It must feel really special to be so smart. Most of us will never reach the heights of awareness and insight that permeate mainstream media. With sheer intellect they craft stories that educate and inform. The sort of genius that eludes most of us can be found in the precious pages of reports produced by journalists about journalists. Gee…If only I were half as smart.
Update: Someone found a link to the study (PDF) It was right on the page I was looking at.
For the benefit of people just now emerging from a cave after a long sleep, the journalism geniuses over at the Project for Excellence in Journalism have some pressing information for you. It certainly isn’t aimed at us wide-awake folk. They say:
In the closing weeks of the 2004 presidential race, the period dominated by the debates, President George W. Bush has suffered strikingly more negative press coverage than challenger John Kerry…More than half of all Bush stories studied were decidedly negative in tone. By contrast, only a quarter of all Kerry stories were clearly negative.
Strikingly — Arresting the attention and producing a vivid impression on the sight or the mind. Adverbs are our friends.
I understand how useful it is to measure things no matter how obvious or mundane, but did we need a study for this? Then again, people are paid much, much more for contributing much, much less to the world. (I’d like to read the study but I can’t find it. They don’t make it easy to find, and I don’t have time to keep looking. But I may not be smart enough to find it. If you are and you do, please let me know.)
The “non-partisan” journalists also claim that four years ago, George Bush received more positive coverage than Al Gore. They hope that by bringing this up, we will see the “objectivity” by which they’ve judged Bush the loser in the debates with Kerry. But then they have to admit this:
There is a difference this year from 2000, however. Kerry coverage has been markedly less negative-and somewhat more positive — than either candidate received during a similar phase in the 2000 race.
Markedly — Clearly defined, evident and noticeable. OK. Moving on:
The study this year also included a new component, blogs, examining five of the most popular. Because they are such a distinct universe, they are not included in any of the overall figures about topic, tone or the rest. However, the examination of blogs reveals that they are conspicuously similar to the mainstream press in what they covered, the tone of that coverage and even in the angle writers took, findings that seem to challenge the idea that the blogosphere is changing the kind of media messages people have access to. Rather than an entirely new citizen-oriented media, what blogs may be doing, this suggests, is furthering the growth of opinion news, but in an even more one-sided form than the cable talk shows.
Slight problem. Bloggers, for the most part, are not journalists. We’re regular people with opinions who host strikingly and markedly biased sites. That we are “conspicuously similar to the mainstream press” is just more evidence that mainstream media are biased! These folks are hiliarious.
I know I’m preaching to the choir. Who trusts mainstream journalists to assess the state of journalism? But…according to other journalists at Editor & Publisher, there could be reasons other than bias that explain why Kerry received more favorable coverage:
While bias could be a factor, there are other possible explanations. Fully 40% of stories logged by the researchers this October had to do with the debates, where Kerry was generally seen as “winning” or doing very well, especially in debate number one. Another 9% concerned Iraq, with many setbacks during this period for the U.S. that also would drive Bush’s negatives up unrelated to the campaign. In fact, nearly one in four stories on Bush were related to Iraq.
High comedy.
The genius journalists also “examined five popular political blogs: Eschaton, Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit, Talking Points and ABC’s The Note. ” Great. Four leftists and a slighly right-of-center libertarian. Why didn’t they examine my blog? Whatever.
I wrote an op-ed several months ago critiquing the group’s State of the News Media 2004 study and sent it to the Washington Post. They didn’t want it. In other words, they rejected it.
In fact, they wanted to make sure I knew they rejected it so I wouldn’t just assume they did. The editor’s assistant called me on the telephone (If you’re not a writer, you don’t know how unbelievable rare this is.) to say they didn’t want it. We covered the study already, I was told. I found out it had been “covered” in an opinionated hit piece, not a news story objectively examining the report. If it weren’t so sad, it would’ve been almost funny.
I thought my op-ed was pretty good. It wasn’t bad. But they made an editorial decision. Then again, I practically called the Post‘s ombudsman and a few reporters liars in the piece. Do you think it may have influenced their decision? Hmmm…
——–
Check out Update IV of the hottest post in the blogosphere.
Captain’s Quarters and Wizbang blog about the same report. Hear more about media bias from Sister Toldjah. Michelle Malkin says the Associated Press is still trying to do the Bush National Guard story…Rathergate! Outside the Beltway does the media study and the guard story.
Not only is Scrappleface funny, but the site’s editor-in-chief is a follower of Christ!
Power Line says more lying by the New York Times.
