Harvard Sez: Media Elite’s Campaign News More Biased than Talk Radio

Published on October 31st, 2007

Study: Media Elite’s Campaign News More Biased than Talk Radio | NewsBusters.org — This will have the talk show guys crowing for days.

According to a new study, those news organizations that hold themselves up as the most neutral and professional — big newspapers, the broadcast networks and taxpayer-subsidized National Public Radio — are actually producing campaign stories that are the most tilted in favor of Democrats, while online news and talk radio have actually been the most balanced.

The study, released Monday from the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) and Harvard’s Shorenstein Center, found newspapers and broadcast TV outlets devoted far more time to covering the Democratic candidates than the Republicans and that the tone of those stories was much more favorable to the Democrats, mirroring the results of a Media Research Center study released in August.

The PEJ study looked at a wide array of media — broadcast and cable TV, liberal and conservative talk radio, public radio, newspapers and the Internet — but in most cases used sampling techniques to keep the number of stories to a manageable amount. For daytime cable TV, for example, the group looked at just a half-hour per day of CNN, MSNBC and Fox; for newspapers, the researchers only read stories that appeared on the front-page.

26 users responded in " Harvard Sez: Media Elite’s Campaign News More Biased than Talk Radio "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Greg Allen said, on October 31st, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Am I seriously supposed to believe that the Chicago Trib or the LA Times are more biased than Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh?

No way. No way at all.

There is something wrong with this study.

# 2 Bob said, on October 31st, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Rush, Savage, Hartmann, Rhodes, O’Reiley etc. are not news people, I wish people get that through their heads, they are commentators, who in most cases will even tell you that what they say is opinion not news. If they ever tell you anything different they are either lying to you or are delusional.

As far as the big Networks, and NPR, I can’t say that I am really that surprised, hasn’t everyone known this for years already? More over I am actually surprised to see this study come out of Harvard, one of the great East Coast liberal meccas. I am actually more surprised a study like this didn’t have its funding cut once its findings did not damn Fox news.

# 3 roman said, on October 31st, 2007 at 2:29 pm

NPR and the New York Times have a liberal slant! My world is shattered and all I can do is hang myself now because i don’t believe in anything anymore.

# 4 DBR said, on October 31st, 2007 at 3:22 pm

I really question the “bias” interpretation.

The Democrats are presenting the possibility of
an actual woman candidate for president, or
an actual black American for the same, or some
sort of possible combination. This is what is called
“news”, newsworthy, interesting, etc. The Republicans
are presenting the possibility of electing a white male
for President. This is what’s known as “the same old crap”.

# 5 Angel H. Wong said, on October 31st, 2007 at 3:48 pm

OMG! They just blinded me with the obvious!

# 6 Not as stupid as Bob said, on October 31st, 2007 at 4:11 pm

For phuck’s sake. Did anyone bother to read the title of the blog?

NewsBusters
Exposing and Combating the Liberal Media Bias

’nuff said.

# 7 edwinrogers said, on October 31st, 2007 at 4:38 pm

A lesson in life, don’t believe anything you see or hear, in an election year.

# 8 MikeN said, on October 31st, 2007 at 4:45 pm

I imagine talk radio comes in lower because of various Crossfire type shows balanced with one righty and one leftie.

TV news is biased mainly because they get their stories from the New York Times, which is very biased. It owuld help if the networks would get some conservative editors instead of being 90+% Democrat. Then they mightget some balance or at least some caution before running things like the National Guard story or Shock Troops at TNR by the private who made up the stories.

# 9 bill said, on October 31st, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Here’s another news flash. Reporters covering night events overwhelmingly used such negative words as “dark”, “scary” and “impenetrable” in their descriptions. Reporters covering the daytime, by contrast, used phrases like “brilliant”, “good visibility” “better than dark” in their descriptions.

Obviously, this is clear evidence of bias.

It’s not like the republican party in any way is more deserving of any kind of criticism than democrats. Surely, that can’t be true.

# 10 MikeN said, on October 31st, 2007 at 4:47 pm

DBR, yes they’re cheerleading, but it’s not because they’re women or blacks, but because they are liberals. How much coverage did Elizabeth Dole get? A better example is the fawning coverage of Douglas Wilder way back, with stories telling us how he would be the nation;’s first black governor if elected. Except there were no such stories four years earlier, when Republicans nominated a black man for governor of Michigan.

# 11 MikeN said, on October 31st, 2007 at 4:50 pm

There was another study a few years ago that measured bias in a different way. They looked at what groups were mentioned in the articles as sources. Then they looked at how often members of Congress mentioned these guys in floor speeches, then they looked at ratings from various liberal and conservative groups for those Congressman tog et an idea of how biased the sources are(for example the Heritage Foundation)
and this gave them a measure of how biased the newspapers were. #1, New York Times, Wall Street Journal #2 both much more to the left than Fox News was right.

# 12 Mask of one face said, on October 31st, 2007 at 6:40 pm

The only truth is Death and Taxes. Anything else is just interpretations of illusions.

# 13 MikeN said, on October 31st, 2007 at 8:49 pm

Bill you’ve identified why theres so much media bias. They half the time dont even know theyre doing it, it just makes sense to them that certain things are right and good. Way back when, one media person said she couldnt believe Nixon won since everyone she knew voted for McGovern. It’s this sort of cocooning that gets them to label steve forbes tax plan as wacky or Hillary inevitable.

# 14 GregA said, on October 31st, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Well since conservatives/republicans stand for anonymous bathroom stall ass buggery and are pro-treason this is a good thing.

# 15 GregA said, on October 31st, 2007 at 9:22 pm

#13,

Steve Forbs tax plan was wacky. In fact for my entire life, all conservative/republican tax policy has been whack. There hasn’t been a time in my life where there was a balanced budget with a Republican president.

Considering American has been overwhelmingly conservative for the last 30 years and it is literally falling apart and bankrupt, don’t you think it is time for you people to stand down and let responsible adults take charge for a while?

# 16 DBR said, on October 31st, 2007 at 10:35 pm

MikeN:

Per Wikipedia,
“Elizabeth Dole ran for the Republican nomination in the US presidential election of 2000, but pulled out of the race in October 1999 before any of the primaries, largely due to inadequate fundraising.”

I think that the newsmedia of the time just realized that
they would look foolish giving much promotion to
a feeble and quixotic ambition.

She didn’t even last long enough to be interesting. And what
Wikipedia doesn’t seem to remember. but I do, she had her
campaign legs surgically and firmly removed by her own
party, which seemed to had gotten a case of the vapors
when it actually realized they might be nominating
a woman.

# 17 David Perry said, on November 1st, 2007 at 6:17 am

Make that “A study published at Harvard says”, not “Harvard says”. I would love to see an actual liberal show up anywhere on a campaign ticket (other than Ralph Nader, who suffers mightily from a combination of righteous indignation coupled with excessive dorkiness) There is no real left in american politics…we’re dancing with two right feet.

# 18 Bob said, on November 1st, 2007 at 6:52 am

They needed to fund a study to figure this out? I could have told them this for free!

# 19 tcc3 said, on November 1st, 2007 at 7:11 am

It also seems that not towing the Republican Party line gets organizations labeled as liberal. Its the same digital “with us or again’ us” attutude that pervades the whole system.

Disagreeing with Rush does not = liberal bias. As much as he would like you to believe it.

# 20 gregallen said, on November 1st, 2007 at 7:22 am

>> BOB Rush, Savage, Hartmann, Rhodes, O’Reiley etc. are not news people, I wish people get that through their heads, they are commentators, who in most cases will even tell you that what they say is opinion not news.

I could accept what you say, if if weren’t that the right wingers are always telling us that THEY are the fair and balanced truthful counterpart to the “MSM”.

So I suppose if you ONLY count the +- 5% of right wing talk radio that is hard news, maybe this report might be possible.

# 21 OhForTheLoveOf said, on November 1st, 2007 at 7:25 am

#8 – TV news is biased mainly because they get their stories from the New York Times, which is very biased.

Biased… toward the truth.

Typically, the accusation of liberal bias comes from right wingers who are complaining the the corruption, deception, criminal negligence, nepotism, moral double standards, and outright thievery of the right is being reported in the first place.

I’m in favor of this bias.

#17 – (other than Ralph Nader, who suffers mightily from a combination of righteous indignation coupled with excessive dorkiness)

He also suffers from being right and from being the most successful citizen activist in the known universe… I can’t quite understand why Americans hate smart, honest, and successful candidates.

#18 – They needed to fund a study to figure this out? I could have told them this for free!

There was no “study” It’s just right wing blow hards doing what they do best… blowing hard… most likely in a men’s room at the airport.

# 22 grog said, on November 1st, 2007 at 7:57 am

every news outlet caters to their subscription/viewership base and skews their news accordingly

it’s called supply and demand — people only believe and will only pay for what they want to hear and are automatically skeptical of anything that differs from their personal beliefs.

# 23 Mike said, on November 1st, 2007 at 9:00 am

If the media is so liberal, why is “liberal” a dirty word in the media?

Sheesh. Just another example of the right-wing wackos trying to “work the refs”.

# 24 MikeN said, on November 1st, 2007 at 9:12 am

DBR, keep thinking up excuses. The fact is the media plays up liberal Democrats all the time. Perhaps this type of attention for Elizabeth Dole would have gotten her further along in the primaries, though she was a terrible candidate.

# 25 OhForTheLoveOf said, on November 1st, 2007 at 9:50 am

#24 – Was she a terrible candidate? I don’t know.

Anyway, as for this so called “forgone conclusion” that Senator Clinton will be the next President… I don’t buy it. We aren’t anywhere near knowing that. Too much can still happen, and there are still better candidates now.

For me, Richardson and Biden are far better choices, and like Bill Clinton in 92, they still have plenty of time to rise.

Maybe Hillary Clinton would be a good President, but I’m not behind her because I oppose her on several issues that are key to me, most notably First Amendment issues. But I do know that she is not a shoe in.

# 26 MrMartini said, on November 2nd, 2007 at 9:20 am

Is it so hard to admit that the news media has an inherent disposition toward liberals and against conservatives. It is a fact of life that we all know and live with on a daily basis.

It’s funny how much time the media spends trying to argue that they are not biased at all. The cause is very simple – they don’t consider themselves to be biased, just enlightened. It’s not as much about liberal or conservative to them as it is about right and wrong – they are right and conservatives are wrong. That’s not bias, that’s just commons sense right?

Of course there is no place for religion in a modern society.
Of course there should be government-funded medical insurance for all Americans.
Of course the war in Iraq was based on lies and serves no purpose other than making George Bush’s cronies rich.
Of course anyone who opposes gay marriage is a knuckle-dragging bigot.
Of course a fetus is not a person and is not entitled to protection under the law.
Of course the rich should be heavily taxed in order to improve the inequity of wealth in America.
Of course Hillary Clinton will be the next president.

It’s as plain as the nose on your face – right?

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!