PDA

View Full Version : Economist show news left bias.




Leo Hubbard
Sep 13, 2004, 10:37 AM
CONSERVATIVE pundits routinely accuse the news media of injecting a liberal bias into coverage of issues from abortion to gun control to gay marriage.

Now, two months before the presidential election, the economy has been invited to the culture wars. In a new paper, Kevin A. Hassett and John R. Lott Jr., economists at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative research organization in Washington, say they have discovered that economic reporters commit the same archetypal sin: slanting the news unequivocally in favor of the Democrats.

How can a nugget of news like the economy's addition of 308,000 new jobs in March - the biggest monthly gain in about four years - yield a report that The Associated Press labeled "Bond prices tumble on jobs data"? Bias, the researchers suspected.

The two economists combed through 389 newspapers and A.P. reports contained in the LexisNexis database from January 1991 through May 2004, during the administrations of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. They picked out headlines about gross domestic product growth, unemployment, retail sales and orders of durable goods and classified the headlines' depiction of the economy as either positive, negative, neutral or mixed. Then they crunched some numbers.

They found that Mr. Clinton received better headlines than the two Republican presidents. Even after adjusting the data to compensate for differences in economic performance under the three presidents, the Republicans received 20 to 30 percent fewer positive headlines, on average, for the same type of news, they concluded.

For instance, they said, the unemployment rate in the Clinton administration averaged 5.2 percent, only three-tenths of a percentage point less than it has under George W. Bush. But while 44 percent of Mr. Clinton's headlines on unemployment were positive, only 23 percent of President Bush's headlines on the subject have been upbeat.

They found that as a group, the nation's 10 largest newspapers and The Associated Press were even more skewed. According to the researchers, this group gave Republican administrations 20 to 40 percent fewer positive headlines than those given to Mr. Clinton, on average. Among the top 10 newspapers, they said that all except The Houston Chronicle had a pro-Democratic leaning, though the margin for error in their calculations was too large to be meaningful for most of them individually.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/business/yourmoney/12view.html?ex=1095652800&en=662be44cd0308d8f&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1



Don't panic
Sep 13, 2004, 12:47 PM
maybe the fact that the economy is at one of the lowest points since the great depression thanks to your friend's insane politics (tout court) has something to do with him not getting too much good press.

If the media had not been overprotective of this administration for three years, but objectively descriving its performance, GW would be stand below 20% in polls.


also, maybe reading the article you quote in their entirety would help.


"...if anything, current economic coverage favored Mr. Bush by letting the administration get away with blaming 9/11 for the economy's poor performance..."

"...The fact that the economy did better under Mr. Clinton than either of the Bushes probably affected the coverage more than the researchers allowed for..."

" the results had large statistical margins of error..."

"AND what of the researchers' own objectivity? Critics question both their scholarship and their motivations in releasing this research in the middle of a presidential campaign in which the economy is no small issue.
Mr. Hassett was an adviser to Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, during his bid for the presidency in 2000, and a co-author of "Dow 36,000," a wildly bullish analysis of the stock market's prospects.

Mr. Lott's research supporting gun ownership as a crime deterrent has also come under criticism. He acknowledged that he assumed a pseudonym - Mary Rosh- to write his own praise and defend his positions in online debate on that subject from 2000 through January 2003. " (emphasis mine)