Posted on 11/06/2008 6:26:44 AM PST by connell
By Christopher Cook
Wait a minute—what's with that crazy headline? FOX News? The denizen of evil, scheming conservative journalists? The outlet for the nefarious plans of right-wing villains like Ailes and Murdoch?
Yes.
This information is found in Pew's study, whose summary is called The Color of News. In fact, it's easily seen in the foregoing graphic:
Oddly, however, the person/s writing the article are incapable of correctly interpreting their own graphs to find the real takeaway, as is evidenced in the following statements about FOX in the summary.
First, they say . . .
Things look much better for Barack Obama—and much worse for John McCain—on MSNBC than in most other news outlets. On the Fox News Channel, the coverage of the presidential candidates is something of a mirror image of that seen on MSNBC.
And then they say . . .
On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally). For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall). Yet even here, his negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost 2 to 1.
While we appreciate the fact that they note the imbalanced nature of MSNBC, the comment about the "mirror image" is misleading at best. Comparing the graphs showing MSNBC's and FOX's coverage of Obama seems to indicate a bias against Obama at FOX. Using that comparison as the source of one's inference about FOX's coverage seems to indicate that, while MSNBC was reasonable towards Obama, FOX—because of it's right wing hate-bias—was very negative.
Wrong. Wrong comparison, wrong analysis, wrong inference.
The proper comparison is not to look at how MSNBC (or any of the others) treated Obama vs. how FOX treated Obama. The comparison that needs to be made is to see how each network treated both candidates. In other words, look at how FOX treated Obama and compare that to how they treated McCain. Then do the same for MSNBC.
This internal comparison shows something very different from what the author/s of the summary appear to have intended.
According to the graph, FOX covered McCain and Obama essentially equally, i.e., with similar numbers of negative, neutral, and positive stories. By contrast, MSNBC was very negative towards McCain and quite positive towards Obama.
To make this easier to see, we have reworked the graph to show the way it should have been presented:
THAT'S your story right there. Looking at this comparison, we see that MSNBC engaged in an assault on John McCain and a borderline hagiography of Barack Obama. Meanwhile, we see that FOX engaged in, as their tagline suggests, "fair and balanced" coverage of each. More strikingly, we see that FOX was even slightly more positive towards Obama than towards McCain.
That, however, is not what the author/s of the summary appear to want you to take away from the study. The way they composed their graph and their wording appears to seek to reinforce the left's hysterical view of FOX rather than the reality.
Again . . .
On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm . . . and less positive . . . . For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive . . . and substantially less negative.
That is appallingly misleading, especially when you strip out the numbers as I have done.
The impression the verbiage in the summary seeks to create is . . .
Right-wing FOX News hostile to Obama, friendly to McCain.
The actual result of the study, viewable in their very own graph, leads to a far more salient and newsworthy conclusion:
MSBNC beatifies Obama, assaults McCain; meanwhile, FOX treats both equally
And they easily could have added . . .
Contrary to common view, FOX slightly more favorable to Democrat than Republican
Why do a study at all if you are just going to fabricate a misleading set of conclusions about the numbers? Why not just find out what narrative the left would like you to further and then write an article pretending you did a study?
It would be a lot cheaper.
Karl Kameron (/sic) reported like he was on downers.. ho hum..No enthusiasm.
and then we have Miss Cleo's “know all-see all” twin .. Shep
Hit Faux where it hurts .. Advertisers
Besides, there can be only one party network ... Psnbc and cnn have a two lap lead on everyone else.
MSNBC, on the other hand, is the TV version of Pravda.
It would be nice to have a pro-Conservative TV network to supplement talk radio.
I think he’s being forced out by Murdoch. His viewership isn’t growing when others are increasing. They’ve all just agreed to be quiet about it.
They’ll totally revamp that newshour when he’s gone. If they don’t, then I’m totally wrong with this conjecture.
I don’t know who they plan to put in his place, but I don’t think Wallace has the juice to make it happen. They need another strong personality, but I can’t imagine who that is. If it’s Shep, I’ll quit watching.
I stopped watching all the news. They are all biased.
If I want news I’ll listen to talk radio.
Let me get this straight. Are they using MSNBC as the bellwether for the "norm" rather than equal coverage as the "norm"?
You speak as if you expect facts, reality, and rationality to matter.
So while FOX held their nose and reported, we held our nose and voted?
The Fox election coverage was infantile.
Shock? I dont think so..
Right! What's up with people? Fox News never, ever even implied that it was a conservative station.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
As if we didn’t notice.
Yes, I noticed about two months ago that Fox was going in the tank. Mmmmm...is the Kool-Aid that good, Fox?
So we should kill the only network that is actually balanced? Instead of supporting the one network that at least tries to present the conservative side?
This "all or nothing" attitude of many conservatives is one reason, I think, that the conservative message and movement is suffering.
I'm going to respectfully disagree. People want to be informed, and they want truth. Let's face it, the MSM is not giving people the truth, they give them a one sided opinion of "their" truth. People like Rush, Hannity (more or less), Ingraham, Beck, and others, know the truth and they've tried to get it out. Unfortunately they are drowned out by the likes of CNN, MCNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC.
If people knew the truth, or what is being covered up by the MSM, there would be a revolt in this country, and right now that's exactly what this country needs, a new revolution.
I believe that is true.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
But try getting the NY Slimes, the Washington Compost and the rest of the media to even acknowledge this Pew Poll!
My experience with the Chicago Libune is that they write about all the Pew Polls, except the Pew Polls showing media bias. Those they censor.
Fox News is my Fredo: Dead to me!!!!!
“Don’t you think this is the reason Hume has announced his retirement? He looked absolutely pathetic those last few days of the period before the election. Seemed he was forced to remain unbiased and couldn’t speak his mind.”
Actually, Brit was the same way during the 2004 election. He was one of my favorites from way back, so I forgave him - but after his latest stuff - all I can say is I wish him a happy retirement.
This is my impression. The only challenges to Obama came from Fox. Yeah, there's some adulation, too...but they'll soon see that they get no access from Rahm.
When they don't, they'll have no news to cover except what they can dig up themselves.
That might be excellent news for Fox. HIRE SOME REPORTERS. Enough with the commentary. FIND NEWS AND REPORT IT.
Like to think they might read and listen.
Blasting the media is an intimidation factor used by the Left. They even blasted their own supporting media for not being biased enough. Of course they didn’t say that, instead acussing them of being unfair and of supporting the other side. It is a common tactic of the Left, until they have complete control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.