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

[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.