Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (8502)	3/14/2005 12:40:08 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

State of the American News Media 2005 Outside The Beltway Posted by James Joyner at 11:31 Yesterday's release by The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s "State of the American News Media 2005" report is drawing substantial coverage in both traditional and new media. <<< Study Finds No Media Bias on War, Hits Fox News As Most One-Sided (Editor and Publisher) [....] The Washington-based project examined more than 2,000 stories on the war in Iraq and found that 25% of the stories were negative and 20% were positive. “The majority of stories were just news," said the project’s director, Tom Rosenstiel. Fox News Channel was twice as likely to be positive than negative, while CNN and MSNBC were evenhanded. The three network evening newscasts tended to be more negative than positive, while the opposite was true of morning shows, the study said. A more limited analysis of campaign coverage found that Bush received more negative, and less positive, coverage than Kerry during the fall campaign. Rosenthiel thinks this may be partly because a president in office always gets more criticism, and the setbacks in the war added to this. There are clear differences between Fox News and its cable rivals, the study found. Fox News stories contain more sources and reveal more about them than those of its competitors, but its stories are also more one-sided and are more opinionated. Indeed, Fox News journalists offer their own opinion in seven out of ten stories on the news channel, versus less than one in ten stories on CNN and one in four on MSNBC. editorandpublisher.com >>> It's unclear, though, what counted as a news report to begin with. Surely, "Hannity & Colmes" doesn't count as news; it's an opinion show. For that matter, Fox News' flagship program, "Fox Special Report with Brit Hume," is a pure news report for the first 40-45 minutes or so every weeknight and then culminates in a journalist roundtable where guests provide their analysis of the news. One wouldn't expect the roundtable to be opinion-free. NRO's Tim Graham is skeptical of this finding as well. Further, as Michael Demmons points out, "Being 'unbiased' does not mean you're obligated to a 1:1 ratio of reporting positives and negatives." Quite right. It all depends on events on the ground. WaPo's Howie Kurtz, though, reports it dutifully. He cites a bit of the Fox opinion from the report: The project defines opinion as views that are not attributed to others. <<< Last March, Fox reporter Todd Connor said that "Iraq has a new interim constitution and is well on its way to democracy." "Let's pray it works out," said anchor David Asman. Another time, after hearing that Iraqis helped capture a Saddam Hussein henchman, Asman said: "Boy, that's good news if true, the Iraqis in the lead." >>> So, hoping the war that the country is fighting has a happy outcome is biased journalism, whereas sourcing one's opinion that we shouldn't be there in the first place to somebody else is considered objective. Got it. And one has to love this example: <<< Fox legal editor Stan Goldman challenged the hiring of attorney Gloria Allred to represent Amber Frey (Scott Peterson's mistress), saying: "If you want to keep a low profile, Gloria is not the lawyer to represent you." >>> Presumably, this came in response to a question and he was acting in his capacity as an analyst, not reporter. Still, it's rather self-evident to anyone who has any knowledge of Allred. USA Today's Peter Johnson analyzes a different aspect of the report: "Non-traditional media gain ground, consumers." <<< When Tom Rosenstiel met with a group of local TV news directors last week, they told him that viewers watch local news on average two to 21/2 times a week — a far cry from just a few years ago when "Eyewitness News" teams drew viewers every day. Now, local news anchors "can no longer say 'As we told you yesterday,' because chances are people weren't watching yesterday," says Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which releases its second annual State of the News Media report today. The same phenomenon is affecting network news and newspapers, where viewers and readers are turning increasingly — and more regularly — to the Internet and cable for their news. The report finds that most news consumers now get their news from four different types of media in a typical week. "We as journalists need to communicate in an entirely different way if readers or viewers are only with us occasionally," he says. "We can't assume that they are loyal or that they trust us because they use us on a regular basis. We have to forge an entirely new relationship with people who are really no longer friends but acquaintances." >>> The report also offers an apparently contradictory assessment of the narrowcasting phenomenon: <<< The report finds that, with the exception of cable news and talk radio, the notion that consumers have retreated to ideological corners for their news is exaggerated; Democrats and Republicans both get their news from similar outlets. [...] [T]he traditional "journalism of verification" — in which reporters check facts — is ceding ground to a new "journalism of assertion," in which information is offered on radio and cable talk shows and via Internet bloggers, with little or no attempt to verify the facts. One of the consequences is that, increasingly, citizens can no longer agree on basic facts "because everyone is consuming their own kind of personal mix of media. The chances that we know the same thing, even if we're sitting in an office in a cubicle next to each other, is less than it used to be," Rosenstiel says. >>> Such is the nature of choice. If there's just three channels to choose from and they all have the news on at the same time, people are more likely to be watching the same thing than if there are 150 channels, 140 of which are not showing the news. outsidethebeltway.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8502)	3/14/2005 1:40:54 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

MSM Election Coverage: Incredibly Biased Little Green Footballs It must have been really bad, if even the Columbia School of Journalism is forced to admit it: <<< Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush. NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year’s election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday. The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator. Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. story.news.yahoo.com >>> Pretty stunning figures. (And I’m not talking about the Seven Windows ad.) But the LA Times focuses on another section of the report: Study Warns of Junk-News Diet. The Columbia School of Journalism has released a steady stream of anti-blog stories, and this conclusion is simply part of their bias. Get a load of how the report describes the fact-checking mechanism of blogs: <<< Rather than taking the time to gather and scrutinize each piece of information — the model for the mainstream media — the report said some bloggers hewed to another philosophy: “Publish anything, especially points of view, and the reporting and verification will occur afterward in the response of fellow bloggers.” >>> That’s absolute nonsense, at least as far as LGF is concerned. Before any possibly controversial stories are posted here, the facts are carefully checked. The responses from fellow bloggers and readers serve to catch those instances when the first line of fact-checking misses something, or is mistaken. The idea that blogs “publish anything” without regard for factual truth is a smear, pure and simple, coming from an organization that feels threatened by something it can’t understand. littlegreenfootballs.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8502)	3/14/2005 1:44:57 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush By Claudia Parsons Mon Mar 14,10:01 AM ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday. The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator. Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. The study looked at 16 newspapers of varying size across the country, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable programs and nine Web sites through the course of 2004. Examining the public perception that coverage of the war in Iraq (news - web sites) was decidedly negative, it found evidence did not support that conclusion. The majority of stories had no decided tone, 25 percent were negative and 20 percent were positive, it said. The three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative. Looking at public perceptions of the media, the report showed that more people thought the media was unfair to both Kerry and Bush than to the candidates four years earlier, but fewer people thought news organizations had too much influence on the outcome of the election. "It may be that the expectations of the press have sunk enough that they will not sink much further. People are not dismayed by disappointments in the press. They expect them," the authors of the report said. The study noted a huge rise in audiences for Internet news, particularly for bloggers whose readers jumped by 58 percent in six months to 32 million people. Despite the growing importance of the Web, the report said investment was not keeping pace and some 62 percent of Internet professionals reported cutbacks in the newsroom in the last three years, even more than the 37 percent of print, radio and TV journalists who cited cutbacks in their newsrooms. "For all that the number of outlets has grown, the number of people engaged in collecting original information has not," the report said, noting that much of the investment was directed at repackaging and presenting information rather than gathering news. story.news.yahoo.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8502)	3/15/2005 11:38:00 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

News Flash: Media Favored Kerry! Power Line I can't find the full report on the organization's web site, but Reuters says that the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which is affiliated with Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism, has issued a report that finds that "U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry." They study looked at stories in newspapers, network news broadcasts, morning news shows--probably the worst offenders--cable programs and a few web sites. The report's conclusions: <<< 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator. Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive. >>> That is really a stunning difference: almost two to one negative about Bush, and an astonishing two and a half to one positive for Kerry. It is almost impossible to see how a candidate could overcome such a disparity, but for this: <<< Looking at public perceptions of the media, the report showed that more people thought the media was unfair to both Kerry and Bush than to the candidates four years earlier, but fewer people thought news organizations had too much influence on the outcome of the election. "It may be that the expectations of the press have sunk enough that they will not sink much further. People are not dismayed by disappointments in the press. They expect them," the authors of the report said. >>> I think that's right. In a closely related development, the audience for blogs has surged: <<< The study noted a huge rise in audiences for Internet news, particularly for bloggers whose readers jumped by 58 percent in six months to 32 million people. >>> I think this is another in a series of inflated blog-reader numbers, but whatever the real number is, it's obviously pretty big--a lot bigger than it would be if people's expectations of the mainstream media weren't so dismal. Posted by Hindrocket powerlineblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8502)	3/15/2005 11:42:11 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

PRESTOPUNDIT YES, MOST REPORTERS are partisan Democrats. Here's just one more example: <<< TAE: How do you explain the media's response [to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth]? [JOHN] O'NEILL: The establishment media was very pro-Kerry. They were opposed to any story that was critical of Kerry, and I believe that they were captured by their own bias. We met with one reporter around that time. We told a story to him relating to Kerry's service. He acknowledged it was true and terribly important. And he told us he would not print it because it would help George Bush. That's when we began to realize we had a real problem on our hands. >>> Posted by Greg Ransom hayekcenter.org

To: Sully- who wrote (8502)	3/15/2005 1:16:40 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Media Bias Toward Kerry, Never Saw This Coming Scared Monkeys March 15th, 2005 by Red --> Reuters has reported by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry. <<< Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism The three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative. >>> All this help by the MSM and Kerry still couldn’t win. One really must wonder what election outcomes would be like if the MSM was actually fair in their reporting of the Party candidates. 24% more negative stories and 10 % less positive ones for GWB, and he still won by 3M votes and approximately 3% of the vote. Don’t ever let anyone tell you that we live in a 50-50 country. Even with the above referenced bias by the MSM they lost by 3%. Imagine the results without the media influence? The political races would not be close. Hat Tip: Powerline scaredmonkeys.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8502)	3/16/2005 12:34:52 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Mainstream tale-bearers The Washington Times: Opinion/Editorial If The Washington Post is like most big metropolitan newspapers, it will dismiss the recent study of the media by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which found that American newspapers were three times more likely to print negative news about President Bush than about Sen. John Kerry. After all, says Philip Bennett, the managing editor of The Post, "[m]ost big, metropolitan and urban newspapers were built in a strong Democratic tradition because they came from [an] urban environment and traditionally voted Democratic. So they tend to, on the editorial side, support Democratic views." Mr. Bennett said this in an interview with China's People's Daily, the government-controlled newspaper. Mr. Bennett concedes "there is a mood of great suspicion about the media." Why's that? "I think there is a perception among some of [The Post's] readers that we are hostile to the Bush administration or representing our own political point of view in our news coverage." "Perception" is a malleable term -- news coverage can be spun in multiple ways. But here's his take on the administration, Iraq and the U.S. media: "One of the jobs of [The Post's] correspondents in Baghdad is to tell our readers what the Bush administration is trying to hide." For example, "Bush says democracy is advancing in Iraq, but our correspondents say the situation there is much more complex than that." Well, no argument that Iraq is "complex," but with the recent successful elections, an observer doesn't have to be an administration stooge to concede that democracy is "advancing." Mr. Bennett thinks the U.S. media is "not aggressive enough in challenging and testing the statements the [U.S.] government is making," which is a matter of perception, too. He says the controversy over weapons of mass destruction "is a good example of how difficult it is to independently verify the government's claims" -- so far, so good -- "when the government is lying to you." But The Post's own editorial page agreed with the British and Senate intelligence reports that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead by either Prime Minister Tony Blair or Mr. Bush. Mr. Bennett also thinks the United States should not be the leader of the world because of the "colonial question." He is "impressed" with China's Communist leaders for their "degree of preparation, engagement, knowledge and vision that they have of China." All in all, this was a very telling interview. washtimes.com