Who's Fair and Balanced?

|

This analysis of media bias on the major networks is quite interesting. It looks like negative news is dominating. (Link via InstaPundit)

NEXT: Censoring Political Speech

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Seems pretty subjective to me.

  2. It also is operating with a painfully small sample size.

  3. Have you heard the Good News? Jesus came to save us!

  4. Ray D.,

    I generally agree with you. One recent complaint that has struck me as odd is revelations of reporters donating to political parties and campaigns. The gripe goes that it compromises the reporter’s objectivity. The truth is, the objectivity was probably never there to begin with, and the evidence of their contributions sheds a little light on what filter their information is being passed through before it reaches us. I would suggest one clarification, however (and I may just be misunderstanding you) – I wouldn’t want folks “judging” news and editorials based on the known biases of the journalist – any editorial should be judged on the merits of the arguments it presents. But knowing where the journalist is coming from can guide the reader’s search for additional information – it usually is a good clue as to what might have been left out.

  5. “Moveon.org has no links to Kerry. The moveon crowd (Wes, Joan, Eli, etc.) is completely distinct from the Democratic Party.”

    Currently on the Democrats website:

    +”The Democratic Party is partnering with MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Campaign for America’s Future, and dozens of other groups representing millions of Americans to organize a massive public mobilization. On Wednesday, May 14, join us by calling and emailing your representatives in Congress to let them know that the majority of Americans oppose more irresponsible tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest sliver of Americans.”

    http://www.democrats.org/wvc/weekinreview/200305120002.html

  6. Moveon.org has no links to Kerry. The moveon crowd (Wes, Joan, Eli, etc.) is completely distinct from the Democratic Party.

    Zack Exley, a former moveon employee, works for Kerry now, but it’s not the other way around.

  7. Boston Globe
    Of 61 interviews featured on the White House website since April in which the interviewer and station or network is identified, 54 were conducted either by conservative commentators or by hosts in markets located in battleground states, according to a Boston Globe analysis. White House spokesman Ken Lisaius insists WH reps give interviews to radio stations “of all stripes in all parts of the country.” He tells Brian Mooney: “We’re not concerned with politics. It’s the Bush-Cheney campaign that’s focused on politics.”

  8. Dave… really? No links?

    The following statement has been widely publicized regarding the Ginsberg affair, “…Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the DNC and a group running anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org,
    said there is nothing wrong with serving in both roles at once…”

    And there are multiple attorneys working both for the Democratic National Committee and 527s like MoveOn.

    What about Zack Exley, the Kerry-Edwards Internet Director who served in the same role for MoveOn?

    How about Harold Ickes, spearheading the Media Fund?

    No links. Get your act together, young man.

  9. Uh, first, I’m not particularly young.

    Second, I obviously mentioned Zack. He went from moveon to Kerry, not from Kerry to moveon. No one associated with the Kerry campaign has any input with moveon. (The former employee question is unresolved in FEC guidelines, btw).

    Third, the Media Fund and ACT are different from moveon. The coordination issue is much more complex with these groups, much closer to the SBVfT.

    Fourth, Joe Sandler does not offer operational input to moveon. He is a reference on campaign finance law. Ginsberg didn’t necessarily qualify as coordination either, though I don’t know the specifics of his role with SBVfT. The controversy surrounding him arose because the Bush campaign categorically denied any relationship whatsoever.

  10. Dave,

    That’s some pretty Kool Aid you’re drinking.

    The Bush campaign and SBVfT shared a campaign finance attorney. So do the DNC and MoveOn.org, etc. The difference is, the Democrats and these 527 organizations have had operating employees move from the organizations to the campaign. They have also coordinated events.

  11. Sorry

    Pretty STRONG Kool Aid

  12. This goes to the supposed responsibility of the news media to give equal time and be perfectly objective to both sides of an issue even when one side is absurd.

    I would be a little more impressed if they discussed the issues that were covered during the time in question. Was it a WMD or a Swiftboat week? Without that, the study is meaningless.

  13. Have you noticed that whenever the major news media talks about the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, they never fail to mention that the group has “links” to the Republican party and that prominent Texas Republicans have donated to the organization. When they talk about moveon.org, however, they never mention any links that the group has to the Democratic party.

    I wish the various news organizations would drop their bogus claims of non-partisanship and state clearly where their biases lie. The viewing/listening/reading public could then weigh the opinions expressed by both sides.

    In days of yore, everybody knew which paper supported the Republican or the Democratic candidate. They could then judge the news and editorials based upon this known bias. The concept of an “unbiased” media is a 20th century invention and should be universally recognized as absurd.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.