Study: Network News Criticizes Dean Most

Study: Network News Criticizes Dean Most
Thu Jan 15,11:22 PM ET


LOS ANGELES - Howard Dean (news - web sites) received significantly more criticism on network newscasts than the other Democratic presidential contenders, who were the subjects of more favorable coverage, according to a study released Thursday.

More than three-quarters of the coverage of Dean's foes by the nightly news programs was favorable, while a majority of attention to Dean was negative, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found.


The study by the Washington-based media watchdog also found that network attention to the campaign was down by 62 percent compared to the last race involving an incumbent president, in 1996.


Researchers examined 187 stories broadcast on the ABC, CBS or NBC evening newscasts in 2003, looking at elements including quoted remarks about candidates and how they were depicted in profiles.

snip

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=9&u=/ap/20040116/ap_on_el_pr/tv_news_democrats

Well...I guess this shares with us who the "rove media dogs" have been asked to attack. I guess we need to ask the question of Karl -- "why are you afraid of Dr. Dean"?

:shrug:

Respond here now.

So much for all of those who have claimed for months the media was "annointing" Dean.

He's the frontrunner, he gets more air time for good and bad stories. :)

Coverage...Dean's is more negative than other Democrats.

<<The study found that 49 percent of the coverage of former Vermont Gov. Dean was positive, compared to 78 percent of the rest of the Democratic field, collectively.>>

That includes Clark getting the easy ride.

For months, a number of individuals here insisted the media was coronating Dean.

Do you coronate someone by going on the attack?

but of course you know that.

Exhibit #1

but it will be snarky or off topic. We will probably get lots of posts about how weird his wife is for having a life of her own, or how he shouldn't say Clark is a republican.

Obviously to cover for all the proDean bias for most of last year.

Look down thread for the links.

Interesting that Scaife is a sworn enemy of John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry going back 15 years.

the exact same thing happened to Gore in 2000 against Bush. It won't get any better. If anything, it'll get worse. That's just the way it is.

Make sure the electorate knows they were manipulated into war, and now the press is using similar tactics to protect their Right-wing market ideology from a candidate who would break up certain media empires.

What I do find sad is how readily Democrats will take to the Mass Media message, against one of their own. There is so much negativity ABOUT Dean's negativity (and ignoring the positives) that the debate turns into an anti-Gore-style smear campaign; Here we are again, the press is 'teaching' us than an outstanding candidate has "character issues"; and some Democrats repeat with enthusiasm, like Rovian robots. This is how they sweep Dean's criticism on real issues under the rug.

Without a doubt, Dean is the biggest threat to Bush because their lovely Right-wing ideology stand to suffer a good trashing in the public mind. Their ideas will lose currency, and so does their ability to profit from despotism.

The other major candidates will not significantly change the media regulatory landscape, so the brainwashers give them a pass. A DLC Democrat is Plan B in case Bush loses. A DLC defector like Dean is far more dangerous than even a complete liberal.

the whole thing was over with. So that's a
good sign--especially when the comparisons to
the Bush media free ride begin.

- "Dean's coverage rose to 59 percent positive in December" -- so, the coverage was most negative when Dean was doing the best, and when the race tightens, and he needs good press, it goes up "dramatically" according the AP version of this article that was posted here yesterday. (Yahoo, interestingly, didn't include that quote.)

- "compared to 78 percent of the rest of the Democratic field, collectively" -- the methodology is confusing, It's not clear whether they're grouping all the other candidates and saying that any time one of them gets a positive story, it's counted as one positive story for his opposition. If so, that means that there are seven or eight chances for a story to be counted as positive for the opponent. It means that the story could dis all but one of the rest, and it would still be counted as a positive story for an opponent. It's very confusing.

Another way they might arrive at that number is averaging the percentages for the rest. Say CMB got 4 stories about her, and 3 were good, that's 75%. Say Lieberaman got 3 stories and they were all good, that's 100%...see what I'm talking about?

- This story doesn't addres the number of stories. There was a graph posted here maybe two months ago comparing Dean's coverage to the other candidates. He LITERALLY got 4 or 5 times more coverage than the next highest candidate. So, it may be that he's getting 89 good stories and 90 negative stories, but the next best candidate gets mentioned only 45 times and 30 are good and 15 are bad. I argue that Dean is still doing better.

Furthmermore, consider the dynamics of the primary thus far. Dean has made a name by criticzing Bush, and, arguably, by being angry. It has been the polarizing effect -- Republicans hate him, Democrats love him because Republicans hate him -- which has dirven his campaign thus far. So if the media reports on how angry he is, is that counted as a negative story even though it affirms his campaign themes and makes him more popular witht he voters the media knows he's trying to reach? Now, say a positive story for another candidate is something like , "CMB has a nice smile." I'd rather have the coverage telling voters what I'm about than a meaningless happy talk story like that. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

The summaries provided for these "studies" tell little about the methodology used. Just what is a "negative" story, and how do they do the counting?

Just who is the CMPA anyway?
http://www.cmpa.com/index.htm

Didn't go through the whole site, but everything I saw was summarized and pretty vague. Dug around elsewhere for a bit and they seem to have some credibility in some reliable quarters, but I suspect some lurking bias if they aren't upfront with raw numbers. Some more digging will undoubtedly find someone who doesn't like them. There's always somebody looking to dig up dirt on anyone.

A little bit about their funding:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?573

Note "The Sarah Scaife Foundation" grants. Is that...?

Good find.

DU at its finest: critical thinking + google.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?63

donor list looks familar.

Scaife's LONGTIME bitter enemy is John Kerry and also his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Scaife did an Arkansas Projevt on Kerry during BCCI and IranContra. He went after Teresa when she supported Wofford over Santorum for Sen. Heinz' seat.

This article also tells me they are AFRAID that the proDean bias was too obvious so they needed to change the perception FAST.

this article proves by being part of it?

How about putting it together coherently for us, AP, so the other camps can out this plot?

Dean for the past year. But, they're helping within a narrowly defined construction of what they want his campaign to be. They want him to be the anti-war, anti-Bush candidate. They know that lots of Americans hate Bush. Thus, lots of quasi-negative stories, or, more accurately, stories which define Dean as they want him defined appear in the press. Dean gets donations. Dean gets nomination. Dean loses to Bush.

This worked according to plan all summer. But I think Dems pulled a fast one on the media. I think the media expected most Dems to criticize Dean as a closet-conservative, which would then set up a schism between the national party and the voters. This didn't come about. Bless the Dems for not falling for this. (I think the fact that black and union dems are embracing Dean has thrown the media for a loop, but more on that in anothe post, perhaps.)

What has happened right now though is that Iowa voters are now getting a chance to see the candidates, and some of the natural appeal of the other candidates is coming through. I think Edwards does appeal strongly to people's optimism and desire for an FDR-like candidate. I think Kerry (and Clark in NH) is the candidate for people who think Bush is all wrong on the war on terror. And I think Gep is the labor candidate with the powerful labor machine working for him. So they're challenging Dean, notwithstanding the media's love affair with Dean.

What's the reaction in the media? Well, even this Scaiffe-funded study shows that, as things are getting tight, the postitive Dean stories are on the upswing. Why? Becuase the other way of defining Dean wasn't working once people started comparing him to the other Dems (rather than to Bush as they had been for 9 months).

But the helpful news stories in Dec weren't helping him. What do you do next? Well, make people suspicious of the press, and make it look like Dean is being attacked. At the very least, cover your trail, because you know a lot of people are asking why the media is covering Dean in the way they have been. Voila. Here's a weird study, that doesn't explain its methodology that claims "the {media} man" doesn't like Dean.

It helps people excuse Dean's lagging performance without blaming Dean. It covers the trail of the very real media-assist he has been getting. And it makes people doubt the favorable conclusions they've drawn about the other candidates.

I might be missing something, but I think that's a pretty good theory.

.

sorry they can keep their coverage.

Thanks.

but last I looked, the report wasn't up yet. Other, older, stuff is there.

Didn't look too far into the site, but I might guess you have to pay or subscribe to get the whole thing.

http://www.cmpa.com/index.htm

http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?63

I think they are related. :)

That should put the brakes on all the whining about Dean getting all the media's attention.

You think Dean represents a real threat? That he continues to thrive despite the abuse only reinforces how much of a threat he is.

better.

Furthermore, note the criticisms above and the funding from scaife.

The owls are NOT what they seem.

... in all your philosophies.

Damn, I can't remember the Hamlet (?) guote, but I do remember the last episode of the first season of Twin Peaks.

>>Ominous Polls:
A look at the Gallup polls over the past few months show why Democrats are becoming increasingly nervous about putting Clinton at the head of their ticket.
In a head-to-head match up on March 20, Bush led by only 52-43 percent and Clinton was indeed within striking range. But as the weekly disclosures took their toll during the ensuing primaries, Clinton's margin fell to 54-38 percent on March 29 and then fell further to 54-34 by the beginning of April.
Edit ...
"The negatives are forming on Bill Clinton like a political stalactite, drop by drop," said veteran Democratic consultant David Sawyer. "Each drip leaves a residue that builds on his negative image."
Edit ...
Quayle campaign committee, "We're following the Napoleonic maxim: Never interfere with the enemy when they are in the process of destroying themselves."<<
http://www.worldandi.com/public/1992/june/cr6.cfm

"If you have no enemies, it is a sign fortune has forgot you."
- Thomas Fuller (1608 - 1661)

It wouldn't be worth the effort. She was losing on her own.

No, it's the frontrunner that others aim for.

Also, I don't believe they reported the study correctly. Here's what the results are:

"The study found that 49 percent of the coverage of former Vermont Gov. Dean was positive, compared to 78 percent of the rest of the Democratic field, collectively. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=9&u=/ap/20040116/ap_on_el_pr/tv_news_democrats

So does that mean they compared coverage of Dean alone against coverage of all the other candidates collectively? Hardly a scientific study, since that means the media covered the other dem candidates substantially less. Which we know was the case.

Is that the negative stories they're talking about??

This is bullshit. Dean had nothing but positive press until he became the frontrunner. Every other candidate had no press or negative press. Edwards Breck guy. Kerry's sagging campaign. Gephardt had no eyebrows. This article is just more of the same, "They're pickin' on me ma."

Dean scares the piss out of Rupert-"Reagan jerk off"-Murdoch.

when Dean is slipping and needs help? Is that what you want to regulate?