Media Bias

Geraldine Ferraro wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe demanding an investigation into media bias.
In response, a group of women - from corporate executives to academics to members of the media - have requested that the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University and others conduct a study, which we will pay for if necessary, to determine three things.

First, whether either the Clinton or Obama campaign engaged in sexism and racism; second, whether the media treated Clinton fairly or unfairly; and third whether certain members of the media crossed an ethical line when they changed the definition of journalist from reporter and commentator to strategist and promoter of a candidate. And if they did to suggest ethical guidelines which the industry might adopt.
As luck would have it the Shorenstein Center has released a study.
Here is the link: arch_publications/reports/Character%20an d%20the%20Primaries%20of%202008.pdf

Turns out if there was any media bias it was not against Clinton:
Top Ten Campaign Stories, Jan 1 - May 4, 2008

1. Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright 6.4%
2. The issue of superdelegates 1.6%
3 Obama's "bitter" remark 1.5%
4 Florida and Michigan primary re-do 1.4%
5 McCain scandal - ethics/ lobbying history 1.3%
6 Role of Bill Clinton 1.2%
7 Pennsylvania Democratic debate 1.1%
8 Kennedy family endorses Obama 0.9%
9 McCain attempts to unite GOP 0.9%
10 Clinton's Bosnia story from 1996 0.9%

The Cable numbers were a real eye opener.
Percent of positive stories:

Morning News was totaly in the tank for Clinton:

Morning News
If Clinton and Obama had nearly identical success in the press overall, this was clearly not the case on network morning news shows. The first 30 minutes of these programs from January 1 through March 9 painted an especially positive personal narrative about Clinton, more so than the media overall and much rosier than the narrative image portrayed of Obama.

Fully 84% of the assertions studied were positive in tone, 16 percentage points higher than the media overall (68%). And Obama did not have quite as much success on morning TV as he did in other media. On the morning shows, 61% of the statements about him personally were positive, compared with 69% overall.

Network Evening News
The network evening news programs offered a more similar treatment of the two Democratic rivals and a more positive portrayal of all three than did the media overall. Roughly three-quarters of the assertions studied about the two Democrats supported positive themes (75% for Clinton and 77% for Obama) as did 52% of those about McCain.

All in all not the results Bill and Geraldine were expecting.

Tags: Ferraro media bias Clinton Obama (all tags)



Re: Media Bias

someone else reported last night about this.

The research DID not include op-eds or "opinion shows", such as Maureen Dowd and others.

read here: 39/775

by colebiancardi 2008-05-30 04:35PM | 0 recs
finally - a study that gets it right!

msnbc clearly had 2% more favourable stories about HRC than BO.  all those talking heads at msnbc love HRC and hate BO.  and they never were sexist, what are people thinking?  

forget all those other studies that say there was media bias- we finally get the truth!

by canadian gal 2008-05-30 05:22PM | 0 recs
Well well well! No Media Bias after all

Thank you

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-30 04:35PM | 0 recs
Oh my god

couldn't Geraldine take a long vacation and come back next year in time to shake hands and congratulate President Obama?  

Enough is enough.  Getting so angry at not getting what you want shouldn't lead one to fly off the handle and hurt their own party and the platform they supposedly support.

The tought of a self-described feminist helping John McCain get elected over someone like Barack Obama makes my head spin.  

by Sun Dog 2008-05-30 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Media Bias

A better diary would have explained the methodology of this study. For instance, what constitutes a positive news story?

by 1986dude 2008-05-30 04:59PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads