Thread Rating:
11-13-2008, 01:45 PM
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436#fn1
Yup its true, Fox actually is the most balanced.
BEST (FOXNEWS)
Positive Obama Stories 25%
Positive McCain Stories 22%
Negative Obama Stories 40%
Negative McCain Stories 40%
WORST (MSDNC)
Positive Obama Stories 73%
Positive McCain Stories 10%
Negative Obama Stories 14%
Negative McCain Stories 43%
Yup its true, Fox actually is the most balanced.
BEST (FOXNEWS)
Positive Obama Stories 25%
Positive McCain Stories 22%
Negative Obama Stories 40%
Negative McCain Stories 40%
WORST (MSDNC)
Positive Obama Stories 73%
Positive McCain Stories 10%
Negative Obama Stories 14%
Negative McCain Stories 43%
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
11-13-2008, 09:08 PM
You post is very misleading, the report does not say that Fox is the most balanced news channel, (It actually says that CNN presented the most balanced coverage) just that they where slightly more balanced than MSNBC, which isnt saying much.
This link gives a better look at the three big news channels, MSNBC, CNN, and fox. MSNBC leaned toward OBama, FOx leaned toward McCain, and CNN feel somewhere in the middle and was less negative than the other two.
FOX
"In all, 25% of Obama stories studied were positive on Fox, compared with 36% in the press overall. And 40% of stories were negative, compared with 29% in the press generally. Fox looked much more like other outlets in the percentage of stories that were mixed or neutral, 35% on Fox and the press overall both.
When it came to vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Fox News also stood out. Here, unlike most news outlets, the portrayal was more positive than not—though not as positive as that found on NBC News. In all, 37% of Palin stories studied on Fox were positive compared with 28% in the press generally. Another 27% of the stories were negative, less than the 39% found overall. And 37% of her coverage was neutral
or mixed, compared with 33% overall. "
CNN
Indeed one thing that stands out in CNN’s coverage is that more of the opinions expressed (whether by CNN staff or outsiders) on the channel were negative in tone than not. And CNN is the only one of the three cable news outlets studied in which all four candidates generated more negative than positive coverage.
Coverage of Barack Obama, for instance, was mixed and slightly more negative than positive, a contrast with the media overall. In all 36% of the Democrat’s stories were positive, identical to the media generally. But 39% of Obama stories studied were negative, a full 10 percentage points higher than found in the press overall (29%).
That made Obama’s coverage on CNN less negative than on Fox and less positive than on MSNBC.
The tone of CNN’s coverage of McCain was also mainly negative. Stories about McCain were more than four to one negative (13% positive, 61% negative and 26% neutral.) That was very close to the media generally (14% positive, 57% negative and 29% neutral) and fell somewhere between its two competitors.
MSNBC
In all, only 14% of stories studied about Obama on MSNBC carried a clearly negative tone, less than half the total in the media generally (29%). The percentage of positive stories on MSNBC about Obama, 43%, was also higher than the press generally (36%), but not as strikingly. And 43% were neutral compared with 35% in the press overall.
Conversely, McCain’s coverage was more critical on MSNBC than in the press overall, not to mention any other cable news outlet. Fully 73% of the McCain stories were negative compared with 57% in the press generally. The difference on the positive side was less pronounced. In all, 10% of McCain stories were positive, compared with 14% in the press generally. Put another way, on MSNBC, negative stories studied about McCain outweighed positive ones by a ratio of more than 7 to 1.
As for Sarah Palin, on MSNBC she fared only a little better than her running mate. In the Sept. 8-Oct. 16 stretch, 21% of the Alaska Governor’s stories were positive, 68% negative and a small percentage—only 11%—were neutral. This is far more negative, and also less positive than in the press generally (where coverage was 28% positive, 39% negative and 33% neutral.)
http://www.journalism.org/node/13437
This link gives a better look at the three big news channels, MSNBC, CNN, and fox. MSNBC leaned toward OBama, FOx leaned toward McCain, and CNN feel somewhere in the middle and was less negative than the other two.
FOX
"In all, 25% of Obama stories studied were positive on Fox, compared with 36% in the press overall. And 40% of stories were negative, compared with 29% in the press generally. Fox looked much more like other outlets in the percentage of stories that were mixed or neutral, 35% on Fox and the press overall both.
When it came to vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Fox News also stood out. Here, unlike most news outlets, the portrayal was more positive than not—though not as positive as that found on NBC News. In all, 37% of Palin stories studied on Fox were positive compared with 28% in the press generally. Another 27% of the stories were negative, less than the 39% found overall. And 37% of her coverage was neutral
or mixed, compared with 33% overall. "
CNN
Indeed one thing that stands out in CNN’s coverage is that more of the opinions expressed (whether by CNN staff or outsiders) on the channel were negative in tone than not. And CNN is the only one of the three cable news outlets studied in which all four candidates generated more negative than positive coverage.
Coverage of Barack Obama, for instance, was mixed and slightly more negative than positive, a contrast with the media overall. In all 36% of the Democrat’s stories were positive, identical to the media generally. But 39% of Obama stories studied were negative, a full 10 percentage points higher than found in the press overall (29%).
That made Obama’s coverage on CNN less negative than on Fox and less positive than on MSNBC.
The tone of CNN’s coverage of McCain was also mainly negative. Stories about McCain were more than four to one negative (13% positive, 61% negative and 26% neutral.) That was very close to the media generally (14% positive, 57% negative and 29% neutral) and fell somewhere between its two competitors.
MSNBC
In all, only 14% of stories studied about Obama on MSNBC carried a clearly negative tone, less than half the total in the media generally (29%). The percentage of positive stories on MSNBC about Obama, 43%, was also higher than the press generally (36%), but not as strikingly. And 43% were neutral compared with 35% in the press overall.
Conversely, McCain’s coverage was more critical on MSNBC than in the press overall, not to mention any other cable news outlet. Fully 73% of the McCain stories were negative compared with 57% in the press generally. The difference on the positive side was less pronounced. In all, 10% of McCain stories were positive, compared with 14% in the press generally. Put another way, on MSNBC, negative stories studied about McCain outweighed positive ones by a ratio of more than 7 to 1.
As for Sarah Palin, on MSNBC she fared only a little better than her running mate. In the Sept. 8-Oct. 16 stretch, 21% of the Alaska Governor’s stories were positive, 68% negative and a small percentage—only 11%—were neutral. This is far more negative, and also less positive than in the press generally (where coverage was 28% positive, 39% negative and 33% neutral.)
http://www.journalism.org/node/13437
11-13-2008, 10:01 PM
DevilsWin Wrote:Bologna!
:lmao:
11-14-2008, 09:36 AM
Coach you're misleading actually. What that says is CNN is more in line with the average of positive/negative stories as compared with all other tv news media. Since tv news has a left wing bias it means CNN must too since their stories are the closest to the average of all the media combined. So if the media has a left wing slant, and your right in on that average, wouldn't that make you left wing? Yes. Thats what that part of the article is stating. It compares the news channels to the average of all the news combined.
11-14-2008, 03:22 PM
Beetle01 Wrote:Coach you're misleading actually. What that says is CNN is more in line with the average of positive/negative stories as compared with all other tv news media. Since tv news has a left wing bias it means CNN must too since their stories are the closest to the average of all the media combined. So if the media has a left wing slant, and your right in on that average, wouldn't that make you left wing? Yes. Thats what that part of the article is stating. It compares the news channels to the average of all the news combined.
Sorry beetle, but you're off again here. The article never says there is a left wing bias, nor does it try to prove that. You stated that Fox presented the most blanaced news coverage, which isnt true. They just presented stories opposite of how MSNBC did. MSNBC fell on the left of the national media, while Fox fell on the right. CNN on the other hand presented stories that where somewhere in between both of those stations. So all you gotta do is you use some common sense to figure out that CNN fell in the middle (most balanced).
But The argument is silly, both MSNBC and FOX are full of crap, just like the rest of the media.
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
