NationStates Jolt Archive

linky: careful! PDF file!!!! (http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf)

Election Study Finds Media Hit Hillary Hardest
Obama, Huckabee Fare Best; FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo)

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.

If you know where I live, you'll find out that I have no access to them channels on TV; 'cept in the 'net.

I think that the media as a whole reports news garnished with some other stuff that is best left to someplace else. Perhaps we need to take "news", regardless of source, with a grain of salt - until we die of sodium overload.

What do you think? ('bout the article and other stuff...)

Are you sure that isn't a typo. The only time I've heard Fox and balanced in the same sentence was at a carnival with an acrobatic fox.

Too much of a leap?

Did you know Karl Rove is an Alumni of GMU?

Not surprised Hillary is hit hardest, slightly surprised by FOX being the most partisan, indeed so surprised that I checked the source and thus discovered the tidbit of information up above.

Fair and balanced indeed, I hope all you communists accept this now :)

First question that springs to mind is "how do they operationalise the concept 'balance'?"

The answer is fairly embarassing.

I don't why people would be surprised.

Fox is biased, but it's certainly no more biased than CNN or the network news. It's just slanted towards the other side and it takes all of the abuse.

What do you think? ('bout the article and other stuff...)


Well, when most studies seem to indicate the opposite, and the raison d'etre of the channel is to be pro-conservative, one must start at the root. Who are the CMPA, for instance.....

CMPA's claim to be 'non-partisan' is undermined by an analysis of its sources of funding. Information provided by mediatransparency.org [4] reveals that the overwhelming proportion of CMPA's funding comes from conservative foundations. The funding information, covering 1986-2002, lists the following donors:

Carthage Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $267,000 from 5 donations
Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation - $730,000 from 15 donations
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $760,000 from 9 donations
Smith Richardson Foundation - $416,916 from 3 donations
Thus, out of the total of $2,523,916, nearly all of it ($2,173,916) came from just three sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. In other words, CMPA received 86% of its funding from those 3 donors. Here is a sample of other right-wing causes funded by these 3 donors, as listed by their respective SourceWatch articles:

John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century
Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation
Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs

Even more revealing......

Staff
S. Robert Lichter - President. Robert Lichter is a paid consultant to the Fox News Channel [6], and a former fellow of the American Enterprise Institute (my bold and underline)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs

Therefore, in summation, I'd think it can be safely categorised as 'a load of wank', to use the vernacular.

I don't why people would be surprised.

Fox is biased, but it's certainly no more biased than CNN or the network news. It's just slanted towards the other side and it takes all of the abuse.

'other side' of what? The line between attempting to appear independent of corporate toadying and not even making the attempt?

The difference between Fox and CNN is how far to the right they are.

lets look at that quote again

"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."

ive never watched the foxnews evening news show and i doubt i ever will. i dont watch the CNN or MSNBC evening news shows either.

i have seen other news shows on foxnews on rare occasions and have found those shows to be annoyingly biased (but that was during the last presidential election season). they took the conservative spin on whatever kerry story was big the day i watched without the least amount of reality check or bone-toss to a more favorable interpretation to the story.

in any case, i find that its the rest of foxnews that is completely biased. as i said above, ive never watched their evening news show.

Fox is easily quiet biased.

Well, when most studies seem to indicate the opposite, and the raison d'etre of the channel is to be pro-conservative, one must start at the root. Who are the CMPA, for instance.....


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs

Even more revealing......

(my bold and underline)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs

Therefore, in summation, I'd think it can be safely categorised as 'a load of wank', to use the vernacular.

In other words, the group which found Fox to be fair and balanced was neither?

Well, when most studies seem to indicate the opposite, and the raison d'etre of the channel is to be pro-conservative, one must start at the root. Who are the CMPA, for instance.....


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs

Even more revealing......

(my bold and underline)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs

Therefore, in summation, I'd think it can be safely categorised as 'a load of wank', to use the vernacular.

Well, that about wraps that up.

Well, that about wraps that up.

And they would have got away with it too if it hadn't been for us meddling kids. :)

First question that springs to mind is "how do they operationalise the concept 'balance'?"

The answer is fairly embarassing.

Holy crap, it is.


The Center for Media and Public Affairs is a media research organization that uses scientific content
analysis to study news and entertainment media content. CMPA is affiliated with the George Mason
University, where CMPA President Dr. S. Robert Lichter is Professor of Communications.

CMPA has monitored every presidential election since 1988 using the same methodology, in which
trained coders tally all mentions of candidates and issues and all evaluations of candidates. We report
the evaluations by non-partisan sources, excluding comments by the candidates and campaigns about
each other, because research shows that non-partisan sources have the most influence on public
opinion, and they are also more subject to the discretion of reporters. However, we maintain data files
on partisan evaluations as well.

That's the method, now look at how they determine it, picking at random-
Among Republicans, Mike Huckabee fared best with evenly balanced
coverage * 50% positive and 50% negative evaluations by reporters and sources. Fred Thompson came
next with 44% positive comments, followed by Mitt Romney with 40% positive, Rudy Giuliani with
39% positive, and John McCain with 33% positive.

Look, balance isn't "Now say something nice about him." If someone does nothing but shitty things, it does not mean that you have to find a whole bunch of nice things to say in order to report it with 'balance.' This is maybe the worst criteria for balance. Not to mention that they didn't give their criteria for what is negative and what is positive.

I tried to start a thread on this next subject, but it didn't take-
The campaign coverage has been relatively issue oriented -- 188 stories dealt with
policy issues, 191 with campaign strategy and tactics, 162 on the candidates' standings in the horse
race, and 122 on heir personal backgrounds. (A story could cover more than one of these topics.) The
most frequently debated policy issues were #1. Illegal immigration, 32 stories; #2 Iraq, 22 stories; #3
Electoral reforms, 18 stories; #4 Abortion, 13 stories; #5 Iran, 12 stories.
This is out of 481 stories. 191 stories on campaign strategy and 162 on the standing in the horse race, 351 of the stories-vs. 300 on policy and background and this is an issues focused race? Are they looking at their own numbers?

We get reported the race and not the candidate, and I think that that influences who is elected disproportionately.

And they would have got away with it too if it hadn't been for us meddling kids. :)

We're no match for bloggers, I'm afraid...

Therefore, in summation, I'd think it can be safely categorised as 'a load of wank', to use the vernacular.

A study paid for by fox supporters, led by someone who gets paid directly by Fox finds that Fox is the most fair and balanced ?

I am... disappointed. Fox is usually more sneaky.

We're no match for bloggers, I'm afraid...

Perhaps we should work on that.

Perhaps we should work on that.

I don't like the lack on interaction on blogs, and would be loathe to pose as a sexy 25 year old woman to attract readers.....funny though it would be.

I am... disappointed. Fox is usually more sneaky.
Foxes are sneaky...
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/667/foxqb7.png

Anyways, do you think Hillary is indeed receiving unfavorable coverage?

FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo)

http://web.syr.edu/~rtharper/bullshit.jpg

I saw that "study" a few years back -- it also claimed that Nixon was the most honest president and Reagan was elected US president in elementary school.

Click Stand;13328938']Are you sure that isn't a typo. The only time I've heard Fox and balanced in the same sentence was at a carnival with an acrobatic fox.

Too much of a leap?

Not a typo, just horseshit.

Checking your sources means more than just knowing that someone other than the person who tells you the story is the person who made it up.

Center for Media and Public Affairs. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs)

What do you think? ('bout the article and other stuff...)The "balanced" is misleading. Positive vs. negative portrayal balance says little over the overall quality of the portrayal.

Oh yeah.....

Fox Is Vindicated! It Is the Mostest Fairest And Balancest Ever!...Well, Not Really (http://foxattacks.com/blog/22875-fox-is-vindicated-it-is-the-mostest-fairest-and-balancest-ever-well-not-really).

A study funded by Fox supporters finding favourable results, funny that!