Look whose political coverage is most fair and balanced
Wonder what the Fox News Derangement Syndrome patients will say about this? Can I get a cackle up in here:
TV election news has been hardest on Hillary Clinton this fall, while Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have been the biggest media favorites, according to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University. The study also found that Fox NewsChannel’s evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks.
The press release subheadline is funny…and telling:
“Obama, Huckabee Fare Best; FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo)”
More:
Who’s Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.
On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- AMERICAN NONSENSE » Center For Media and Public Affairs Finds Fox News Most Balanced
- Who's Fair And Balanced? | The Pungo Picayune
- JunkYardBlog
- FOX is the Most Balanced U.S. Media « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Brutally Honest
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Hillary Clinton, Media Bias
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
Wow, what a surprise. Network evals of Republican candidates were 60% negative compared to 53% negative for Dems.
A shocker.
I just wonder how MSM and leftie loons will spin this. How they hate FOX for telling both sides of issues. It’s much, much harder to promote propaganda on FOX.
I am waiting for Hillary to appear on The Factor, though I am sure pigs will fly first.
This is going to send Move on, Kos and Media Matter For America, right over the edge. This way they won’t have to explain their weak view of National Security, in the face of Bhutto assassination, they are pathetic. Their approach let’s talk, the terrorist, okay will talk, while you hold this fuse and I light it!
They can just bash FNC all day.
Wonder how much it cost to produce this study? All they had to do was ask us and we could have told them the same thing as a general observation without the numerical specificity they added.
Seriously though, the Dems will continue to avoid FNC because they can’t afford to come under the scrutiny of “real” questions instead of the softball BS they get handed in their so-called “debates”.
Jeff Foxworthy’s 5th graders could ask better questions.
Fox news blatant non coverage of Fred Thompson makes me sick.
George Mason University is Dr. Walter Williams former (?) employer. Not surprising at all.
I wish you were still doing prime time on FNC. We could sure use you there today.
The way this will get spun is that FOX News is more positive towards the republican canidates than the rest of the media is.
The usual suspects to gloat “Well of cource they are, those right-wing hacks… Those George Bush water-carriers…”, and ignore the fact that Fox is more positive towards Dem canidates than the MSM is too…
The wing-nuts don’t care about objectivity or fairness. They simply need SOMETHING to be disgruntled about and Fox just happens to be the most disparate from their normal diet of liberal media fare.
Frankly, why don’t you just ignore the lame stream media? It’s people speaking with people about what matters most to them where democracy happens. It’s called grass roots.
This study is basically worthless. It implies that all ideas and events are created equal and that both sides should be presented as such. Which is ludicrous.
For example, Guliani got a ton of negative coverage for using city money to have an affair. At the time he was one of the favorites so networks had to beat the Hell out of the story. So, obviously his positive/negative percentages will be slanted. They should be!
“Balance” isn’t nearly as important as objectivity.
It’s Bush’s fault. Or possibly the GOP secretly funded the study.
/sarc
To clarify, I’m not surprised that Fox News Channel would be judged fair and balanced. They really are fair and balanced.
Since we have to suffer through reports from non-thinkers like Geraldo and Shep, at times, it’s a little to balanced for me!
There is NO SUCH THING as objectivity when it comes to the media. Everything is weighed in terms of it’s impact (eyeballs collected). Whatever drives ratings (and advertising) is what we see.
…and, concerning objectivity, the MSM is an even bigger loser.
Naturally FOX gets bashed. It isn’t 90% negative to Republicans or conservatives and 90% warm and fuzzy to the left so it has to be biased in their fuzzy math minds.
Fox may be better, but they still treat the election as if they were commentating on a football game. Most of their time is spent on poles, style, and strategy.
Where’s the more in-depth analysis? The expected impact of the candidate’s proposals for the future? Their history, and the impact of the programs they backed in the past?
What I don’t understand about that is why.
this is what keeps me with FOX as my main TV news source.
I’ve pegged several of the on-air talent as Rudy fans, and more than one as a Romney fan.
The reasons Thompson doesn’t get much coverage are that the reports are pole and event driven. If your pole numbers are low, or dropping, and you don’t say anything to get you noticed, what are they going to report?
I like Thompson, but he has to do more to stir things up or people will forget he is in the race (Hunter? Tancredo?)
And nobody seems to be touching the Edwards scandal even though credible suspicion mounts.
http://deathby1000papercuts.blogspot.com/
As should Hillary’s for claiming she was involved with the Irish peace process even though in her book she describes chatting with the ladies about how the stainless steel teapot kept the tea warm. Or her involvement with Hsu, and keeping the money. Or Obama for never working – as in showing up and voting in the Senate. But in the MSM – all glossed over.
#5- I agree with you on the Thompson coverage. It lacks. However, he was just on discussing Butto’s assassination. Wow! He can speak truly unlike all the others. I hope Fred gets more coverage…..are you listening FOX?
If I have to watch the news on tv, it has to be FNC. The rest are a waste of time.
Not only that, earlier today, (and to my surprise), as the Bhutto assination coverage was unfolding, FOX NEWS WAS THE ONLY NETWORK CARRYING HILARY’S COMMENTS LIVE !!!
The video feed was a crude pic-fone type with pauses & skips, but the audio was complete and being broadcast interrupted. I actually didn’t want to hear it, and as I began flipping channels, I found that NO ONE ELSE was covering it…
Go figure, the news fair & balanced if when you don’t want it.
Once the democratic party has annointed its candidate, you can expect the MSM to increase that 47% positive rating for dems to something closer to 100%.
The lack of Thompson coverage is disturbing enough, but if that were true Wrcnossen, it does not explain why there has been not 1 story on or commentary about Guliani for a period of 25 days starting after Thanksgiving. Heck he leads in national polls. Now it is fair enough that coverage of his campaign should fall off during the run up to the initial caucuses as he is not trying to compete in those, but it appears Fox news has blacklisted Giuliani campaign coverage.
If you just watched Fox you would have no idea that he is the leading GOP candidate.
Only Dick Morris on O’Reily brought him up again the other day in his predictions for super tuesday primaries.
I know Fox is, “fair and balanced”, because I have to use my remote to mute the liberal/Democrat view about 50% of the time.
I agree Sisyphus. Nothing on Rudy at all on Fox or anywhere. I’ve been leaning towards Rudy but now I’m feeling like he is tainted somehow.
As it has been said before, I say again. How can anyone support a candidate for president and expect them to handle world affairs, when they are afraid of Fox News and the fact that they may have to answer a real question.
If you cannot take the heat, you do not deserve the seat.
The next primaries are Iowa and New Hampshire – and Rudy wrote them off long ago and isn’t campaigning there. He’s in Florida. I still say that FOX or any other news outlet sticks with the next event of the day – Iowa. If you aren’t putting up a fight to come up in the polls there, you get no coverage.
Rusty
Objective like the MSM jumps all over this story about Queen Hillary.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillarys-press-release-on-benazir-bhutto
What a lying POS this woman is.
Yeah, one visit to Pakistan, and she’s a foreign relations “expert”. Must be that osmosis thing kicking in again.
This looks like Facts. The left does not know what to do facts. Giving facts to a Liberal is the same as throwing water on a cat.
Sent Media Matters a link to the study, got back a auto-reply.
Thank you for contacting Media Matters for America. We appreciate
your suggestions, questions, and comments. If appropriate, we will
respond to your message as soon as possible.
If you have sent us a story tip — thank you! Media Matters relies
on your vigilance. Keep them coming!
If you are writing with a comment or response to one of our items,
please consider sharing your thoughts in our forums at the bottom
of every item we publish. You can register for an account at
https://mediamatters.org/users/sign_up .
Thanks for reading Media Matters!
Sincerely,
Media Matters Staff
Would love to be a fly on the wall when one of Hillary’s puppets actually reads the article & my note that they would not understand fairness in the media if it kicked them in the as*
pirate
LOL Pirate. Throwing water on the cats. Watch them jump.
Here is what I got back from slimeon.org Care to bet if I get a response?
Thanks for contacting MoveOn.org.
We welcome your comments and suggestions.
We get a lot feedback, so please don’t count on a personal reply.
But all mail is read and carefully considered.
Sincerely,
MoveOn.org Support
This study is no more useful than the one that supposedly proved O’Reilly is a fascist. It is a colossal waste of time to try to quantify things that are inherently not quantifiable; even more so when the organization doing the study has an obvious bias of their own [their founder and president is a regular Fox News contributor].
And let’s not forget, these are the cable news networks we’re talking about. Why do we even pretend they air anything but tabloid sensationalism?
tried to drop the info on dailykos, but you can’t post anything until 24 hours have passed from sign-up time.
huggybear, some GM facts from their website.
A Brief History of George Mason University
George Mason University’s growing reputation as an innovative educational leader is rooted in Virginia’s strong educational tradition.
The university began as the Northern Virginia branch of the University of Virginia in 1957. Eager to support the fledgling institution, the Town (now City) of Fairfax purchased 150 acres in 1958 and donated it to the University of Virginia for a permanent branch campus. In March 1966, the General Assembly authorized the expansion of George Mason College into a four-year, degree-granting institution and gave it the long-range mandate to expand into a major regional university.
pirate
Hmmm…imagine that. the study shows that the MSM has a bias against Republicans and the Liberal troll says it is worthless. Wow…anyone else shocked by this?
I didn’t think so.
Just like no one is surprised when it shows the opposite and they defend it to the death and slaim that the people who write the study are geniuses.
You trolls are as predictable as a nuclear clock.
katieanne, I can promise you, if The Beast appeared on The BOR Show he would cower as he does with any recognized person, examples…Al Shrapton, Hi-jack Jackson, or his good buddy Whorealdo the Spitter? The BOR is much more demanding of right wingers than he is of lefties.
But for the sake of the exposure i’d love to see it. If you want a good interview have Britt Hume question her. My dream interview would be HRC with Ann Coulter or MM. Hillary would quietly bow her head and drift back into oblivion where her and bubba belong.
Where does the CMPA get its funding from?
My favorite MSM political treatment.
Endless aspirations on Romney’s Mormonism. Not a single question for Harry Reid, also a Mormon.
I’m not a “liberal troll,” although thanks for the charming ad hominem attack. Note that I also called a rencent liberal-biased study worthless as well, or is that inconsequential to you?
I am a statistician by trade, and I can assure you – it is difficult enough to render something meaningful from things that are readily quantifiable. Do you have any idea how difficult it is get an accurate count of something as ambiguous as “positive/negative coverage?” What criteria does one use to delineate the two? Is there a category for “neither positive nor negative?” Is there a scale? Are the people reviewing blinded to which network the information is coming from? Each of these things has an enormous impact on the outcome of such studies, and as a statistician, these are the first questions I ask when confronted with the results of any statistical analysis.
My point stands – these studies are little more than blog fodder. Completely meaningless.
huggy, my suggestion is you do some research into how they conducted the study before dissing it. Just an idea, but you never know, you may get the answers to your questions. By the way I don’t see how my info. post was an attack on you, just a quick snip of how GM came into being.
ezupirate75 – First, I was speaking to RetFireman, not you. My apologies for not making that more clear.
Second, I examined the press release. The info is extremely sparse. For starters, they don’t provide confidence intervals for their point estimates, which should give pause to anyone with even basic statistical training. And their “description” of methodology is a complete joke [here's your cackle, Michelle - HA!] – just declaring yourself a “research organization that uses scientific content analysis” does not count. I’m not even sure what “scientific content analysis” is supposed to mean. If they’re going to invent jargon, they could at least make it sound believable.
Huggy, The press release is sparse at best. I googled Dr. Lichter & it looks as if they have been doing this for 20 years. One note I picked up was how the networks used sound bites, after seeing his study CBS started using longer sound bites. Looks as if his funding comes from a mix of both liberal & conservative sources so he must not be too much of a partisan hack. I am searching for more info. on his study group & will post what I find.
I’m actually shocked that these numbers don’t look even worse for the rest of the MSM (as they have in other surveys). I suppose it depends on exactly what the study looked at. Some focus on the number of negative vs. positive stories under a D or R president, etc. while others look at tone, etc.
Dr. Lichter is a paid Fox News consultant.
From FoxNews.com:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_analysis
description of content analysis, appears it has been around for quite some time & is recognized in the academic community as legitimate
Mookie, being a analyst for Fox doesn’t make one a partisan hack, think Juan Williams & Alan Colmes. His writings has been carried by both conservative WSJ & the liberal LA Times. Usually when I see that it means he is a straight shooter. I will grant you that I don’t know much about him & his work, but when diverse groups cite him that is typically a good thing.
One of the things this I’ve often said is that while the media is biased to the left, it’s biased more towards being contrarian. The negativity towards Democratic candidates supports that.
In other words, they’re clearly biased against Republicans, but if they can shoot down anyone, regardless of party, they will.
I didn’t say he was a partisan hack. But I think anyone would agree that his status as a Fox employee brings the legitimacy of the study into question, especially since his status as a Fox contributor was not mentioned in the study.
Mookie, from Wikapedia on his funding
Private foundation financial reports show that CMPA initially relied heavily on funding from conservative foundations such as the Sarah Scaife and John M Olin foundations. Since the early 1990s, however, its funding base has diversified to include more liberal foundations such as the Ford Foundation, Pew Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Kaiser Family Foundation.
Do you have a link to anything more than the press release? It was very light on facts to look at.
Pirate #53, It’s Alan Combover.
never a good look for anyone of any political persuasion.
When I watch Fox & they have a political discussion they almost always have a Dem. analyst & a Rep. analyst & while I have never put a stop watch on it, it appears they get about the same amount of time. The last time I watched MSNBC, Olberman had on Randi Rhodes of Air America & a Dem. analyst & that was considered a fair discussion by their standards.
So you’re the one that watched MSNBC. LOL. Lets remember, the democrats refuse to go on FOX News and later they will claim that they didn’t get any time. Hillary on O’Reilly? It’s not going to happen. You see we’re in the middle of global warming so there is no way hell will freeze over.
ezupirate75 – Fair enough about content analysis, I spoke too soon! Still, a little more transparency on their part is all I ask.
I agree with Radiojoe1470 [#54] – the media may have a bias against Republicans, but when they smell blood, partisanship goes out the window. For the 24-hour networks, sensationalism [which leads to higher ratings, aka $$$] always comes first. Why do you think Fox hangs on to whats-his-’stache?
I’m sorry, the press release for the study or Richter working for Fox?
huggybear I was referring to rusty there Huggy…but if the guilt fits…
Maybe you should find out before YOU make an “ad hominem” attack.
And if you thought that was an attack…you must not have been reading my post very long poo-butt.
I’ll have to agree in general – just think Natalie Holloway. On the other hand, I still trust FNC a LOT more than I trust ABC/CBS/NBC hacks to get accurate, balanced news.
Television, Ew.
Mookie, The study, I can find lots on Lichter. All of the networks thrive on sensationalism, even Fox which has to be the only reason they keep the spitter.
Being Fox seems to have a nearly complete boycott on mentioning Fred Thompson (probably because he refuses to ‘come to the mountain’ of Bill O., or any other would-be media kingmakers), I’m not sure if they are completely fair and balanced. Watch their coverage and see if he is mentioned as much as you’d expect for somebody polling third in Iowa.
Well, actually, I am quite shocked. It was only 60% negative from the broadcast networks.
Maybe the subheadline should have read “Obama, Huckabee Fare Best;
FOX Is Most BalancedABC, CBS, NBC, et al Not Quite As Imbalanced (not a typo).”Did anyone actually see the report? (here)
Why weren’t the other cable news channels included in this study? They based Fox’s results on only the 1st 30 minutes of Brit Hume’s show…I wonder if the results would have been the same if the looked at O’Reilly of Hannity & Colmes?
Come on guys this was clearly a conservative-funded study!