Is this definite proof that the media is biased?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_media_coverage

This is the part of the story I want to highlight

• Democrats, overall, got more coverage — and more positive ink and airtime — than Republicans.

Answer 1

we don't need to look at anything to see proof. we are all living it.

Answer 2

It seems to me that the media tends to reflect the general feeling of the population for the most part. There is more positive air time and coverage of the Democratic candidates largely because the Republican candidates have more problems. Republicans are conflicted about their choices this election - they don't have a candidate who isn't highly flawed in light of their usual party agenda. When there is such dissention in the Republican ranks should the media report that all is well or report the truth? For a change the Democrats have a better field of candidates and more Democrats are happy with their choices. The country is largely unhappy with what the Republicans have done, from Bush on down, and have been for years. That is reflected in the media as well. I think these things are a large factor in reporting. Also, the Republicans have been experiencing scandal after scandal and that is not the fault of the media. They report on it of course, and it adds to the negativity.

Not really sticking up for the media, they can certainly be a bunch of ijits. But it's not hard to understand why the Democrats are receiving more favorable press than the Republicans. It is what it is.

Answer 3

In this case, yes there was a bias, but that does not mean the media is always biased. This study only covered the first four months of the campaigning, when Obama was featured prominently, and before Thompson entered the race.

These reasons for the greater coverage of the Democrats are in the original study:

"Democrats generally got more coverage than Republicans, (49% of stories vs. 31%.) One reason was that major Democratic candidates began announcing their candidacies a month earlier than key Republicans, but that alone does not fully explain the discrepancy.

Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.

Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical.

There were also distinct coverage differences in different media. Newspapers were more positive than other media about Democrats and more citizen-oriented in framing stories. Talk radio was more negative about almost every candidate than any other outlet. Network television was more focused than other media on the personal backgrounds of candidates. For all sectors, however, strategy and horse race were front and center."

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

Answer 4

I looked this up, thinking you were claiming the media has a -liberal- bias. But actually the article DOES show the media is biased. The article shows the importance of money in politics and also how the media influences the way we think.

You can't be taken seriously in a presidential election in the US unless you come into the race with a lot of money. Bill Clinton and GW Bush have one thing in common--they both came into their respective races with the most money, and from that point on the media treated them like the presumptive candidate. All the other candidates in those races were treated as also-rans from the very start. Of course this became a self-fulfilling prophesy. Consequently we no longer have elections in the US, we have -auctions-.

The whole purpose of the first amendment, of a free press, is so that Americans can get the information they need to make decisions at the polls. But the media care more about maximizing their audience, maximizing their profits. And these two goals are not always compatible. The consolidation of major media into a few huge companies has not helped, or the deregulation of media and the end of the 'fairness doctrine'. One-sided talk radio (either side!) doesn't help because it leads people to confuse party propaganda with actual facts.

Answer 5

It seems you missed this part of the article that explains the alleged bias you see:

• Stories focused more on fundraising and polls than on where candidates stood on the issues, despite a public demand for more attention to the policies, views and records of the candidates.

Since the Democratic candidates are raising more money, (And have had a scandal related to that) there will be more stories about them. In addition, since the Democratic field is basically down to two candidates, the polls regarding them will be more important and thus get more coverage than the polls in the more crowded Republican field, where the polls now will be less likely to indicate the eventual nominee.

Answer 6

no its just proof the the media didnt have anything to report. when they said 3 out of 10 stories where negative 4 out of 10 stories were neutral and the rest were positive that tells me they were balanced. that would me 3 were positive also. and they were reporting on all the fundraising because there was nothing else to report on.

Answer 7

The media has a tremendous amount of control over "the trend of things". They are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats and they can easily institute a recession, from all the negative news they publish. The worst I think is cbs evening news.

Answer 8

No. I believe Westhill gave a pretty good explanation of this in the other thread on this page about that article.

The only thing the media is bias towards is making whomever owns them money.

Answer 9

Then why did Hillary Clinton get fewer positive stories than any of the top 5 candidates?

Answer 10

maybe there is just better things about democrats to print and say than there is about republicans right now....

Answer 11

The Media has been biased for many years, they are desperate now and they are letting it show.