Buy WILLisms XML Feed Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM June 20, 2005 5:36 AM Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM May 12, 2006 6:15 PM Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM July 25, 2007 4:32 PM May 28, 2008 11:12 PM June 9, 2008 12:25 PM Blogroll Me! July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 March 13, 2008 Due: July 29, 2008 Mar. 14, 2006 Apr. 4, 2008 May 19, 2007 July 9, 2006 July 14, 2006 Powered by Movable Type 3.17 Site Design by Sekimori WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy): The WILLisms.com Gift Shop:
This Week's Carnival of Revolutions:
Carnival Home Base:
|
« Reform Thursday: Week Eleven. | WILLisms.com | The Wide World Of News. » Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 16 -- Media Bias.MEDIA BIAS- Source: Adapted from The Nightly News Nightmare: Network Television's Coverage of U. S. Presidential Elections, 1988-2000, by Stephen J. Farnsworth, S. Robert Lichter, based on research from the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs. Interesting that Ronald Reagan got such stunningly bad coverage in 1984. Of all the presidential candidates in the past quarter century, John Kerry received the most positive media coverage from the networks (.pdf). On average, Democrats have received 19% more positive coverage from the networks over the years, which matches somewhat that whole "media bias will be worth 15 points for Kerry" thing. But how do we know this isn't just subjective opinion? A little methodological concept known as "reliability." Basically, if multiple people come to the same conclusions, independently, based on rigorous objective criteria, it's more than a he-said, she-said game, the results are said to be "reliable." For more on the methodology that went into the analyses, click here. The measure is not fool-proof, though, as it fails to capture which stories were left out entirely from the news cycle, for example.
Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6; Part 7; Part 8; Part 9; Part 10; Part 11; Part 12; Part 13; Part 14; Part 15.
Posted by Will Franklin · 14 April 2005 10:12 AM CommentsI want to ask you something. What do you consider negative coverage. Is it putting a spin on things that makes one group look bad OR is it simply reporting information that makes them look bad? The reason I ask is because evidence is self-incriminating while a spin doesn't belong in the media. What do you think the ratio of the two is in this case? All the best! Posted by: Joseph (Advocate of Democracy) at April 14, 2005 10:21 AM Happy Birthday Will! Posted by: Zsa Zsa at April 14, 2005 03:13 PM |