Study: Fox Is the Most Fair and Balanced Thus Far in Prez Campaign

[Heracles 417]

O'Reilly and Olbermann probably represent the most right and most left on the news networks. Who is more biased?

BS!! Olbermann spends 3/4 of his show dissing other people's opposing views. Whereas O'Reilly simply states his views. HUGE difference there that even an idiot can understand..

Edit: Actually now that I think of it you are right. Olbermann does represent the left. A group who spends a lot of time criticizing others with opposing views and calling them derogatory names.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is interesting - seeing as we're in election season...

Does media bias affect voting? Over 70 percent of Americans believe that there is either a great deal or a fair amount of media bias in news coverage. Evidence of bias ranges from the topic choices of the New York Times to the choice of think tanks to which the media refer in their broadcasts.

In The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting (NBER Working Paper No. 12169), authors Stefano DellaVigna and Ethan Kaplan address this question by looking at the entry of Fox News into cable markets and its subsequent impact on voting. Between October 1996 and November 2000, the conservative Fox News Channel was introduced into the cable programming of 20 percent of American towns. Using voting data for 9,256 towns, the authors investigate whether Republicans gained vote share in towns where Fox News entered the cable market by the year 2000.

They find that the introduction of Fox News had a small but statistically significant effect on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000. Republicans gained an estimate of between 0.4 and 0.7 percentage points in the towns that broadcast Fox News. They also find that Fox News had a significant effect on Senate vote share and on voter turnout. Their estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 8 percent of its viewers to vote Republican according to a first audience measure, and 11 to 28 percent according to a second, more restrictive audience measure.

The authors also analyzed whether Fox News affected voting in those races where it did not cover the candidates directly, as was the case in most Senate races. In that way, they are able to estimate whether the influence of Fox News is candidate-specific or whether it extends to general political beliefs. The researchers find that Fox News significantly increased the Republican vote share for Senate, by 0.8 percentage points. Additionally, the effect was not larger for the one Senatorial race that Fox News did cover heavily, the New York state race between Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio. Fox News appears to have induced a generalized ideological shift.

Rupert Murdoch introduced the 24-hour Fox News Channel in October 1996 to compete with CNN. Like CNN, it was offered only via cable and, to a smaller extent, via satellite. Thanks to an aggressive marketing campaign, a number of cable companies added Fox News to their programming over the next four years. That geographical expansion was accompanied by a corresponding increase in the audience share. By June 2000, 17.3 percent of the U.S. population reported watching Fox News regularly.

The nature of the cable industry induces substantial geographical variation in access to Fox News. Cable markets are natural monopolies with capacity constraints on the number of channels they offer. The availability of Fox News in a town depends on whether the local cable company decides to add it to the programming, possibly at the expense of another channel. Cable companies in neighboring towns often make different decisions, creating idiosyncratic variation in access. This allows the authors to compare voting patterns in neighboring towns that are similar except for the availability of Fox News. Their dataset covered 28 states.

Since Fox News was available in about 35 percent of households in 2000, its impact on the national two-party vote share that year is estimated to be 0.15 to 0.2 percentage points, or 200,000 votes nation-wide. While this vote shift is small compared to the actual 3.5 percentage point shift in the authors' sample between 1996 and 2000, it is still likely to have been decisive in the close 2000 presidential elections.

The authors also point out that their results have implications for policy, such as for the regulation of media concentration. If media bias alters voting behavior, then deregulation of media markets may have a large impact on political outcomes

Its also been suggested (yes, there is a link - if anyone wants to read the book) that poor quality news media is one of the biggest reasons that we have soundbite politics - and that we get substandard candidates for public office because the whole thing becomes an exercise in how much money they can raise and who can best tailor their image to best take advantage of the media's relative lack of criticism.

That said - it should be pointed out that one of the biggest influences on media output is actually conglomeration and corporatisation. Media ownership is a concern that journalists have been expressing for years - they don't work in a vacuum, corporate policy and advertiser pressures all influence editorial content as a matter of course and can affect the amount, quality and variety of news content.

Here's the problem... The FCC voted back in December to relax restrictions on media ownership - a position which fits well within the liberal economic (Reaganomic) doctrine of unfettered free markets. It should be noted with interest that the folks on the FCC board who voted in favor of this (the FCC board being appointed by the President BTW) are registered Republicans. Those who voted against were Democrats.

Does anyone else see the problem here? If indeed the mass media (as represented by several large corporate entities) panders overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats, why did Republicans on the FCC board (including the Chairman) vote in favor of a measure that allows wholesale corporate monopolisation of the entire market? Why did the Democrats vote against it? Does that strike anyone as a little odd?

Actually I don't think that last paragraph offers a very good rationale - but it is interesting. The Federal Communications Commission voted to overturn rules that are in place to ensure programming and programmer diversity. While that might be good for business - its hardly good for the consumer. And it probably doesn't do a lot for the quality of TV News either.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Number 6

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Here also is a research paper from a guy at MIT on the election coverage by the NYT. Full article is available on the site, but here's the abstract summary.

I analyze a dataset of news from the New York Times, from 1946 to 1997. Controlling for the incumbent President's activity across issues, I find that during the presidential campaign the New York Times gives more emphasis to topics that are owned by the Democratic party (civil rights, health care, labor and social welfare), when the incumbent President is a Republican. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the New York Times has a Democratic partisanship, with some "watchdog" aspects, in that -during the presidential campaign- it gives more emphasis to issues over which the (Republican) incumbent is weak. In the post-1960 period the Times displays a more symmetric type of watchdog behaviour, just because during presidential campaigns it gives more more coverage to the typically Republican issue of Defense when the incumbent President is a Democrat, and less so when the incumbent is a Republican.

Essentially they do favor Democrats, but their coverage of specific issues varies to favor the challenger rather than the incumbent candidate.

[Heracles 417]

I don't believe any network should forced to support views that do not represent their viewers. Fox News leans to the right as MSNBC and many others are skewed towards the left.

I wonder what people would say to a similar law for American colleges; which clearly lean towards the left. I think college has a greater influence on people than does a news network.

Edit: Or newspapers like NYT which would have to shutdown if such a rule applied to them..

Edited March 18, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[desert_fox 32]

ppl actually watch this ####### and think that these ppl are sincere...that they are actually going to make changes//..??

This is one election that I may not even vote....I hate Hillary and Obama and McClain have not explained their views on illegal immigration. When the Kennedy bill came before the US Senate, I was shocked that McClain was a co-sponser with Ted Kennedy to give these illegals a path to US Citizenship. He lost my vote unless there is some kind of change. I have no idea where Obama stands on the issue. Think Ill vote for Lou Dobbs.

Edited March 18, 2008 by desert_fox

[Heracles 417]

ppl actually watch this ####### and think that these ppl are sincere...that they are actually going to make changes//..??

This is one election that I may not even vote....I hate Hillary and Obama and McClain have not explained their views on illegal immigration. When the Kennedy bill came before the US Senate, I was shocked that McClain was a co-sponser with Ted Kennedy to give these illegals a path to US Citizenship. He lost my vote unless there is some kind of change. I have no idea where Obama stands on the issue. Think Ill vote for Lou Dobbs.

I agree there. I look at these clowns and think this can't be the best America has. ####!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't believe any network should forced to support views that do not represent their viewers. Fox News leans to the right as MSNBC and many others are skewed towards the left.

I wonder what people would say to a similar law for American colleges which clearly lean towards the left. I think that has a greater influence on people than does a news network.

A group of people in a room essentially come up with the conception of what their average viewer demographic is. Its marketing like anything else - the assumption is that with corporate management you get a top-down editorial agenda.

What law are you talking in relation to colleges?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't believe any network should forced to support views that do not represent their viewers. Fox News leans to the right as MSNBC and many others are skewed towards the left.

I wonder what people would say to a similar law for American colleges; which clearly lean towards the left. I think college has a greater influence on people than does a news network.

Edit: Or newspapers like NYT which would have to shutdown if such a rule applied to them..

What rule? The one about FCC media ownership?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

MSNBC leans more to the left than my ####. Yet as Gary said earlier, you hardly ever see anyone dissing it. How many people hate O'reilly for stating his own opinion yet cheer on a stupid clown like Keith Olbermann; An idiot who spends 75% of his show criticizing other people's views. This is why I hate liberal Americans as they adamantly support the misinterpretation of the first amendment. Yet ironically cannot stand anyone who has opposing opinions to theirs.

Plenty of people hate the way that editorial commentary is now part of a prime time news lineup. I think all of those guys are idiots.

[Heracles 417]

A group of people in a room essentially come up with the conception of what their average viewer demographic is. Its marketing like anything else - the assumption is that with corporate management you get a top-down editorial agenda.

What law are you talking in relation to colleges?

I am talking about having a similar laws that supports 'diversity' in colleges. Rather than the status quo where anyone who does not have left wing views is made out to be a stupid idiot.

Edit: Or newspapers like NYT which would have to shutdown if such a rule applied to them..

What rule? The one about FCC media ownership?

Ownership / diverse reporting.

MSNBC leans more to the left than my ####. Yet as Gary said earlier, you hardly ever see anyone dissing it. How many people hate O'reilly for stating his own opinion yet cheer on a stupid clown like Keith Olbermann; An idiot who spends 75% of his show criticizing other people's views. This is why I hate liberal Americans as they adamantly support the misinterpretation of the first amendment. Yet ironically cannot stand anyone who has opposing opinions to theirs.

Plenty of people hate the way that editorial commentary is now part of a prime time news lineup. I think all of those guys are idiots.

I don't mind people having different views. What I hate is how liberals in the US tend to spend most of their time personally attacking someone with opposing views; rather than actually discussing their own views.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The FCC argument is about, for example - not allowing the same company to own a TV station, Radio station and local newspaper in the same town.

With colleges it would be like saying you can only have so many campuses and you can't own any high schools. To my knowledge colleges don't operate that way.

I don't mind people having different views. What I hate is how liberals in the US tend to spend most of their time personally attacking someone with opposing views; rather than actually discussing their own views.

Please its not only liberals - its soundbite culture fed by the media. Who were the folks banging the plastic flip-flops together at Republican rallies in the last election? They sure weren't liberals...

[HAL 9000 96]

ppl actually watch this ####### and think that these ppl are sincere...that they are actually going to make changes//..??

This is one election that I may not even vote....I hate Hillary and Obama and McClain have not explained their views on illegal immigration. When the Kennedy bill came before the US Senate, I was shocked that McClain was a co-sponser with Ted Kennedy to give these illegals a path to US Citizenship. He lost my vote unless there is some kind of change. I have no idea where Obama stands on the issue. Think Ill vote for Lou Dobbs.

Here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/is...mmigration.html

[HAL 9000 96]

A group of people in a room essentially come up with the conception of what their average viewer demographic is. Its marketing like anything else - the assumption is that with corporate management you get a top-down editorial agenda.

What law are you talking in relation to colleges?

I am talking about having a similar laws that supports 'diversity' in colleges. Rather than the status quo where anyone who does not have left wing views is made out to be a stupid idiot.

Edit: Or newspapers like NYT which would have to shutdown if such a rule applied to them..

What rule? The one about FCC media ownership?

Ownership / diverse reporting.

MSNBC leans more to the left than my ####. Yet as Gary said earlier, you hardly ever see anyone dissing it. How many people hate O'reilly for stating his own opinion yet cheer on a stupid clown like Keith Olbermann; An idiot who spends 75% of his show criticizing other people's views. This is why I hate liberal Americans as they adamantly support the misinterpretation of the first amendment. Yet ironically cannot stand anyone who has opposing opinions to theirs.

Plenty of people hate the way that editorial commentary is now part of a prime time news lineup. I think all of those guys are idiots.

I don't mind people having different views. What I hate is how liberals in the US tend to spend most of their time personally attacking someone with opposing views; rather than actually discussing their own views.

Apparently you have not visited many US university campuses. This is a prime example of the (to label again) intolerance towards critical thinking in the very place where it is supposed to be refined to an art. Or science. Agreed... some faculty members are beyond liberal and offer no apologies for their viewpoints, as do the equal opposite of the collegiate spectrum. That does not make a university community more leaning toward any political wing. If that were the case this country would be a liberal country and we clearly do not see that in effect.

Now if you'd like to get into the issues without practicing the critique you label others with...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't see why its so hard to put the blame where it belongs - on the game itself, rather than merely singling out one of the players

[dalegg 143]

A group of people in a room essentially come up with the conception of what their average viewer demographic is. Its marketing like anything else - the assumption is that with corporate management you get a top-down editorial agenda.

What law are you talking in relation to colleges?

I am talking about having a similar laws that supports 'diversity' in colleges. Rather than the status quo where anyone who does not have left wing views is made out to be a stupid idiot.

Edit: Or newspapers like NYT which would have to shutdown if such a rule applied to them..

What rule? The one about FCC media ownership?

Ownership / diverse reporting.

MSNBC leans more to the left than my ####. Yet as Gary said earlier, you hardly ever see anyone dissing it. How many people hate O'reilly for stating his own opinion yet cheer on a stupid clown like Keith Olbermann; An idiot who spends 75% of his show criticizing other people's views. This is why I hate liberal Americans as they adamantly support the misinterpretation of the first amendment. Yet ironically cannot stand anyone who has opposing opinions to theirs.

Plenty of people hate the way that editorial commentary is now part of a prime time news lineup. I think all of those guys are idiots.

I don't mind people having different views. What I hate is how liberals in the US tend to spend most of their time personally attacking someone with opposing views; rather than actually discussing their own views.

Spend some time on AM 1150 Progressive talk radio (the new mainstream) in Los Angeles. You would not believe the time devoted on that radio to Bill O'Rielly and he is not even working for them. Al Franken used to devote about half of his program just to talking about O'Reilly. They must really think he's an important person.