Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Americans think Presidential Media Coverage is Biased and Trivial
A new Harvard study called the "National Leadership Index 2007" of over 1200 individual interviews (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership) found that 64 percent of Americans don't trust media coverage of the presidential campaign. Also, 88 percent believe the coverage has too much focus on trivial issues, rather than major policy discussions. The study found that 84 percent believe the media has too much influence on American voting choices. More than 60 percent believe that media coverage is politically biased. What do you think about media coverage of the presidential campaign? Do you access DIVERSE media content in order to balance any possible bias? Or do you only access media content which agrees with your political worldview? HOW are you getting your presidential news? Broadcast TV? CABLE? Online? Print?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
42 comments:
I do agree with the gneral consenus that coverage is at least somewhat biased and do whole heartedly agree that the most trivial matters get most of the coverage.
I can think of just a few solid important political issues that have gotten any real time in the coverage.
My media intake consists of newspapers and network news programs, both local and national. I don't look to any specific news source, none with any specific world view.
My presidential news comes mostly from websites, not the best way, but it is how I have so far.
I think that media coverage of the presidential campaign varies. I do think that some of the coverage is good, but I think that the bigger issue is with journalists, reporters, etc. They saturate the different mediums with unimportant information. The coverage of the campaign is not necessarily bad, but saturated and one must take time to find the real issues.
I personally try to access diverse media content, but I must be honest that I have not done so a lot because I still feel it is still early in the race and I just have not taken the time yet.
I get most of the presidential news from TV, newspaper, and various internet articles when I come across them. I have not gone out of my way to access a lot of various information yet.
I'm not shocked that 64 percent of Americans don't trust the Presidential media coverage. I do agree that the news focuses a little much on trivial issues rather than important policies and political goals. However, those little trivial issues can show their real character rather than political debates. People can say anything they want; it's what they do that shows who they are and what they believe.
I'm definately not the most updated person on the presidential race but I try to tune into the news. I definately ask the people I respect what their views and opinions are of the canidates and I don't just vote for someone just because they're of my choice political party.
I can believe that many people think the presidental debate is biased. I think that the news only shows us what they want us to see about the canidates. This could be bad things that happen in the past for a canidate. But for certain canidates i believe that if a certain news station lean towards a certain canidate then maybe all they show are the good things instead of bad things. If the news would just show us everything that goes on in the debate that would show us who the canidate truly is and doesn't put a bias on certain canidates. We need the best possible person having control over our contry so we don't need bias we need the whole truth.
I do think that media coverage of the predidential election can be some what biased. I also do agree that the media does cover more of the trivial matters at hand, yet most people that all they know what to go by when they are making their decision on who is going to make the best president. Not many people look deeper into the more important matters. I do have one question though why does the media choose the more trivial matter is it because thats what they think the American public wants to know about?
I read Denver's two newspapers every day and I find that they cover a lot of the presidential campaings. They try very hard to stick to staying neutral in their beliefs and cover all sides fairly. I try to stay neutral also with my beliefs about each of the presidential runners and I do try to read as much as possible on each of them. They do their very best to help the citizens where it is needed most. They need to balance the buget for health care etc.and that is not an easy task. I believe that who ever can back up what they are going to do to help the people then that is the one I will vote for. I usually read about what I know should be done for the US and globily and leave it at that. I will sometimes listen to PBS news and their coverage of te campaigns are awesome. They have full coverage of every thing they talk about.
Really, people can't expect people to not be biased when covering the elections. Some stations are liberal, some are conservative, and the people within reporting groups vary in opinion as well. Everyone is biased one way or another during the presidential campaigns, and if someone took both sides and stated that they really didn't care who won while on TV, people would jump all over them saying they were anti-democratic or something of that nature.
One way or the other, the media and in truth the campaigns themselves do seem to focus on trivial matters. Frankly, I don't care if a candidate had sex with his wife's brother's dog as long as he has a good plan to fix immigration and get the things I want to happen with this country done. When I watch the news, I want to hear about campaign plans and how the person is going to carry them out if they're elected, not if they weren't the perfect military soldier or if they smoked.
The results are not overly surprising. There is really no way to keep any biases completely out of the news and as such it is to be expected that people will pick up on that fact. Additionally people will find a bias or at least complain about one regardless of what the actual case may be. Proof of this would be how most liberals feel that the media is overly conservative on Sunday mornings however they see no problem with the Monday through Friday news casts. Many conservatives however feel that the Monday through Friday news has an overly strong liberal bias. Few people will claim that someone in agreeance with their personal beliefs is exhibiting a bias. I personally do agree that many minor aspects concerning this up-coming political election have been given too much attenation. Minor things that have little or no actual application to a person's validity as a political candidate. But that is the culture we live in. American cultue thrives off of finding and announcing small inperfections in people that have been glorified in any fashion.
I find it easy to believe that the majority of general public does not trust the media coverage of the presdential race. I think it is important especially asa young adult to know what is going on with this topic, but finding alternative ways to educate yourself is essential. The media stresses a lot of the small stuff, because that seems to be what young america is interested in. It seems as if they are interested in what kind of dirt they find can on a candidate rather than find out their views on a certain policy. I get my information from online sources as well as watching cable tv. CNN would be my choice to find information online and on TV.
I think that the media does play a big part in the presidential candidacy. There are so many people that do tune in to the news for their information on the candidates. So i believe that is is important that the news tries to stay away from being bias. But we as people should realize that most news does have a bias, so we need to go out and do our own research on the candidates.
These percents do not surprise me. Of course media coverage is biased. If it weren't you would not see constant coverage of McCain and his daughter on MTV or Barak Obama on Oprah. A perfect example would be during the 2004 election Fox News was the first to break the story that George W. Bush had won the election. Which was weird since not all the votes had been counted and Gore was actually in the lead. Later it was found out that Bush's nephew happened to work for that department of Fox news that leaked the story.
As far as the coverage being trivial, it most definitly is. A few years ago a canadate was asked what would you do in a worse case senerio if a 7 year old had a gun and was threatening to use it. The canadiate said in a "worse case senerio" a taser gun should be used. For the rest of the campaigne the opposing people used this in there ad campaigns against him. "He voted to taser 7 year old." This is very trivial information, funny, but trivial.
The way I get my presidential news is from CNN.
I think that no matter what source that anyone receives their presidential campaign media from, there is always going to be some sort of bias. It all depends on the source that you're relying on. Some news channels are more conservative, others more liberal. People who understand politics know their stance and are going to know what to trust for themselves. If they are smart, they aren't going to rely entirely on the media and what it may or may not portray about the presidential candidates that the public needs to know about. It's not like the presidential campaign is a short-term process. It's a long, tedeous process of interviews and questions by several news and media sources serving to the public. By the time election rolls around, if voters can't trust what they've learned about who they are voting for, then I think they should be a bit more careful about who they vote for.
I naturally access diverse media content without intentions of doing so. When it is that time of year for presidential elections, news is everywhere about the candidates. It's not like we're being forced to listen to one source. I get most of my presidential news from FOX news and the local newspapers. Although I admit I sway towards listening to media content that agrees mostly with my political views, I do stay open to listening to the other side of the story. It's wise to talk publicly about your opinions towards the candidates and to be open for others' reason of support for anyone against your candidate of choice. It's not just about what you think is best, but what is best for the country as well, and if we all just participate to listen to all different sides then elections will slide through easily.
We discussed in class that liberals usually feel the news is too conservative, where as conservatives generally feel the news is too liberal. It was surprising that this study found that 64% of Americans don't trust the media coverage. With news stations like Fox, which is very obviously tied to the Republican party, it is easy to see how Americans feel their news is biased.
I gather my news and information from several sources, I enjoy the bluestate.com, and it is primarily, ok only liberally viewed news. I also visit CNN.com
which is also viewed as a very liberal news source. I also run a web page that is called "A Progressive Liberal's Page." I am personally guilty of entertaining my own beliefs, ideas and thoughts. But who honestly watches the opposing side to change their mind? I strongly believe that, in general, Americans like to feel that their views are the correct views so they surround themselves with media to validate their beliefs. In my own defense, I also enjoy seeing the other side, so I frequent Fox News.
I just did my third paper on this issue for Professor Ebersole's masscommunications class and I never really took the time to notice how bias the news is no matter where you choose to get your news from. I think the reason why I never noticed the bias attitudes displayed throughout it is because I am used to it just as I assume everyone else is. If you get your news from a newspaper or a magazine, of course it is going to have some sort of bias in it because they are written by people and no matter how hard you try, it is a person's nature to be opinionated. Because of this, many people feel like they would be better off getting their news from the internet, but if you really think about it, this isn't going to be any more unbiased than all the other news sources are. Computer programs are still created by humans. The majority of the time, I end up getting my news from the Daily Show on comedy central or in my school classes. I can definitely see why these statistics are shown like this. People aren't dumb and they know that when they see a debate or anything having to do with politics on T.V. it is never what it is shown to be. Bias views will always exist!
I agree with the idea that news networks are biased in one way or another and I really have a hard time believing otherwise. News networks are always going to have their opinion on certain issues or show favoritism in one way or another. I think that their ideas still show even though they claim to be biased, and this affects the quality of their newscasts. I think that it is sort of sad to know that you can tell which side a news network is on by who is a guest on the show or what issue they are talking about. You can even tell by the certain ways the interview is conducted or the story is ran. I think that the media coverage of the presidential campaign is very honest this way and I think that is runs into some ethical questions. I try to access diverse media content, but I mainly want to make my own decisions about why I want to pick a canidate without any media influence because I don't trust them. If I wanted to get any news on the presidential race, I wouls go to msn.com. So far they have showed at least a bit of honesty.
$t08021989
In my mind, i think people are going to say and hear what they want to. As much as we like it or don't like it, the media is going to report on what they think is fair. Obviously what people think is fair is different. For example, Fox news, typically a very right winged station, will report how they think it is best, and the (almost subconciously)think and say things with a right sided bias. On the other side, the New York Times, a more left winged production, will do the same thing. However, on the outs, citizens are going to take in what they want. If right winged, and wanting the other sides opinion, they may read the NY Times. Or, the right winged person may just wnat to validate his beleifs and watch what will please him, Fox News. I'm not saying that the NY Times or Fox News is bad, but thats just how it is. You are going to report on how you think, and subconciously you do think in a bias way.
The media coverage of the presidential races, to me, has always been a major part of the election process. This is where candidates can sell themselves to the public through the popular media form of television. I believe that some broadcast company have biases towards how they would like to present certain candidates because of the stations own political affiliation. Different internet sites and newspapers are other ways I view the media coverage of presidential races. I feel that it is very important to get my information from multiple sources because it keeps me from just hearing the whole story just from one point of view, instead I just gather information from different sources and then formulate my own opinion. I used to get my presidential news from the Fox News Team, but after there coverage of Hurricane Katrina where they left people in need of help on roof top, so now I don’t just stick to one news team.
i find it evry easy to to believe that most people are weary of the news coverage and how it may depict a bias. as a young adult in college i think it is essential that we understand the issues that our presidential candidates speak upon. It is hard when most of the information displayed on the news is about the small irrelevant issues at the time, but there are other ways to find out the information that we seek. Another medium of information gathering is the internet. i typically get most of my information on the presidential race from cnn, both online and television.
Media coverage of the presidental campaign is a lot of who can get the most information that they think will down there oppoint; also make them look intelligent. Yes I think diverse media is good because if you only listen to one source you only have one side of the story. When you only have one side of the story you do not have the option to choose side.thats why I choose to use all of the above tv, cable, internet, and etc.
I think the media coverage has saturated the the presidential election so much that i'm not even sure how the candidates stand on issues. You see so many viewpoints nowadays from the Bill O'Reilly's, the Glen Beck's, the John Stewart's, and the Stephen Colbert's that you hear more about their opinion rather than the candidates stance on issues. I prefer getting my news from the Colbert Report and Daily show mostly with some CNN mixed in sometimes. But since the writers strike i've found out that i'm receiving less information on the elction because of the absence of the two comedy central shows. So i've turned to the internet somewhat to get my news on the election clicking on whatever seems intriguing on my homepage but never really going in depth into coverage. Personally i think the absence of the comedy central shows could actually hurt all candidates who are trying to get a voice out to the young 18-25 year old voters.
I believe the media coverage wants to percieve or project an image that does not represent bias; they try be appear politcally correct if you will. However, jouranlists, publishers, and media broadcasting may not always run smooth; especially when it comes to political news. I believe the media has covered the presidental campaign fairly well in the sense that there seems to be a lot of information fairly quick. Yet what troubles me is the truth and honesty they hold or lack there of within that information. I see the campaign coverage generally every where from the online, magazines, or news papers, but I will basically only read the media coverage on the news papers. I usually only take the time to read it on the news paper for no particular reason; but I am open to more coverage from other resources.
I think the media coverage of the presidential campaign is biased, however I also think there is no way to avoid it. Papers and broadcast stations geared toward liberal or conservative views are bound to up-play those particular views. Also, it is very difficult to remain objective and retain personal opinion from fact, especially in heated debates like those that can be seen on Fox News or MSNBC. Keeping this in mind, I have to admit that I do not seek my information about the presidential candidate from a wide variety of sources but I do not access only that which agrees with my political views. Much of my information comes from online news sources and forums and I do occasionally tune into the Colbert Report for a healthy dose of political information and humor. However, the media does have a huge influence on American voting. The media has the capability of pushing the public one way or the other by providing more favorable coverage to a candidate over another. While most sources do try to maintain an objective stance, this is not always the case, especially in newscasts. Another problem is the public service announcements aired by other candidates that tend to belittle or defame other opponents. Once can only hope that integrity and honesty, a quality that many Americans are expression a desire for in the upcoming presidency, will prevail to keep these slanderous campaigns to a minimum.
I think that so many people in america have selective hearing when it come to politics. they either pick and choose their news or stick to braodcasters and writers who's opinions most resemble their own. In doing so they miss the message's of so many other peole and that comprimises america's ability to have the best.
I do give credit to the csu-pueblo campus for offering 3 free newspapers to its students. I read each paper daily as well as visit cnn, fox and msnbc websites to get my news and political updates.
Blogs have also helped in my knowledge of candidates becuase so many people do link to articles and video to back up their opinion, that helps me to form my own ideas.
On the issue of media bias as it pertains to presidential campaigns I feel almost disgusted in how controlled every little issue is and the candidates all sound like robots telling us what we want to hear. It seems as though if they were to express their true feelings they would either polarize the public or totally scare them away. The responses we get are luke-warm and written by a team of writers not the candidates themselves. I myself could care less for media coverage because I never vote for one of the top two candidates. I lean toward independents because they don't have the millions of dollars pushing ads down Americans throats. I agree with the people who feel that the media has too much influence on American voting choices and I feel that it's time for us to vote outside of the republican and democratic parties because that's the only way we'll see some real change. Yet it won't be too drastic the only thing is that all the power lies in the hands of few and they will not let it go so easily. So ignore the campaigning and vote for someone that isn't a puppet.
These are fascinating comments to read from good, caring citizens! One thought to remember is that news commentators such as O'Reilly, Beck, and the Daily Show, and others...are not providing NEWS in its purist definition. Their programs are entertainment with their bias fully enforced. That's their intent. Enjoy them for what they are.
This is a new problem that "journalism" is facing with the proliferation of cable and Internet programming. Traditional "news" is defined as an attempt to cover all sides. Is it possible to eliminate bias as a journalist? Perhaps not, but I believe we should all be wary of distinguishing between those television programs and newspapers which have journalists at least ATTEMPTING objective reporting, from blogs and cable programming intended to provide a particular worldview with entertainment based content.
As far as the presidential campaigns are concerned I feel that unfortunately the media coverage is many times focused on trivial, not so important topics as opposed to real world issues. I think we must all come to a realization though. Why is the media covering these trivial gossip issues? Because that is what America is listening to. If we, as Americans, weren't so interested in what things candidates had done in their past that maybe weren't the best choices of their life then the media wouldn't be covering. Maybe the problem is with us, the American people, and not the media. They only report what sells.
The coverage of the presidential campaign is very important. We now as citizens have just 11 months to make a decision that will last four years and possibly have effects that will last for decades. The coverage might seem to be a bit much. However, we must take into consideration that we are still in Iraq, which many are looking for answers to. What is happening now and what the future president plans to do?
Also, I don’t know if anyone else has noticed but the players are different this time around. Gender or race should not matter, and am I not trying to shock anyone by saying this, but this is the first time that people of these backgrounds are seen to be most likely will win. At least for one party.
Aside from that, there is bias everywhere with coverage and always has been that way. I personally try to read different types of media that have nothing to do with a comic appeal to avoid confusing information and entertainment/enjoyment.
Of course we all would have a tendency to access information that would suit what our current political agendas are. The best advice is to think about issues most important to us as individuals, and then research both sides of them with open minds. We should search with intent for new knowledge.
The answer to my source of obtaining information is from broadcast TV, cable, online, and print.
I feel that the media coverage of the presidential campaign is bias and has a large affect on the outcome. With most of the news stations and television stations also being bias it is hard to get a diverse coverage of the campaign. I get a majority of the presidential news from broadcast televesion. I feel that the coverage can be more diverse and shouldn't have a major influence in the outcome.
I feel that the different media coverage of all presidential campaigns are different. I guess it depends on how you really look at the matter. Its easy to believe that the news can be bias because its obvious that certain part of the story is more focused on and we arent really offered too much about the other half. I also feel that the information you get about any president matter depends alot of on your source. It all depends on whether your watching tv, reading a magazine or news artice or looking up information online.
Quit giving THE MEDIA more authority than it deserves.
Wow, 30 postings in this string and every student pretty much said the same thing -- nothing.
The key in deciphering the messages pertaining to politics is to seek out larger segments of discourse. This involves actually taking the time to read for oneself the transcripts of speeches or to view longer video clips of candidates on the stump.
There is and endless sea of such content now available to anyone with a computer, and I would argue that if one isn't able to simply find the diversity of ideas they claim to need on basic television, then they're not trying.
Stop blaming THE MEDIA and start learning to listen and parse rhettoric and judge visible bodylanguage information for yourself.
If something a particular talking head journalist or commentator says doesn't sit right, investigate.
Don't simply throw your hands up and flip the channel to your favorite mind numbing sitcom or reality show.
Lastly, with what communications majors should know about tenets of journalism, why in the hell would they expect to find balanced information from corporate media news sources anyway? Anyone heard of Free Speech TV?
How about seeking content not heavily funded, sponsored or influenced by right-wing or left-wing owners and advertisers?
Ah, and if enough people genuinely believed media content was too trivial, they'd stop watching thus forcing broadcasters to change the format plain and simple.
It's called participatory democracy people, not passive witnessing.
Do I think media coverage of the presidential campaign is biased? Absolutely! In my opinion, some should be, while others have an obligation to report the information as it is.
When I pick up the Pueblo Chieftain and read an article written by Mike Rosen, I am getting his biased opinion; alright,fine, but when I turn on the Today Show on my local channel 5, I believe they have an obligation to report the news, and I am not sure that always happens.
In order to get a real understanding of the candidates' positions, it is necessary to view "Diverse media content to balance bias."
My husband and I are each affliated with different political parties, but for the most part, share similar views. We have no idea for whom we will vote at this point in time. We are not even leaning a certain way. We have, however, tried to go online and look at some of their past voting habbits; we turn to many broadcast television shows, on cable and on local stations (we are watching the GOP Candidates Debate right now); and we do read newspapers.
In my opinion, the media coverage on the presidential campaigning is very biased. In think most people are certainly influenced more by the media than the actual candidates. American voting choices are predominately influenced by the media. I prefer to watch the news in order to get the most accurate information. I would rather hear the actual candidates’ speeches than the media’s biased information.
Media is always biased, even if most people cannot tell. The media likes to put down a lot of celebrities and famous people, but I guess that is what makes news so worthy is the fact that it is bad rather than good. The media sometimes is untrustworthy. The news reports on television are usually more believable and are easier to tell whether someone is making a fabrication or not. I do not really trust the media coverage that I hear about on the web or in magazines and sometimes not even in newspapers.
Posted By
Jessica Brown
I agree that the media coverage of the presidential election is very biased. I also beleive that their is nothing worng about that. Different media supports each side. I get my presidential coverage on tv, and i am an Obama supporter. I feel that many stations are biased towards Obama, So for me its a plus, but i could also see how the other side is frustrated. Media coverage will always be biased to gain more supporters and to get its point across.
In many instances it is very hard to look to the media as a trustworthy source of unbiased and constructed form of an information vehicle. The exposure of psuedo events and false reporting has given media representatives a bad name. The general publics conception has been altered by a these exposures, and has led to distrust. My feelings towards the campaigning for presidency and influence on voters is, Americans want what is best for themselves and their families. When a presidential canidate can target what most suit the majority of the large demographics they are the individual whom will be our next president. So to say that the media has a major control over elections and altering the publics view of canadates is the largest factor in choosing a president/// is probably untrue in most instances.
What is news worthy? Is it news worthy that Obama Girl made another YouTube post? Probably not, however, it makes the news. Do I think the news is showing a bias? I would argue that the news follows what the public wants to see, or know.
This campaign only recently turned into mud-slinging. This is very different than previous elections. The "dirty politics" that is mentioned in the blog has more to do with the media's portrayal of the candidates. Does Hilary Clinton have supporters? Absolutely. Are they as charismatic as Obama? Probably not, or there would be news about it.
However, this is not the first election that has used the charisma of a candidate to propel the candidate. J.F.K. is a great example of this. Charisma has a lot to do with the portrayal. It was Kennedy and Nixon's television debates that illustrates that the media has always been biased...look at the angles of the cameras.
I do think that the presidential election can be biased sometimes and i dont think that the public can trust the media. the media has lied so many times about so many things over the years. really the only place that most people get their information from is the news on tv or the internet. a lot of people dont have time to sit around and look into stuff. but i do agree with the general that coverage is somewhat biased and i also agree that the most trivial problems get the most of the coverage.
I think that the media of the presidential campaigns are not always good,but I also don't think that both parties are ever going to have good media. the medias job is to entertain and thats what they do,bad media brings more viewers aware and thats what the media likes.the media loves to get dirt of people in the spot lights. not always is the media correct though or good coverage. the media has to have a target or it isn't necessarily considered entertainment as a media.
I can't stand all of the presidental media coverage because what is really the truth first off, and why does it matter in the end if the candiate took a shot of alcohol or if they can dance well? What really matters to me is like maybe what are they going to do about the recession, our gas prices, maybe the overall effect of just what do they have planned for out economy?!
No matter what you are not going to make someone happy and people are going to be biased, but thats what happens when you live in a free country, you get different opinions and the right to have them.
I haven't done any personal looking up of the presidential candiates yet,I will, but anything that I have heard so far as been from the T.V. and unfortunatly that is not very credible for me right now.
Sarah Duncan
I get my presidential news coverage from the news, online journals, and party sites. However, i do not believe that most of the problems concerning media coverage on the presidential race is bias. Most of it has to do with my opinion what a candidate did or said or voted for in the past. I see all these cheap shots that the candidates are taking at eachother rather than focusing on the issues at hand. The media for the most part is giving an accurate description of what is going on as well as political issues. Campaign strategist have turned this into an all out dogfight...So that is what the American people are seeing. Something that the campaigns have turned this race into. I Dont fully agree with the stats...sure a majority of people may have said that...But a large percentage of people also dont know who they are voting for because of whats been going on with cheap shot attacks. And the people who are voting, i havent heard one good reason for why they are voting for a candidate. every time i here why are you voting for Obama people say because he is a a voice for change, or Clinton because she represents the working class, or McCain because he uphold conservative agenda's. However, i believe the American people are the ones losing the Issues at hand and are more concerned with personality or one to a couple of issues rather than the whole perspective of political issues. I believe most people feel the way they do because they see and hear what they want....And because the media takes a different approach that maybe they dont agree with, they obect to its presentation or format.
-Zach Tryon.
By: MARIO BALINTON
I do believe that the media coverage and content is politically biased. I feel that these stations are all owned by someone with a political view or agenda. I feel that the coverage of the democratic candidates Obama and Clinton are mostly shown as a confrontational and conflicting between the two. While McCain eases on by. I mostly get all my information on the presidential race through broadcast media and honestly I rarely hear of anything negative about McCain. All I hear about is Obama’s preacher, are we ready for a black president, and he used to do drugs. And for Clinton, are we ready for a female president, are we going to re-elect Bill, does she have the credentials, can a women be capable of being a president. And for McCain nothing, except the same ol I hear from the current president. I feel that the media coverage needs to be more diverse and more balanced and most importantly totally unbiased which I believe will never happen but needs to.
-MARIO BALINTON
Post a Comment