Minority Report
(AP / CBS)
--Center for Media and Public Affairs
All Blog Posts from Public Eye
Read all 'CMPA' posts in Public Eye
March 19, 2007 9:31 AM "In 2006, 15 percent of all network stories were reported by minority correspondents and 28 percent were reported by women. This is the highest proportion of minority and female visibility since 2002, when minorities and women accounted for 14 percent and 29 percent of all stories aired, respectively…In 1990 minorities reported only seven percent and women thirteen percent of stories aired on the evening news shows."
--Center for Media and Public Affairs
--Center for Media and Public Affairs
October 31, 2006 4:25 PM 
According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, network news coverage is favoring the Democrats this year. Part of the reason, of course, is what the CMPA calls the "predominant storyline" over the course of the study, which began right after Labor Day and wrapped up on Oct. 22nd. I'll give you three guesses what said storyline might be. (Hint: Send me a "pic!") The other dominant storylines? Iraq and terrorism.
The study found that Democrats got positive evaluations on the nightly news shows 77 percent of the time, while Republicans only got such treatment 12 percent of the time. This news will be greeted as further evidence of liberal media bias in the MSM – yup, there it is – but it is important to remember that when the news is bad for one party or another, the stories are going to reflect that. I'm not saying there aren't ideological biases at play in the media, only that it would be ridiculous to expect the nature of the news not to influence the tenor of the coverage.
One could, I should add, plausibly argue that the focus on Mark Foley and the war is itself evidence of bias. (Though it's worth pointing out that there are plenty of people who think the media isn't talking about the war nearly enough. As for Foley, I think we've all pretty much had our fill.) CMPA director Robert Lichter told USA Today that the problem for Republicans is two guys who aren't even running. “What's hurting Republican candidates is the media's focus on two non-candidates: Mark Foley and George W. Bush,” he said.
Midterm Coverage Good News For Democrats
(AP)
The study found that Democrats got positive evaluations on the nightly news shows 77 percent of the time, while Republicans only got such treatment 12 percent of the time. This news will be greeted as further evidence of liberal media bias in the MSM – yup, there it is – but it is important to remember that when the news is bad for one party or another, the stories are going to reflect that. I'm not saying there aren't ideological biases at play in the media, only that it would be ridiculous to expect the nature of the news not to influence the tenor of the coverage.
One could, I should add, plausibly argue that the focus on Mark Foley and the war is itself evidence of bias. (Though it's worth pointing out that there are plenty of people who think the media isn't talking about the war nearly enough. As for Foley, I think we've all pretty much had our fill.) CMPA director Robert Lichter told USA Today that the problem for Republicans is two guys who aren't even running. “What's hurting Republican candidates is the media's focus on two non-candidates: Mark Foley and George W. Bush,” he said.
October 19, 2006 11:56 AM 
The Center for Media and Public Affairs has released a study of network coverage of this year's midterm elections up to this point, and it looks like we're getting more such coverage than we have in a long time.
According to CMPA, "[t]he first four weeks of this year's midterm coverage has been more than three times as heavy as in 2002 and more than three of the last four offyear elections combined." Now, much of this coverage has been Mark Foley-related – the Congressman/underage male page Internet sex scandals seem to generate quite a bit of attention for some reason. But "[a]fter taking the Foley scandal coverage into account…the 60 remaining stories still equal the 1994 total and exceed the combined totals of 2002, 1998, and 1990." So there's something else going on here as well.
That something else is largely the fact that for the first time since the Newt Gingrich-led Republican takeover in '94, commentators think there is a good chance that power will be handed over in one or both houses of Congress. One can't help but wonder if there is a correlation/causation question in all this. That is: Is it possible that having a whole bunch of media folks suggesting that power might change hands makes it more likely that such a power shift will actually happen? Surely news outlets are reporting on the potential power shift because there are factors independent of press coverage that suggest it could take place. But it does seem likely that increased coverage of the midterms will effect factors such as turnout. And the last time we saw midterm coverage at this level, in 1994, power ended up changing hands.
Coverage Crunching
(CBS)
According to CMPA, "[t]he first four weeks of this year's midterm coverage has been more than three times as heavy as in 2002 and more than three of the last four offyear elections combined." Now, much of this coverage has been Mark Foley-related – the Congressman/underage male page Internet sex scandals seem to generate quite a bit of attention for some reason. But "[a]fter taking the Foley scandal coverage into account…the 60 remaining stories still equal the 1994 total and exceed the combined totals of 2002, 1998, and 1990." So there's something else going on here as well.
That something else is largely the fact that for the first time since the Newt Gingrich-led Republican takeover in '94, commentators think there is a good chance that power will be handed over in one or both houses of Congress. One can't help but wonder if there is a correlation/causation question in all this. That is: Is it possible that having a whole bunch of media folks suggesting that power might change hands makes it more likely that such a power shift will actually happen? Surely news outlets are reporting on the potential power shift because there are factors independent of press coverage that suggest it could take place. But it does seem likely that increased coverage of the midterms will effect factors such as turnout. And the last time we saw midterm coverage at this level, in 1994, power ended up changing hands.
