Study: Kerry Got Best Press Ever

[The Vorlon]

While I personally never noticed any shading of the coverage, it appears the major Networks were dramaically more positive towards Mr. Kerry and dramatically more negative towards Mr. Bush during the recent Presidential Campaign.

On the positive side for Bush, the degree to which his coverage was negative was slightly less so than Ronald Reagan who in 1984 recieve the most negative press coverage ever.


Study: Kerry Got Best Press Ever

November 1, 2004   Contact: Matthew T. Felling 202-223-2942

Study: Kerry Gets Best Press Ever

WASHINGTON, DC-John Kerry is getting the most favorable network news coverage of any presidential candidate in the past quarter century, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University, in a study of television election news since 1980. CMPA also reports that George W. Bush's coverage is highly negative this year, but doesn't approach the record for bad press held by Ronald Reagan.

This report is based on a scientific content analysis of sound bites by sources and reporters that praised or criticized the presidential candidates on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news from Labor Day through Election Day. The 2004 study covers 828 sound bites from Sept 7 through October 22. It is being conducted jointly by CMPA and Media Tenor. The 1988-2000 studies were done by CMPA and the 1984 and 1980 studies by George Washington University researchers, all using the same method of counting evaluative statements in election stories.

MAJOR FINDINGS:

Crazy for Kerry: John Kerry's total of 58 percent positive evaluations (and 42% negative) since Labor Day is the best press any general election candidate has received since 1980. George W. Bush has only 36 percent positive evaluations (and 64% negative) in the same period. In the 2000 general election evaluations of both Bush and A1 Gore were about 2 to 1 negative.

Kerry's October Surprise: Bolstered by good reviews of his debate performances, Kerry received a record-breaking 77 percent positive evaluations during October, compared to 34 percent positive for Bush.

Positive Press Not A Predictor: Until this year, record-holder was Walter Mondale with 56 percent positive evaluations in 1984. The worst press went to Ronald Reagan, who received only nine percent positive (91% negative) evaluations that year. But incumbents don't always get bad press. Bill Clinton received 50 percent positive evaluations in 1996, compared to only 33 percent (67% negative) for Bob Dole.

Dems Get the Breaks: In the past seven elections since 1980, the Democratic candidate has gotten significantly better press in four - Kerry, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Mondale in 1984; the Republican has fared better in one - George H.W. Bush over Dukakis in 1988; and two have been about even -- Bush vs. Gore in 2000 and Carter vs. Reagan in 1980.

Negativity Reigns: The coverage has been mainly negative toward both parties. Ten out of the fourteen major party candidates have received over 60 percent negative evaluations, including all seven Republican candidates.

[elcorazon]

While I personally never noticed any shading of the coverage, it appears the major Networks were dramaically more positive towards Mr. Kerry and dramatically more negative towards Mr. Bush during the recent Presidential Campaign.

On the positive side for Bush, the degree to which his coverage was negative was slightly less so than Ronald Reagan who in 1984 recieve the most negative press coverage ever.


Study: Kerry Got Best Press Ever

November 1, 2004   Contact: Matthew T. Felling 202-223-2942

Study: Kerry Gets Best Press Ever

WASHINGTON, DC-John Kerry is getting the most favorable network news coverage of any presidential candidate in the past quarter century, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University, in a study of television election news since 1980. CMPA also reports that George W. Bush's coverage is highly negative this year, but doesn't approach the record for bad press held by Ronald Reagan.

This report is based on a scientific content analysis of sound bites by sources and reporters that praised or criticized the presidential candidates on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news from Labor Day through Election Day. The 2004 study covers 828 sound bites from Sept 7 through October 22. It is being conducted jointly by CMPA and Media Tenor. The 1988-2000 studies were done by CMPA and the 1984 and 1980 studies by George Washington University researchers, all using the same method of counting evaluative statements in election stories.

MAJOR FINDINGS:

Crazy for Kerry: John Kerry's total of 58 percent positive evaluations (and 42% negative) since Labor Day is the best press any general election candidate has received since 1980. George W. Bush has only 36 percent positive evaluations (and 64% negative) in the same period. In the 2000 general election evaluations of both Bush and A1 Gore were about 2 to 1 negative.

Kerry's October Surprise: Bolstered by good reviews of his debate performances, Kerry received a record-breaking 77 percent positive evaluations during October, compared to 34 percent positive for Bush.

Positive Press Not A Predictor: Until this year, record-holder was Walter Mondale with 56 percent positive evaluations in 1984. The worst press went to Ronald Reagan, who received only nine percent positive (91% negative) evaluations that year. But incumbents don't always get bad press. Bill Clinton received 50 percent positive evaluations in 1996, compared to only 33 percent (67% negative) for Bob Dole.

Dems Get the Breaks: In the past seven elections since 1980, the Democratic candidate has gotten significantly better press in four - Kerry, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Mondale in 1984; the Republican has fared better in one - George H.W. Bush over Dukakis in 1988; and two have been about even -- Bush vs. Gore in 2000 and Carter vs. Reagan in 1980.

Negativity Reigns: The coverage has been mainly negative toward both parties. Ten out of the fourteen major party candidates have received over 60 percent negative evaluations, including all seven Republican candidates.

I'm not sure I even get how they make this determination.  Kerry clearly outperformed Bush in the debates.  Therefore there were more positive articles/stories about him during that time frame.  Does that mean the press was "favorable" to Kerry?  Apparently it does.  I'm guessing Mondale's solid performance (and Reagan's weak performance) in the 1984 debates also skews those numbers.  It all seems like bull to me.

[The Vorlon]

I'm not sure I even get how they make this determination.  Kerry clearly outperformed Bush in the debates.  Therefore there were more positive articles/stories about him during that time frame.  Does that mean the press was "favorable" to Kerry?  Apparently it does.  I'm guessing Mondale's solid performance (and Reagan's weak performance) in the 1984 debates also skews those numbers.  It all seems like bull to me.

"Bias", like truth and  beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder.

Reputable polls, PEW being the most prominent (PEW, if anything, leans a little leftward) has repeatedly reported that, very roughly, half the population thinks the media has a liberal bias, about a quarter think it has a conservative bias, and about another quarter thinnk they are fair.

Now if this perception is true, or if it is part of the conservative "message" and hence incorporated into the collective mentality is again, like truth and beauty, very much in the eye of the beholder.

In a strange way, I think Rush Linbaugh and say "Mother Jones" have more Journalistic integrity than most news organizations.

Rush is in there pitching his best for the GOP, he makes no bones about it.  Mother Jones is in there hawking for the the far left of the Democratic party.

You know you are getting a deeply partisan perspective and you can weight what they say based upon that.  - Their argument holds up, or it doesn't, based upon the strength of the argument.

[opebo]

Of course he did, he was the most superior to his opponent of any candidate in decades.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Mother Jones has been dead for over 70 years

[Shira]

If someone thinks that Bush is not qualified to be the president of the US, can this person sincerely express balanced views about Kerry and Bush?

[MODU]

If someone thinks that Bush is not qualified to be the president of the US, can this person sincerely express balanced views about Kerry and Bush?

Yes.  However, if they have/want to share their views . . . it's called the op-ed column.  However, most media types (liberal and conservative) cannot seem to keep their objectivity these days.

[Democratic Hawk]

Of course he did, he was the most superior to his opponent of any candidate in decades.

I agree. Over 40 newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000 switched to Kerry in 2004. It had nothing to do with bias, more to do with the fact that Bush has been a mediocre President (and that's me being charitable!)

Dave

[zorkpolitics]

Of course he did, he was the most superior to his opponent of any candidate in decades.

I agree. Over 40 newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000 switched to Kerry in 2004. It had nothing to do with bias, more to do with the fact that Bush has been a mediocre President (and that's me being charitable!)

Dave

Since more Americans found things positive about Bush, than Kerry (at least more voted for Bush than Kerry), then clearly the Press failed to focus their reporting on what matters to the voters, and skewed their reporting to what the Press thought important.  The Press could have reported, in a favorable light, the qualities the voters found positive in Bush: Leadrship, personality, values, he means what he says, etc., Instead the Press chose to report on the the debate winner, which put Kerry in a favorable light and report on negative aspects of the Iraq war and Bush's role in it.  Thus, in perhaps an unconcious way, the press is either biased towards Democrats or insensitive to the things voters consider most important.  Probably both.

[J-Mann]

Bush did not have a good year, though.  Economic reports were mixed, Abu Ghraib happened, the Iraq insurgency continued to get worse.  Perhaps part of his media evaluation was through these stories.

[Gustaf]

Bush did not have a good year, though.  Economic reports were mixed, Abu Ghraib happened, the Iraq insurgency continued to get worse.  Perhaps part of his media evaluation was through these stories.

Exactly. Also, the media doesn't like Bush for several reasons, not only b/c he's a Republican.

[Beet]

ABC, CBS, and NBC? LOL, maybe they are finally fulfilling the expectations 20 years of accusations and persecution have created of them, and realized their niche in the media market (though the real question is, when will MSNBC do the same)?

George Mason University's other finding: Neanderthals voted 60% for Kerry (scroll right to the section "Early man:More Than a Political Animal" and read the caption on the right hand picture).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Mother Jones died ages ago. Why will no one listen to me? How can she still be communicating with the rest of the world?

[The Vorlon]

The genius of Fox News is that by catering to conservatives they have found a "niche" market - half of America.

[Beet]

The genius of Fox News is that by catering to conservatives they have found a "niche" market - half of America.

The Fox discovery was actually even more profound than that. They found that they could split up what was once considered a single national news market into ideological camps (or rather, one ideological camp and a confused morass of reactionaries and imitators).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Study: The Vorlon most biased ever.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Mother Jones died ages ago. Why will no one listen to me? How can she still be communicating with the rest of the world?

The 'Mother Jones' to which Vorlon is referring is a small, left wing magazine.

They once (briefly) had a loonitic editing their mag, but they fired the scumb bag.  He went on to produce left-wing hate films.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Mother Jones died ages ago. Why will no one listen to me? How can she still be communicating with the rest of the world?

The 'Mother Jones' to which Vorlon is referring is a small, left wing magazine.

I thought he meant this Mother Jones: