Media Harder on Bush than Kerry, Study Finds

[kent_allard_jr]

The study, described here by Reuters, was conducted by a Columbia-affiliated group. While I'm sure many of my readers will reject what they say, I don't see a good reason to do so (admittedly, not knowing much about the report). The fact is, Bush and his helpers ran a deplorable, dishonest campaign. Many journalists reported this, no doubt, and they were just doing their jobs. Conservatives who demand "balance" in the media (or the universities, for that matter) are, in a sense, demanding more ignorant or dishonest professionals.

Comments

[avram]

I've poked around the site, but haven't really found the meat. What I'm unsure about is how tallying positive, negative, and neutral stories correlates with things the candidate has actually done. If I do 70% bad things and 30% good things, and the news reports about me are 60-40 bad-vs-good, is the news being tough on me (because the majority of their reports are negative) or are they going light on me (because they're under-reporting how bad I've been)?

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

You may be looking for this note (http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/methodology.asp) on the methodology, particularly on the section labeled "Intercoder Reliability Testing for Text Media" (they seem to use similar methods for other media).

My guess is they'd use the former criteria: A story that reports bad behavior is considered "negative," good behavior "positive." This is far more reliable than determining how well a story "should" treat it's subject, and comparing it to how well they do treat it, a far more subjective standard.