WorldnetDaily.com ran an article claiming that the media favors Democrats over Republicans, based on a report (link in PDF format) from the Council for Excellence in Government. Unfortunately, the article is a misrepresentation of what the data can support.
Overall executive branch positive ratings in the first year of their administrations (that's the only time that the study sampled) were 34% for Reagan, 38% for Clinton, and 36% for Bush II. The numbers are so close that it could reasonably be considered a statistical dead heat. As the report put it:
"Coverage of the executive branch was quite similar in tone for all three administrations, ranging from a low of 34 percent positive in tone in 1981 to a high of 38 percent positive in 1993. Personal coverage of the presidents was nearly identical: 39 percent positive evaluations of George W. Bush, versus 38 percent for Bill Clinton and 36 percent for Ronald Reagan."
Also: "The most obvious interpretation of these findings is that all three administrations received mainly (and almost equally) negative coverage. (cf., Farnsworth and Lichter 2003)."
"The three administrations received virtually identical judgments of their domestic agendas — 35 percent positive for Bush, 33 percent positive for Reagan, and 32 percent positive for Clinton."
As for Congress by parties, yes, it was 42% positive for Democrats and 26% for Republicans in 2001 - and it was 7% positive for Democrats and 30% for Republicans in 1981. But I don't remember conservatives complaining about media bias arguing that it was only a recent phenomonon.
Judiciary: 48% in 2001, 70% in 1993, and 60% in 1981. But why? According to the study, the Supreme Court decision giving the election to Bush tipped the judicial scales most recently, and the unusually high bump in 1993 was praise for two Supreme Court nominees. So, one or two stories can totally change the balance. It hardly seems like a designed bias towards a political viewpoint - unless someone might argue that the Gore v. Bush case was not worth the coverage it got.
As the report also says, when comparing issue coverage: "Thus, it is easy to see why partisans on both sides would perceive the media as biased against their party’s policies." So, again, no systematic and consistent support for Democrats. And, "The Congressional coverage showed greater evidence of partisan differences. But the same party was not always favored."
In other words, the article did a poor job of explaining the report and seems to have deliberately tried to skew the data to support a stance that its author wanted to take. The situation is complex, and some of the evidence could actually support the idea that networks work harder to make Republicans seem positive (when eliminating partisan sources, Democrats had a more favorable rating, but someone had to add the expectedly positive partisan sources that ended up evening the score). At best the posted account is shoddy work, and at worst, outright lying.
Instead of trying to shephard the faithful, the WorldnetDaily site would serve the public interest by being accurate.
10:34:45 AM 
|
