by video clips. But it’s still negative. By the same token, a story that shows Obama drawing huge crowds or McCain gaining warm praise from somebody or other might also be fully supported by the facts, but it’s still positive. The study doesn’t necessarily concentrate on the legitimacy of the negativity or positivity of the media coverage. A network might choose to run only fully legitimate positive stories on either of the candidates, or fully legitimate negative stories. In either case, the network is accurate. Again, the study is not about accuracy. It’s about the percentages of positive and negative stories.Those percentages don’t necessarily reflect bias one way or the other. If one candidate embarrassingly screws up big-time day after day or gets involved in some huge scandal — while the other candidate skates along with no big gaffes or problems — there’s going to be an imbalance of negative and positive stories on the networks. That’s just the way it is. What this study demonstrates is that the media are not nearly as positive in their coverage of Obama as some people seem to think.

By: Millard Fillmore

Millard Fillmore — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:43:35 +0000

Pat: If you ask me, this study is pretty shaky. According to the LA Times story it’s based on people coding statements as “positive” or “negative.” I’d be interested in knowing what guidance the coders were given to distinguish between “positive” and “negative” — but more importantly, I’d be interested in knowing how much consideration they gave to context.

For instance, the article gives this as an example:

“When NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama “has problems” with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.”

OK. On it’s face…negative. Won’t argue with that.

But what if the pretext to the comment was based on polling data that clearly supports the point?

Wouldn’t that turn the statement from a “negative” opinion into a analysis based on reporting?

And…please. Stop with the “relentless onslaught” whine. The man is running for president. He might just have to answer a few difficult questions along the way.

By: Pat Cunningham

Pat Cunningham — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:16:04 +0000

Twenty years of analysis? What are you talking about? McCain and Obama have been candidates for president only in the current election cycle.

By: Kaus

Kaus — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:51:35 +0000

Any statistician will tell you that 20 years of analysis skews the numbers. Tell me what the 3 networks (sans FOX I see) have done in the last 12 months. And regarding bias against Republicans, you’ll be eating crow when they finally have to report on the Love Child….and I’m not talking about Diana Ross…..

By: Optimistic1

Optimistic1 — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:06:26 +0000

Pat - Are you saying the score for this election alone or are you pointing out historically that conservatives are mistaken on media bias?

http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

http://journalism.org/node/12013

Do you really expect us to believe that people don’t put their mouths where their political donations go? Equal time doesn’t say much to me if the time Sen Obama gets in the media is spent with reporters playing defense attorney for him and smoothing over those bumps in the road because of their bias for him. A story dismissing a negative allegation about Obama was counted as a negative story I imagine? When in all reailty, a biased reporter worked for free for him doing the same job Obama would have hired a political ad to do coming to his rescue on a topic he needed help on.

Sen Obama is certainly the more charming candidate, no argument here. I just get sick of the “We aren’t biased” argument the media feels the need to throw out there, if there isn’t a problem, why the defense? The media IS biased. They are human just like everyone else, and they tend to heavily lean left history shows us. Are you asking me to believe they are above showing this because of their advanced training in journalism from left leaning institutions of learning? Are you going to run an article on how “Fair and Balanced” College Professors are also? Good luck. Let’s just call a spade a spade shall we? Obama is a “Dreamboat”, your side is gushing, and I don’t blame them.