Updated MRC Iraq Study: ABC, CBS, NBC Still Airing Six Negative Stories to Every Positive
Just in time for the media’s latest knee-jerk reflex of gloom preceding this week’s elections, MRC’s Rich Noyes has updated his study of Iraq war coverage on ABC, CBS, and NBC. A new review of media coverage in October and November continues the pessimistic trend, with the traditional broadcast networks airing six stories in negative tones for every Iraq story with a positive angle. Read the whole thing for a summary of John Murtha’s instant TV stardom and Jake Tapper’s readiness to believe wild claims of detainee abuse, carefully excluding wacky claims that American soldiers use lions to scare detainees. The official story count falls this way:
[B]etween October 1 and November 30….we could classify only 34 stories (10%) as positive or optimistic, compared to 200 (62%) that emphasized negativity or pessimism about the Iraq mission, a six-to-one disparity. (The remaining 90 stories were neutral.) During the first nine months of the year, we found 211 stories (15%) emphasizing positive developments, compared with 848 (61%) that relayed mainly bad news. For the year, the number of negative stories on Iraq stands at 1,048 (61%), to just 245 positive stories (14%).
Once again, the people who live there think things are going okay. But they don't know any better...the Liberals at CNNMSNBCABCCBSNBC have a much better handle on the war.
This does matter people. How else can so many people think the war is going poorly? There are voting AGAIN....they have a democratic government in the middle is the Islamic world...they are going to spur freedom and peace to the middle east...and we have to listen to 62% bad stories...but I'm sure all the libs in the news rooms who hate Bush and hate war in general have nothing to do with the stories that are put on the air...I'm sure that almost everything that happens in Iraq is bad...
Posts
22 comments:
Thanks for visiting my blog.
When it comes to wars, I respect John Murtha's opinion because he has first hand knowledge of the experience. When it comes to torture, I respect John McCain's opinion because he has first hand knowledge of the experience. If the Bush WH took other's opinions under consideration on occasion, they might get a few more positive stories thrown their way.
I doubt it...what proof is there of that?
Sounds like rob.m is expressing an opinion which I don't think requires proof.
I have an issue with the story besides the obvious bias of the MRC. I don't know anything about MRC, but the tone of the article is very biased.
I notice there is no "control" group in this study. Not even Fox News. There actually is no way to measure the bias of the networks based on the number of positive versus negative stories. To measure such a bias you would have to show that, all things being equal, all events related to the war in Iraq can be evaluated objectively to be in balance positive versus negative.
In other words there is no way to "prove", as you say, that there AREN'T six times as many objectively negative events as positive.
So I see no actual value in this "study" except to provide fodder for those who insist that the media is blatantly biased liberal.
That's a rather simplistic, narrow spectrum of opinions that rob m. has limited himself to.
Fortunately, Bush doesn't consider Murtha and McCain's opinions witht the same gravity. Murtha speaks nonsense. EH had some excellent quotes from Murtha, indicating Murtha probably does have some Alzheimers setting in.
McCain's public opinions are simply what he believes will pacify both sides. McCain has a fierce desire to be President. How long has McCain been waiting and hoping and wishing to be President? I've lost track. And I honestly don't believe McCain has any integrity at all. 'Opinions' to McCain are just a means to a Presidental reign.
Just proving that the media focuses on the negative...there are thousands of stories happening in Iraq every day...if they wanted to show a few more positive stories they could...
They don't want to because of the fact they are naturally biased to Bush and war
Brent Bozell's take on Newsweek's "Bush in a Bubble" cover story.......
This part addresses McCain (whom I despise). The rest of it addresses self centered reporters.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brentbozell/2005/12/14/179002.html
in 1999, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter professed love for McCain because he returned calls: "Reporters can be bought cheap with a little cooperation when we need it. For years, McCain has reliably returned press calls with a candid line or two." McCain indulged their pushy adviser impulses, as Slate's Jacob Weisberg praised McCain's willingness to listen to his school-voucher ideas: "When McCain flatters you, it doesn't feel automatic or calculated. He truly likes us journalists." In the end, however, all it got McCain was loving articles. Bush became president.
Just in case rob m. is afraid to read anything at townhall, here's an excerpt from the same article that addresses how beneficial it is to listen to others' silly opinions:
Early in the article, Thomas and Wolffe hang the hats of bipartisanship on their Bubble-Boy critique by noting Sen. Richard Lugar "cited Bill Clinton as the model" of consultation with the other party. And what in blazes did that accomplish? Did Clinton consult before his Wag-the-Dog two-day wars? Did Clinton get Osama bin Laden? Or did Clinton follow Murtha's actual advice to him and withdraw from Somalia and embolden Osama? They also cite John F. Kennedy, whose consultation skills didn't exactly help at the Bay of Pigs.
The same goes for domestic political consultation. Thomas and Wolffe hail Daddy Bush as a Murtha-consulting role model. The Thomas-Wolffe story ends by citing Daddy Bush's heroic tax increase as "doing the right thing." He consulted with Democrats and raised taxes. And spending went through the roof, the deficit rising to all-time highs. But he talked it out, slapped some backs, shook some hands. He moved left, and he lost.
I hate to preach at rob m......wait a minute, no I don't.
I put part of this article under "More Good News Makes Dems Look Bad". I dare rob m. to read the entire article and then argue his above statements intelligently.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301502.html
If there were provably more negative events in Iraq than positive, but the media ran equal negative/positive, would that be biased in favor of the administration?
What IS Fox's ratio?
Negative versus positive is in the mind of the beholder, Jim. The Right KNOWS how the Left LOVES to twist anything Right to give the illusion of having negative consequences. That's part of what the media bias argument is all about: the semantic antics of the liberal MSM. If the MSM would just stop abusing their influence on the general public, by ceasing publications with their prejudiced political party spins, the Right would have a much larger following than it already does.
But when the Right fights back with the same sort of crap the Left dishes out in their MSM publications (such as the 'white flag' commercial), the howling immature liberal babies cry and scream with temper tantrum mentalities. Go figure.
And Jim, I'm sure that some sort of objective criteria were used as a basis for evaluating the MSM articles as being either positive or negative. In this type of study, a "control group" is not an option. In it's place there is a list of criteria which usually has been thoroughly evaluated by language experts, and also in this case experts on what has occurred in the war versus what has been publicized. The criteria issue is usually established BEFORE the study is even begun, so that those evaluating the criteria for negative or positive connotations do no even know what sort of study there criteria will be used for (aka they are 'blind' to this knowledge). Thus they have no reason to predetermine one way or another whether they 'should' place a value of negative or positive on the articles based on their own political ideations. This allows for the most accurate data researchers can hope to achieve.
I would like to see Fox's ratio...I"m sure it is still more negative than positive, but closer to 50/50
McCain and Murtha are resting on their laurels just as Kerry tried to do. Here I listed the 'laurels' of Murtha and Kerry with those of some other famous persons of war; Quisling, Petain, and Benedict Arnold.
So, John, John, and John, we know of and respect your pasts, but what have YOU done lately? That is what the debate is TODAY.
StephanieRose said,
"Negative versus positive is in the mind of the beholder."
That bold statement not only makes the "study" pointless but contradicts everything else she says.
And what experts could possibly exist that can compare everything that has happened in the war to what is being publicized?
The website that this post links to is "News Busters, Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias". NewsBusters.org is a project of the Media Research Center which conducted this study.
The MRC website says it is "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias"
Now, you are going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that this study had no pre-conceived bias in the way it was conducted and the interpretation of its results?
Jim, your bitterness is out of control. Negatives and positives ARE largely in the mind of the beholder. However, there are key factors to consider which enlighten us to whether or not publications are from a biased viewpoints. One of those factors is the type of language used, thus the need for language experts. These experts can determine whether 'flammable' terms and presentations of the materials in question are used. Another consideration is the use of military experts. And no, there is not one single person that knows EVERYTHING, however, there are individuals who have dedicated their entire careers to analyzing events within specific wars, and by virtue of their knowledge gained through their studies they have obtained an expert status. The studies do not call on these experts to give political opinions. The studies' simply request that the military experts review the media data for accuracy. The studies' purposes are not known to the experts who have been consulted about the criteria, thus the term used in these sorts of studies, is "blind". This allows greater objectivity within the study.
The determinations of both the language experts, and the military experts are then analyzed further. At this point a correlation factor, using mathematical equations, is determined for the set criteria evaluations between both the language experts and the military experts, which gives the study a margin of error after the data has been evaluated using the findings of both sets of experts.
So yes, I can sit here with a straight face and say that an organization with a purpose such as MRC's can be perfectly unbiased in their studies, when the studies are conducted using sound research methodology.
And Jim, these studies are much more accurate than the random phone call polls the liberals LOVE to quote.
Jim: "That bold statement not only makes the "study" pointless but contradicts everything else she says."
Well, Jim, I hope my above post explained to you, in simple enough language for you to understand why what I said (above in quotes by you) does NOT make the study pointless, NOR does it contradict everything else I said.
You see .....the "control" in these types of studies IS the use of 'blind' expert evaluations of the variables (definitions criteria) which will be considered for the positive and negative determinations during the analysis and for the final study results.
Using these sorts of 'controls' effectively minimizes the inherent bias that comes with human nature, such as my example of "negative and postitive is in the mind of the beholder".
These studies are more accurate than random phone calls, or random Internet polling.
This study is not difficult to conduct or understand...If you noticed many of the reports were considered neutral...I'm sure there were very few stories where it wasn't clear what kind of tone was being sent...
I'm aware of that:) I was also addressing Jim's comment about a lack of a "control group" in this study. In these types of study designs, the traditional sort of 'control group' others' think of cannot be used. In it's place is a different sort of 'control', such as a set of rules to evaluate the criteria that will be used to determine which publications are placed in either the positive or negative and neutral categories. How that set of rules is determined affects the reliability of the study.
Wow, you obviously are well educated in language, polling, statistics and so forth. Is there a book where I can read this information?
I'm bitter? I have a stick up my butt? What an amazing judge of character you are!
Why isn't Fox News in the study?
Jim:
Perhaps you meant to phrase your reply in the following manner:
"Wow! Obviously you are well....."
My answer:
When I choose to be.
I don't know if there is any one particular book you can read about the subject. I had to critique the research methods of hundreds of research articles over 7 years of college. Sometimes reading the stats on how they arrived at their conclusions were several pages longer than the article containing the research body. It can be a painfully tedious task, as dry as dust.
I despise arrogant attitudes, and do my best to avoid them.
McCain wouldn't back down from his torture bill because he figured that would be the wisest political stance to assume at this time. McCain's plans are to have the Democrats and the RINO's, weaker Republicans in his corner when the time comes for the Presidential elections. McCain's torture stance doesn't have anything to do with his own principles. McCain doesn't have principles, just political aspirations.
Damn it, I have been on the phone all morning while trying to read the news and the blogs. I just hate it when work interferes with my fun:)
Jim, how many research thesis papers have you conducted? And if you do have a masters, was is quantitative or qualitative...if it wasn't quantitative you probably have no idea about the intricacies of stats.
Post a Comment