Posted on 02/24/2009 4:35:24 PM PST by Freedom56v2
The popular Poynter Institute weblog Romenesko highlighted a new study Tuesday insisting the TV networks favored the Republicans in presidential campaigns from 1992 to 2004, with this blurb:
"We don't think this is journalists conspiring to favor Republicans," says Indiana University's Maria Elizabeth Grabe, who wrote "Image Bite Politics" with Erik Bucy. "We think they're just so beat up and tired of being accused of a liberal bias that they unknowingly give Republicans the benefit in coverage."
The Indiana University professors came up with this bizarre result by studying the visuals of TV news, the "image bites." A glance at the press release shows the study's sample size was tiny:
They examined 62 hours of broadcast network news coverage -- a total of 178 newscasts -- between Labor Day and Election Day over four U.S. presidential elections between 1992 and 2004. Cable news outlets, including CNN and Fox News, were not included in their research. The professors are now looking at 2008 election coverage.
That's 62 hours of coverage over four election cycles, or less than 16 hours a cycle! Even within the last two months of an election cycle, the three networks would have 90 hours of evening newscasts (which would mean they're skipping more than 80 percent of the sample.) They also found a conservative bias -- by turning the volume down to zero!
Grabe and Bucy found the volume of news coverage focusing exclusively on each party -- one measure of media bias -- favored Republicans. Their research found there were more single-party stories about Republicans overall and in each election year except 1992. When they studied the time duration of these stories, no pattern of favoritism was evident.
But they did spot differences when they studied visual coverage, that is, with the volume turned down.
They claimed that Republicans were more likely to be cited last in a story, and less likely to be subject to a "lip flap" shot, when reporter shows video of a candidate while the reporter talks over it. But they can't determine that with the sound off.
Are these professors liberals with an agenda of countering the evidence of a liberal media bias? In this podcast, co-author Erik Bucy claims there was not a pronounced pro-Obama bias in the 2008 Democratic primaries, and if there was, it was simply because it was matching Obama's record of victories. (There's no notion that positive coverage can drive primary victories, and not the other way around?) He found it ironic Hillary would complain, even if it was effective:
Usually, this is an accusation leveled by the Republicans, of media bias, and of course, it's you know, the accusation is liberal media bias, but if you look for evidence of that, it's very difficult to find. So it tends to be more of a political strategy than an actual reality in a lot of news coverage.
Bucy added that Hillary benefited from the Saturday Night Live skit carrying the theme of a pro-Obama bias, even if "this is just a perception."
The other co-author, Maria Elizabeth Grabe, has an interesting 2006 research project listed online in her curriculum vitae: a paper titled ""Bill O'Reilly's 'No Spin Zone': Using 1930s Propaganda Techniques and Constructing Villains, Victims, and The Virtuous." It says it was well-received at an international conference in Dresden, Germany. The paper is here, and compares O'Reilly to Father Charles Coughlin, an anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi radio host of the 1930s.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
If anyone suggests that these people really believe what they are saying, just ignore them. No matter how leftist these people are they can’t be that stupid.
They are lying and they know they are lying.
“Even Democrats were noting how biased the media was”
<Now they are starting a study of the 2008 elections?! Gee wonder what the results of that “study” will be?!!
Anyone wanna bet a LobsterGram on that outcome?! ;)
Are we talking about the very same news outlets who labeled Bill Clinton “the Comeback Kid” in 1992 after he lost the New Hampshire Primary?
“What a pile of Pelosi!”
<<<That has a certain ring to it :)
“I wonder what is the color of the sky in their world..”
<<Red would be my guess.
The derangement of the Left continues...what a crock!
Must be up for tenure at this very Liberal University.
Just say NO to drugs!
This “study” proves more about these two professors than it does about the MSM political biases.
To say the media favored the GOP in 1992 is just dopey. And in 2004 CBS tried to “fix” an election.
A lot of those stories were attack pieces.
By contrast, they created a warm fuzz around Obama.
If you just look at quantity, you probably will find more about the Republicans because the media spent more time attacking them.
It didn't need as much time to create that warm blurry cocoon around Barack.
Too much information might arouse a skeptical mood in the public, so the less said the better.
It is obvious to me what is going on.
You and I know the truth, but the sheeple don’t.
so...they know all they have to do is write a fake ‘study’, and then report it over and over again until it is accepted as truth. Who will question it..? the media? they will report this as gospel-like revelation
A lie told often enough becomes the truth - this is propoganda 101
On the other hand Maria,we think you just happen to have shit for brains. Same for your faggie friend Erik.
Sorry twerps. D-.
IDK, but it don't rain there in the summertime....
The Nutty Professor! It’s more than a movie.
I grew up in Bloomington, IU is a very liberal kind of place. I would expect something like this from there. Independent thinkers need not apply.
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.