PDA

View Full Version : a study on partisanship in newspapers & presidential treatment


zimv20
Aug 6, 2003, 11:53 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20093-2003Aug5?language=printer


Tomasky examined the editorial commentary on 10 Bush and Clinton episodes that were roughly comparable. He did not include extraordinary events, such as the Lewinsky scandal or 9/11. [...] More interesting is how the papers handled run-of-the-mill political controversies.

The liberal papers criticized the Clinton administration 30 percent of the time, while the conservative papers slapped around the Bush administration just 7 percent of the time.

The liberal papers praised the Clintonites 36 percent of the time, while the conservative papers praised the Bushies 77 percent of the time.

One more set of numbers: The liberal papers criticized Bush 67 percent of the time; the conservative papers criticized Clinton 89 percent of the time.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 7, 2003, 06:31 AM
all behold the evil liberal media.. : \

Desertrat
Aug 7, 2003, 07:50 AM
The problem is that there's no reference to how many papers are considered liberal; how many considered conservative. And, there is no mention of the telly.

There are a few litmus tests; gun control is one. During my nationwide travel over these last 15 years, I've come to view the dominant media position as liberal.

(I'm an inveterate newspaper reader, particularly editorials and letters to editors. From the Goat Gap Gazette on up to the WashPost, etc.)

'Rat

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 09:37 AM
Yeah, I'd love to see which papers they analyzed, and which fell into what catagory.

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 11:06 AM
HA! That is funny.

Lets see, is ABC liberal? Yes.
CBS, Yes.
CNN, Yes.
NBC, Yes
MSNBC, Yes
Fox, no (fair and ballanced) ;)

Look at the print media. Liberal outlets outnumber conservative outlets massively on primetime news. Print wise, I would imagine it is a massive difference as well. The only place that conservates rule is the airwaves on am radio.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Fox, no (fair and ballanced) ;)



Don't forget fair, balanced, and traitorous! Good old Geraldo.

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Don't forget fair, balanced, and traitorous! Good old Geraldo.

Yea, the map in the sand was very stupid ;)

zimv20
Aug 7, 2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah, I'd love to see which papers they analyzed, and which fell into what catagory.

prepare to love.


This paper looks at the editorial stances during the Clinton and Bush II adminstrations of The New York Times and The Washington Post (the liberal papers) on the one hand and The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times (the conservative papers) on the other.


the paper can be downloaded from here:
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/news_events/centernews.htm

fwiw, the "liberal" post supported the war.

zimv20
Aug 7, 2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Liberal outlets outnumber conservative outlets massively on primetime news.

i really don't see that. primetime news is so watered down and banal that there's no real editorial.

do the results of the paper surprise you?

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
i really don't see that. primetime news is so watered down and banal that there's no real editorial.

do the results of the paper surprise you?

No, they don't suprise me because liberal outlets outnumber conservative outlets, so they have to be more defensive.

zimv20
Aug 7, 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, they don't suprise me because liberal outlets outnumber conservative outlets, so they have to be more defensive.

not sure what you mean by 'defensive.'

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 12:07 PM
It actually doesn't surprise me very much for this reason; a truly liberal newspaper would have been very critical of many of Clinton's policies since Clinton was really a moderate, not a liberal. By contrast Bush, who campaigned as a centrist, is really a much more right-wing conservative; thus conservative publications would be more prone to be in step with his actions.

zimv20
Aug 7, 2003, 12:15 PM
occum's razor suggests: these 4 newspapers were harder on clinton than on bush. that's the only logical conclusion one can draw from the data.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
occum's razor suggests: these 4 newspapers were harder on clinton than on bush. that's the only logical conclusion one can draw from the data.

That's not really a conclusion though. It's an observation that is easily made by looking at the results. This is also only a survey of 4 papers correct? It should be broadened beyind that if we want to draw any significant conclusions.