Thursday, August 30, 2007
Network News AM Programs Favor Dems
The Media Research Center has documented that network morning news programs have a blatant and obvious agenda in promoting the DemocRAT Party and the DemocRAT presidential candidates. Among the findings:
Media Research Center analysts reviewed all 517 campaign segments on ABC’s Good Morning America, CBS’s The Early Show and NBC’s Today from January 1 through July 31. Those three broadcast morning shows draw nine times the audience of their cable news competitors, and are geared toward everyday voters, not political junkies. These programs are therefore a prime battleground in each campaign’s quest for positive media attention.
The results are astonishing:
* The networks offered nearly twice as much coverage of the Democrats. More than half of all campaign segments (284, or 55%) focused on the Democratic contest, compared with just 152 (29%) devoted to the Republicans. The remaining stories either offered roughly equal discussion of both parties or did not focus on the major parties.
* All three Democratic frontrunners received more attention than any of the top Republican candidates, with New York Senator Hillary Clinton receiving the most coverage of all.
* Undeclared liberal candidates such as former Vice President Al Gore and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg received more network TV attention than many of the declared Republican candidates.
* The network morning shows doled out nearly three times as much airtime (4 hours, 35 minutes) to interviews with the various Democratic campaigns. In contrast, the Republicans received just 1 hour and 44 minutes of interview airtime.
* In their interviews with the candidates, the network hosts emphasized a liberal agenda. Of the substantive questions that could be categorized as reflecting a political agenda, more than two-thirds (69%) of the questions to Democrats reflected a liberal premise, and more than four-fifths (82%) of the questions to Republicans came from the same perspective.
* The top Democratic candidates received much more favorable coverage than their GOP counterparts, with Senator Clinton cast as "unbeatable" and Illinois Senator Barack Obama tagged as a "rock star." The most prominent Republican, Arizona Senator John McCain, was portrayed as a loser because of his support for staying the course in Iraq.
* Not once did network reporters describe Senator Clinton and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards as "liberal," while ABC only once labeled Obama as "liberal." Yet the networks showed no hesitation in attaching the "liberal" label to Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, who was so branded 12 times.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770; US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826).
when you look at the ratings points and add in all the other stuff on in their slot, even cartoons my man, those three's viewership is in the toilet and irrelevant.
again i point out how handy the fairness doctrine would be. it would not affect a large portion of viewers, but at least the "big" three would be forced into balance.
(i know, the problem with that would be fairness freaks like me would come after the far right's fat hold in other markets. that wouldn't be cool would it?)
lastly, the morning has a smaller share of the overall audience for the day. sorry to bring boring arbitron type stuff in.
people are working then dude.
"Compared to cable news, ABC’s Good Morning America, CBS’s The Early Show and NBC’s Today have a much larger combined audience — 13.7 million viewers during the first three months of this year, nine times as many as watch CNN, FNC and MSNBC combined at the same hours."
I like arbitron ratings and all that - hell, it's part of my educational background and college degree (broadcasting, etc). Yeah, I've "done" so much with that degree too. (sigh)
Check out the full story at the Media Research link. The finding may surprise you!
Like we needed a study to know this. It won't matter anyway. The leftards will keep on whining about FNN and Talk Radio. Is there any end to the leftard's whine fest? Go to any lefty blog and its like a broken record. "Bush is bad." "Cheney is evil." "America sucks." Halliburton this and vast right wing conspiracy that. It's incredibly boring. No wonder the leftards get so wound up over a gay Republican.
On one blog, a leftard was whining Bush ruined America and he would just have to defect to Canada as there just no hope. Where have we heard this one before? Then the leftard went on to say if Rudy was elected, that would be it. He would go. As much as this leftard whined, if 8 years of Bush isn't enough to send him north of the border, I seriously doubt Rudy is going to be able to do it. I don't think Canada wants this douchebag anyway, but we can always hope.
And if that leftard's hysterical whining wasn't enough. I came across another leftard who claimed that Bush caused him to become a pill popping druggie. I crap you negative. It wouldn't matter if a syphilitic old swamp cow (Nancy Pelosi) was president this asshat would still be jamming pills down his throat blaming this or that instead of identifing than the real source of the problem...himself. This weak tit loser should try meth, it would kill him faster and that would be a good thing.
"It wouldn't matter if a syphilitic old swamp cow (Nancy Pelosi)..." - classic line, you have GOT to start a 2nd blog ripping on the Libs. You come up with such great lines and know what you're talking about.
Lib bloggers and politicians STILL have ZERO to offer after all this time, and can only resort to "Bush/Cheney Bad"..."Cut and Run". What a bunch of losers and pissants.
Take care, and thanks - as always - for visiting and comemnting.
if you were going after the politically active viewer, you would use your arbitron and hit the drive time. then use neilson and go after the nightly news viewers. take a look at the right's big guns, where are they at in mass?
exactly! in the spots i just pointed out. these guys are not stupid dave, but the dems appear to be real bozos at this game.
look, they shoot their wad on pbs and look at their numbers, they do not hold a candle to fox. pbs cannot hold fox's jock strap.
I don't know if douche bags is one or two words. I've been using it as one word...I could be wrong. I think it looks good as one word.
Maybe the morning shows figure that the sort of audience they're going to get in those hours prefer Dems? I don't know. Maybe it's the hosts? Maybe - but I happen to know that some of them lean right - even libertarian. All in all though, if this is truly the case (I only trust the MRC so much), it only would serve to balance the other outlets. And morning shows tend to be pretty apolitical, doing more human interest stories, fluff pieces, recipes, weather, gags, celebrity interviews, fashion, and such. That's a world of difference from the pure politics of the three mediums that I looked at.
I wasn't trying to "get you"; I only wanted to add this study to the list of those you wrote about.
I, like you only trusting MRC so much, feel the same way about Media Matters, etc. I agree that either Left or Right - one has to take a so-called totally non-biased review or study with a grain of salt. I'm pretty sure that's what you do - I do it too.
Someone commented at your blog that the war protest didn't receive as much coverage as they had hoped for and - and I'm paraphrasing - that the commenter said that was a reason to call the Media Conservative leaning. I don't know what networks or cable channels that person was watching, but I saw significant anti-war protest coverage, but I'd be hard pressed to tell you what networks or cable channels I saw it on only because I didn't make it a point to follow who was covering it and who wasn't.
The MRC study based their study - as I'm sure you know from reading it - partly on which candidate received coverage and how much compared to other candidates. Democrats received the coverage in their study more than the Repubs.
It's hard for me not to think of the media leaning leftward because so many former Dems have moved into the media: George Stephenoupolus, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Bill Moyers (speech writer for LBJ) to name a few. On the other side we have Tony Snow and -- ARGH - brainfart - I just had his name on the tip of my lips and now its gone. Shit.
Anyway - I think you get my drift. I don't think that any of the pundits can help but let some of their politics get in their reporting.
And the Norman Hsu story received very little network coverage than say, Mark Foley or Larry Craig.
I'd conclude the Media leans Leftward slightly more than a moderate amount, most of the time.
Thanks for commenting JMJ.
Links to this post:
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.