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.
Now there is a piece I can wrap my mind around. Very nice.
All the way through too. Lots of meat and all choice. Thanks
young lady. Nice to see you fired up. Keep that mind-set, it
befits you. Looks good on ya. Wear it with your head up and
your chin out. I don’t know much about such things. But I’ll
just bet Jesus loved his ’soldiers.’ And seems as though …
you WILL fight.
Thanks for being back here LaShawn, it’s a joy to me.
Comment by Steel Turman — 10.27.04 @ 7:48 am
La Shawn,
As usual you have produced a blog that is right in sync with some of my recent thoughts. I have been watching the mainstream media at every opportunity in order to get an idea of just how biased they are at this point in the election cycle with the race so tight. CBS has been a particular point of interest.
Last night I was stunned and amazed to see that Dan Rather was still pushing the “stolen explosives story” from the perspective that the stuff was stolen while we were supposed to be guarding it. This in spite of the fact that the story has been discredited by NBC, who had an embedded reporter with the first military unit to arrive at Al Qaqaa during the initial invasion, and who says that the explosives were gone upon their arrival. CBS’s reporting has become so ridiculous that it would seem that they have a vendetta against Bush perhaps brought on by their embarassment over the “forged documents scandal”.
The absolute blatant partisanship exhibited by CBS and the rest of the mainstream media in this election cycle is truly astounding to behold. The really scary thing about it though, is the huge number of American Citizens who are not just uninformed, but are misinformed about the candidates, the issues, and most particularly, the War on Terror. This can be laid in large part directly at the feet of the mainstream media including both television and newspapers.
Comment by Montie — 10.27.04 @ 8:36 am
The Slantometer provides an interesting perspective:
http://www.mediatenor.com/slant.html
Comment by Pat Wilson — 10.27.04 @ 8:47 am
La Shawn,
We know that the Washington Post is very left-winged and that your article being rejected should be badge of honor!
Welcome back and we need your point of view.
JMB
Comment by James M. Barber — 10.27.04 @ 8:56 am
Steven Den Beste also has an interesting take on a chart of the polling trend over the past year at http://denbeste.nu/special/polltrends.shtml
Excerpt:”I don’t believe that public opinion has been changing as much as these polls seem to suggest. The variation we see up through July looks like what engineers call “sample aliasing” or “jitter”. Note that it falls well within the oft-claimed ±4 points of error. This is typical for data taken in noisy sampling environments; I’ve seen this kind of thing many times.
August and September are different. I’ve seen that kind of thing, too.
In my opinion, the polls were being deliberately gimmicked, in hopes of helping Kerry. In early August it looks as if there was an attempt to engineer a “post-convention bounce”, but it failed and was abandoned after about two weeks. But I’m not absolutely certain about that.
The data for September, however, is clearly an anomaly. The data is much too consistent. Compare the amount of jitter present before September to the data during that month. There’s no period before that of comparable length where the data was so stable.
The September data is also drastically outside of previous trends, with distinct stairsteps both at the beginning and at the end. And the data before the anomaly and after it for both Kerry and Bush matches the long term trendlines.”
Comment by Andy — 10.27.04 @ 9:01 am
Andy, I would have to defer to your obvious expertise but in my case anyway, I would never change my vote simply because the polls showed a trend opposite my preference. In fact, I would be more inclined to make sure I voted if the polls showed my guy down.
~Pat
Comment by Pat Wilson — 10.27.04 @ 9:37 am
La Shawn,
When I returned from the Viet Nam war in 1970 and discovered how “hated” I was by America, I eventually directed my own “fierce hatred” at those I believed responsible for perpetuating this, the “news media” as it was called back then (ie; TV and newspapers in general). Now, as a Christian of 6 years, my hatred has been softened to “utter distain”, but the total distrust of (and disregard) for them lives on.
For me personally, the mainstream media is irrelavent. But I find it absolutely mind boggling how about one-half of a “so-called” intelligent nation still remain sheep. What a tragedy. I naively expected after 9/11 that any reputable poll would now be showing America having a “belief in God” and “conservative vs. liberal” at 90% vs. 10%. I feel like I’m still living back in 1970. God help us. He is our only salvation.
Comment by Dave in AZ — 10.27.04 @ 10:11 am
La Shawn:
I think this is the link to the study…
http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateffect.pdf
Glen
Comment by Glen — 10.27.04 @ 10:39 am
A little hubris goes a long way.
Comment by cooper — 10.27.04 @ 11:16 am
La Shawn, An exerpt from James Lileks today regarding todays media bias:
“Keeping the country united? Good luck. Imagine FDR running a war with a press composed of cynical snickerers who derided the president as a rich old cripple who thought the best way to defeat Tojo was a war in North Africa and preached defeat every day through the hard slog of the Pacific theater. Imagine running a war with an entertainment industry that declined to make a single movie about the conflict - why, imagine a “Casablanca” where Rick and Sam argue about whether America started it all because they didn’t support the League of Nations. Imagine a popular radio drama running through the early 40s about a smart, charismatic, oh-so-intellectual Republican president whose bourbon baritone mocked FDR’s patrician whine, a leader who took no guff from Stalin OR Hitler! Lux Soap brings you, The West Wing of the White House! Imagine Thomas Dewey’s wife in 1944 callling the WW2 a war for oil; imagine former vice presidents insisting that FDR had played on our fears after Pearl Harbor. Imagine all that.”
Well worth reading at Lileks.Com. He is so articulate, common sensed, and delightfully humorous while making his post so profoundly.
Comment by Jim R — 10.27.04 @ 12:04 pm
Correction on previous, “post” at end should have been “point”.
Comment by Jim R — 10.27.04 @ 12:08 pm
Well, color me suprised, the main stream press is biased against Bush?
They actually spent money on this study?
Peter Jennings recently said “I’m a little concerned about this notion everybody wants us to be objective” .
The article that mentioned this quote goes on to say “Jennings said that everyone — even journalists — have points of view through which they filter their perception of the news.”
notice this ……..”their perception of the news…”
What about the facts? Need I say more?
Comment by elizabeth elliott — 10.27.04 @ 12:50 pm
Generation BLOG is upon us
Welcome, La Shawn Barber’s Corner readers! La Shawn’s commentary on the media today - titled “Journalism’s Geniuses” has been spot on.
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 10.27.04 @ 2:57 pm
Bush is getting bad press because Iraq is falling further into the abyss a week before the election. It’s his war, he has to deal with the consequences.
Comment by Justin — 10.27.04 @ 3:02 pm
Elizabeth,
Can the facts be presented without perception?
Anyone:
Does the media really use factoids instead of facts?
If statement of facts use adjectives, does it change the fact? (example: its a hot, sticky 98 degrees outside) Is that a fact or is it a perception of a fact?
I jez wanna NO
JJ
Comment by John C James III — 10.27.04 @ 3:15 pm
I think with this bogus story about ‘missing explosives’ and the Kerry campaign already having commercials ready tells you who side the media is on. They collaborated, no doubt.
Comment by RepJ — 10.27.04 @ 3:28 pm
Justin,
“Iraq falling further into the abyss”?
I wonder if that’s true. If its just the media spin to get folks to watch. I don’t know.
Is all of Iraq falling into abyss?
Like I told my son (who’s name happens to be Justin) this morning on the way to school, Iraq is a big place. Its more than the 2 or three places we hear about on the news. There are improvements in the country that the news doesn’t tell often tell us about.
Granted, Bush press is bad and the media is using the Iraq hot spots to keep Americans in their grasp.
Also, the military warned that insurgency would increase as we approached the elections. Why is this news when it was known for some time?
JJ
Comment by John C James III — 10.27.04 @ 3:41 pm
Justin,
I’ll grant that Bush has to deal with the war, but when news agencies sit on reports to deliver them at a time when it will do the most damage to a candidate (D, R or I), that is the problem.
Keep in mind, this isn’t new either. CNN admitted that they ignored and withheld reports that were detrimental to Saddam Hussein, for fear of losing their access to future news stories in the region.
Reuters has a policy to never call terrorists terrorists, again, for fear of losing access, and for fear of being targeted. But ask Daniel Pearl if being a member of the media gains any points in the terrorists’ book…
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 10.27.04 @ 4:54 pm
Why are we not surprised that the Washington Post would reject such a wonderfully talented, conservative writer as yourself?
What drives the mainstream media just batty is the fact that they no longer control the flow of information. The Internet and the explosion of the blogosphere have allowed anybody to become a pundit, a reporter, an editorialist, a writer or whatever you want to call it. Yes, bloggers are opinionated. But we’re at least open and honest about it.
Comment by Daddypundit — 10.28.04 @ 12:19 am
Pat Wilson, unfortunately it’s not my expertise.
I was merely quoting SDB. Frankly, just thinking of analysing polls make my eyes glaze over. However, SDB has a way of laying even the most complex system out in laymen terms that make his postings a joy to read. Too bad he pretty much quit blogging due to pedantic nitpickers.
Comment by Andy — 10.28.04 @ 1:51 am
Wow this was interesting.
http://www.foxbaltimore.com/baltimore_md/
Comment by John C James III — 10.28.04 @ 10:23 am