DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on October 11, 2006, 09:45:39 PM
-
Oh yea, it's a Republican that's President currently
-
Partisan bias in newspapers? A study of headlines says yes
By Kevin A. Hassett and John R. Lott, Jr.
Economists have been puzzled this year by the persistence with which perceptions about the economy have lagged the economic data. For the most recent 12-month period for which we have data, for example, the economy grew almost exactly as fast as it did during the best 12-month period during President Clinton's two terms. But the economic mood of the country has been much different.
It isn't just the economy that influences people's perceptions. In research we just released, we find that media coverage is also an important determinant. We found that newspaper headlines reporting economic news on unemployment, gross domestic product (GDP), retail sales, and durable goods tended to be much more frequently negative when a Republican was in the White House. And this was true even after accounting for the economic numbers on which the stories were based and how those numbers were changing over time.
We also found that positive headlines explained whether people thought that the economy was getting better more than the economic variables themselves. Newspapers are indeed important.
There have, of course, been numerous anecdotal claims of media bias. What has been lacking has been a rigorous scientific study of media bias, and our new paper is an attempt to provide just that.
If we limit ourselves to news coverage of economic data, it is possible to get an objective measure of the news behind the stories. Our research team first collected a list of days that important economic news was released for most papers since 1991 and for four major papers and the Associated Presssince 1985. We then used Nexis, a computer database of news stories that contains information on 389 newspapers, to gather all of the 12,620 headlines that ran in America's newspapers covering economic news stories. We excluded follow-up and feature stories because we wanted to be able to link the headlines directly with the numbers on which they were based.
Headlines are relatively easy to classify since they say things are getting better, worse or mixed. For example, on Jan. 31, the government reported that the real GDP had grown 4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2003. The New York Times covered this, appropriately, as good news, writing the headline, "Economy remained strong in 4th quarter, U.S. reports." At the same time, the Chicago Tribune wrote that "GDP growth disappoints; job worries linger." Headlines are so divergent, it's sometimes hard to believe they are referring to the same event.
Actual economic data explains much about the headlines - but far from everything. We found that the incidence of positive coverage during Republican presidencies was fairly steady - but economic news under President Clinton received by far the most positive coverage. This partisan gap or bias (the difference in positive headlines between Republicans and Democrats for the same underlying economic news) consistently implied that Democrats got between 10 and 20 percentage points more positive headlines.
We also examined individual newspapers. Among the top 10 papers, we found strong evidence that the Associated Press, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, and the Washington Post were much more likely to have positive headlines for Democrats even with the same economic news. The New York Post showed no statistically significant difference. The Los Angeles Times did not tend to treat Republicans and Democrats significantly differently.
Even including the Los Angeles Times, Ronald Reagan, a president who presided over one of the most vigorous economies in our history, still received seven percent fewerpositive news stories than Clinton after accounting for the different economic conditions.
What motivates newspapers and their copy editors to pick the headlines that they do is not a question we tried to answer. Whether these motivations are conscious or not, a partisan gap exists, and it helps explain one of this year's biggest economic puzzles. Unfortunately, the recent charges of political bias at CBS may only be a small part of the problem with the news.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/PhillyInqMediaBias.html
(http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/nowakimages/2006/Stepped-in-Some-Foley.jpg)
-
Life is loaded with illusions .
Exceptions are few.
What we are told first .
Colors what we see.
-
WASHINGTON - The federal budget deficit, helped by a gusher of tax revenues, fell to $247.7 billion in 2006, the smallest amount of red ink in four years.
The deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was 22.3 percent lower than the $318.7 billion imbalance for 2005, handing President Bush an economic bragging point as Republicans go into the final four weeks of a battle for control of Congress.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220076/
-
WASHINGTON - The federal budget deficit, helped by a gusher of tax revenues, fell to $247.7 billion in 2006, the smallest amount of red ink in four years. The deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30 was 22.3 percent lower than the $318.7 billion imbalance for 2005, handing President Bush an economic bragging point as Republicans go into the final four weeks of a battle for control of Congress.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220076/
Damn Bush and those tax cuts. And can you believe Unemployment dropped again, now I think it's at 4.6, and that employee wages have gone UP, under his Presidency?? He needs to be run out of town, ruining our economy like that
-
The economy is moving right along. Too bad about the whole Iraq debacle. Otherwise, it would be rosy all around.
-
The economy is moving right along. Too bad about the whole Iraq debacle. Otherwise, it would be rosy all around.
Well, you can't have everything. Where would you put it? ;)
-
The lowest deficit in four years? Remind me again who was in charge in 2002?
The problem is that the economy is not booming and for most average people it is not going very well at all. See, the problem is with perception as you two indicate. The perception problem is that while some indicators show positive trends, the typical American family sees the economy in a negative light. You all blame the media or some such thing, but that isn't why the poorer and middle classes see the economy in a negative light.
According to a recent USA Today/CNN Poll 55% of Americans with the President's handling of the economy. The thing is that people don't look at national indicators (unless they are truly dismal or remarkable), voters generally look at their own personal economics and there are studies to prove this. So beyond unemployment rate, one has to consider what type of jobs are being created? How has wage inflation kept up with overall inflation? How are retirement plans like 401K's keeping up with overall inflation? Are more retirees having to work now than before?
The deficit has lowered? That has long-term effect and honestly is debatable. The truth is that much of the cost for the prescription drug plan, Afghanistan, and Iraq have yet to be factored in, so I'm certain that you'll see that number adjusted. Even if it isn't, it doesn't really matter to the typical voter because they aren't significantly impacted by the deficit...yet.
-
The thing is that people don't look at national indicators (unless they are truly dismal or remarkable), voters generally look at their own personal economics and there are studies to prove this
And the other thing is, I've seen story after story of folks polled who say "they're doing fine", but believe that their neighbor is not. Which again reinforces the power of the mainscream media, and their ability to push their version of perceptions
The deficit has lowered?
Yes, in half the time that it was predicted by the WH, due in large part to the once again demonstrated tax cuts facilitating increased Fed revenues
Afghanistan, and Iraq have yet to be factored in, so I'm certain that you'll see that number adjusted.
And how are you so certain that it wasn't? Anything to change the facts of the current economic #'s, right Js?
-
I've seen story after story of folks polled who say "they're doing fine", but believe that their neighbor is not.
Example?
And how are you so certain that it wasn't? Anything to change the facts of the current economic #'s, right Js?
No, because this has been government policy to adjust deficit numbers in mid-year. The federal fiscal year only began on October 1. They don't even have all the reports compiled for last fiscal year. If you know anything about accounting you'll know that not all expenses against last year have even been finalized.
Geez Sirs, not everything is partisan hackery.
-
If you know anything about accounting you'll know that not all expenses against last year have even been finalized.
And not all income against last year has been finalized yet, either.
-
And not all income against last year has been finalized yet, either.
True. And note that expenses and revenue can go either up or down before they are finalized.
I'm not exactly sure of the timetable for the Federal Government, but preliminary reports probably haven't run yet for last fiscal year. It will be quite some time before final reports have run.
Any projections for the current year are only rudimentary and based on the budget. Keep in mind that a budget is based on theoretical money (not real money). Making projections is good, but the further out one is from year-end, then the less-accurate it is.
Also, early projections from this administration have historically underestimated the deficit and have not counted the supplementary funding of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
-
Also, early projections from this administration have historically underestimated the deficit and have not counted the supplementary funding of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And the CBO has historically overestimated the deficit.
-
Regardless, I don't think people who vote on economics are going to be overly concerned with budget deficit projections.
-
Regardless, I don't think people who vote on economics are going to be overly concerned with budget deficit projections.
Unless the perception being pushed is that of out of control deficits, as far as the eye can see, and, what was that Senator Kerry, Senator Clinton?, "Worst economy since Herbert Hoover"? All provied with zip correction or follow-up responses by the media in demonstrating the postive economic #'s under this GOP President
-
It might behoove you to try and understand voters and the political science behind their actions a little more and play the victim card a little less.
But then advice is worth what you pay for it. You can walk around with a glow-in-the-dark victim t-shirt if it brings meaning to your world I suppose.
-
It's always amazing when pointing out reality of the mainstream media, and the overt bias that permeates their news stories is "playing the victim card". You're right Js, next time I get the chance to personally talk to 120million potential voters, I'm sure I'll be better able to understand them :-\
-
It's always amazing when pointing out reality of the mainstream media, and the overt bias that permeates their news stories is "playing the victim card". You're right Js, next time I get the chance to personally talk to 120million potential voters, I'm sure I'll be better able to understand them
I'll start with the last sentence first. Of course it is a ludicrous notion that you have to study an entire population to determine trends. I assume you knew that already. As I said, there are studies that have been done that show that people look at their own personal economics when it plays a factor at the polls.
As for your first statement, there is no objective reality there. Look at Plane's post. Where did his story come from? MSNBC. It doesn't get more media than that. The point is that people don't care about budget deficit projections when it comes to casting their ballot. If they do, they probably have already determined who they were voting for long before the election.
To chalk it up as media bias and hiding a great economy (which it isn't) shows either a lack of understanding or a playing of the victim card.
By the way, where are the examples of stories that I asked for?
-
Regardless, I don't think people who vote on economics are going to be overly concerned with budget deficit projections.
Shall we say that all of the unemployed ought to vote Democratic?
Then lets say that all of the employed ought to vote Republican.
If the present economy is bad , what was good about the Clinton economy?
-
As I said, there are studies that have been done that show that people look at their own personal economics when it plays a factor at the polls.
And as I said, there are studies that have been done that show that many respondents to these polls, will indicate that they're doing ok, put they perceive their neighbor as not, and thus push such polling data downward in direct contrast to the economic #'s going upwards
As for your first statement, there is no objective reality there
That'd be your opinion. I've posted piece after piece after piece after piece of studies that have demonstrated how 24/7 news reporting, titling of stories, and "polling" actually becomes the news, and exposing the insidious anti-GOP bias, anti-Bush bias. Minimizing positive aspects of the economy while perseverating on the negative, promotes a negative perception of the economy. It's a simple as this JS, Bush's economy is in many respects far and away greater than when Clinton was President, outside of the deficit of course. When Clinton was President, the postive news of the economy was repeated adnauseum, yet Bush's economic #'s are even better, lower unemployment, record Fed tax income into the reserve, roaring stockmarket, % of the debt to the GDP at something like 2%, Home ownership at all time high, wages up across the board, yet somehow, someway, this is supposedly "the worst economy since Hoover".
Now, how the hell is that?
-
And as I said, there are studies that have been done that show that many respondents to these polls, will indicate that they're doing ok, put they perceive their neighbor as not
Example?
When Clinton was President, the postive news of the economy was repeated adnauseum, yet Bush's economic #'s are even better, lower unemployment, record Fed tax income into the reserve, roaring stockmarket, % of the debt to the GDP at something like 2%, Home ownership at all time high, wages up across the board, yet somehow, someway, this is supposedly "the worst economy since Hoover".
Increase in federal revenue receipts? That's a trend that has kept pace since the mid 1960's. It would be more remarkable if they had fallen, which they actually did in real terms for part of the Bush term, which is a rare trend in U.S. history.
Home ownership is shaky because foreclosures are also at an all-time high and the housing bubble is something all economists are watching.
The stockmarkets are hardly "roaring." In fact they aren't even close to what they were under President Clinton's term. If you count real terms the Dow would have to be somewhere around 13,000 just to show stagnation with the stock market when Bush took office. That doesn't take in the Nasdaq and other market indicators.
Wages are up? Well, in nominal terms of course they are. In real terms they are drastically reduced as wage inflation has failed to keep up with real inflation. Most poor and middle class earners are lucky if any raises they get pay off the increases in health insurance premiums.
Sorry Sirs, you have to look deeper than that and yelling at the media for this one. I'm not claiming this economy is "worse than Hoover's" nor am I claiming that Clinton was an economic wizard. Yet, Bush's economy is not anything special and why do you think the Republican candidates aren't using it as a campaign item?
-
(http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/TownHall/Car/b/20061020RZ1AP-MediaEconomy.jpg)
-
"The point is that people don't care about budget deficit projections when it comes to casting their ballot. If they do, they probably have already determined who they were voting for long before the election. "
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
So someone who would run on a slogan saying "Its the Economy Stupid" is stupid?
-
So someone who would run on a slogan saying "Its the Economy Stupid" is stupid?
No. You are confusing the state of the economy with a single variable of budget deficit projections. And when a politician says "Its the Economy Stupid" he or she most likely means one's personal vantage point of the economy. So, it would depend when one uses the term. Right now it might work well, except a good deal of American voters tend to vote without regard to their economic interest.
Sirs, have you found examples of there are studies that have been done that show that many respondents to these polls, will indicate that they're doing ok, put they perceive their neighbor as not
yet?
It has been a week. Or are you too busy playing media victim?
-
Sirs, have you found examples of there are studies that have been done that show that many respondents to these polls, will indicate that they're doing ok, put they perceive their neighbor as not
yet?
Actually given you conclusions on how everything is how you say it is, I figured such reports, if I could find them would be rationalized away yet again. Probably commentary on how bogus the poll must have been, or how easy it is to make someone answer a certain way on the poll. No? But you know, I really should try to find some of those anyways, since so many of the reports and conclusions we post are rationalized away anyways, yet we still provided them for the masses who do read our commentaries, and actually have an objective dispostion. This weekend I'll endeavor to find some of those polls/stories, for those folks
-
I don't "rationalize away" Sirs. I think critically.
I have no partisan agenda in this mess and would be glad to read any good economic reports or statistical studies that illustrate your hypothesis.
If you have an example of me "rationalizing away" then by all means let's discuss it.
-
I don't "rationalize away" Sirs. I think critically. I have no partisan agenda in this mess and would be glad to read any good economic reports or statistical studies that illustrate your hypothesis. If you have an example of me "rationalizing away" then by all means let's discuss it.
This whole thread has been examples of precisely that Js. Your defense of the media, sarcastically calling those who criticize them as "victims of the media". Whether you wish not to believe it, your partisanship is indeed quite transparent at times, though I concede you're at least more rationally minded that the rest of your leftist brethren. To the point though, as I have time this weekend, I'll see if I can come across some of those stories, then sit back and watch you attempt to torpedo it after you've "thought critically" about it
-
I'm not sure why this is personal. The issue for me is that I see things like "political correctness" and "media bias" as skirts the right wing tend to hide under when they don't have a decent argument otherwise. It is victimisation, maybe the right wing learned it from the left back in the 1970's, I don't know (and frankly don't care) but that doesn't change what it is. I apologise for any personal insults and maybe I crossed that line and it was not fair. Yet, you're fond of the saying "calling a duck a duck" and that is exactly what I intend to do when I see those things Sirs.
Victimisation isn't the sole purview of any one segment of the population or the political spectrum. I've observed that the modern right wing use it to a great extent when they say things like "Christians are under attack." So to me, with a noticable absence of any real valuable academic study on the subjects, the use of "political correctness" as in "we can't express the truth anymore because of the modern Politically Correct era" and the use of "media bias" as in "the war in Iraq is going far better than anyone realizes but the constant liberal media bias doesn't show it" are just more victimisation efforts by the right wing.
Does that mean the left doesn't use their own versions? No, of course not. But that won't stop me from calling out the ones on the right.
In this set of arguments on the economy I haven't once used any such illogical tactics. If you want to talk economy and public finance I can do it. We can get into details that would make you vomit with the tedious boredom of it all. It is one field I feel rather comfortable discussing. So let's discuss, but let's leave the media bias, PC, stuff out of it.
I'm a leftist. I'm not going to lie about it. But I'm not a Democrat and certainly not a Republican. And I can make a rational, logical determination.
-
"I'm a leftist. I'm not going to lie about it. But I'm not a Democrat and certainly not a Republican. And I can make a rational, logical determination. "
Can you have it both ways?
-
Is that a joke or something?
Of course you can.
-
The ability to think rationally is a matter of rigor .
I am under the impression that this is seldom a liberal trait , but this may just be sloppy thinking on my part.
Here is an article about how people tend to answer polls pessimisticly.
(http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/images/gb1abc.gif)
http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbcpoll2.html
The poll—completed mostly before the Asian tsunami disaster—found, on average, 44 percent saying the world economy is getting worse compared to only 34 percent saying it is improving. Similarly, 48 percent say their national economy is getting worse with another 41 percent saying it is getting better. Fully 47 percent see their family’s economic conditions as getting better (vs. 36% saying it is getting worse).
The poll of 22,953 people was conducted by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
Steven Kull, director of PIPA comments, "While the world economy has clearly picked up from difficult times just a few years ago, people do not seem to have fully absorbed this development, though they are personally experiencing its effects. There seems to be a paradoxical tendency for people around the world to say 'I'm OK; but the world isn't.' Policymakers should take note of this tendency to underestimate the world economy as it may lead people to not recognize the benefits of politically controversial policies such as more open trade or aid programs to help poor countries develop their economies."
http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbcpoll2.html
-
Nice find, Plane. I came across the same report during some of my searches, though I thoght I'd find some that pertained to the U.S. specfically. I do recall very vividly how such stories of how folks polled, would indicate a pessimestic perception of the economy, but not because of their condition (as it was good), but of how they perceived everyone else. So, I know such stuff is out there, just haven't come across anything specfically reporting it as I heard it. Hopefully, I'll come across some of these, at some point
-
This superb article (excellent research, Plane) reminds me that this is similiar to politics, e.g. when polled, people tend to think their local politician is doing great whereas those politicians on the national scene are defintiely NOT.
Will this play a major role in the upcoming November elections?
-
This superb article (excellent research, Plane) reminds me that this is similar to politics, e.g. when polled, people tend to think their local politician is doing great whereas those politicians on the national scene are definitely NOT.
Will this play a major role in the upcoming November elections?
Google makes research like this pretty easy , and wicipedia is helpfull.
I remember researching questions like these in the public library , it had to be a question worthy of the trip so a lot of research was never done.
Can Google run the world ? Answers come easy , opinions can be validated no matter what they are.
Asking a relevant question is a good skill . Has been since Socrates.
-
The ability to think rationally is a matter of rigor .
I am under the impression that this is seldom a liberal trait , but this may just be sloppy thinking on my part.
Generalization. You could take out the word "liberal" and insert Christian, black, white, Democrat, Republican, Maoist, capitalist, etc. Besides, when did I claim to be a "liberal?"
As a side note, from where do you get the notion that rational thinking is a matter of rigor?
found, on average, 44 percent saying the world economy is getting worse compared to only 34 percent saying it is improving. Similarly, 48 percent say their national economy is getting worse with another 41 percent saying it is getting better. Fully 47 percent see their family’s economic conditions as getting better (vs. 36% saying it is getting worse).
Much of it made sense. China, India, and Indonesia found the most positive results. Pre-Tsunami these regions would have had the most booming economies. Negative views were among established economies experiencing slow or disappointing levels of economic growth (United States, France, Italy, Japan, and Germany). No surprise there.
What is interesting to me is that you did not show Sirs or the Professor the demographic data. Here the statistical reasons for the different optimistic or pessimistic views are given. Notice that Sirs theory on media bias is not amongst them.[/u]
Overall, within each country, those with relatively high incomes showed optimism about their families’ economic prospects while those with relatively low incomes were more pessimistic. On average among those with very high incomes, 64% were optimistic, while among those with very low incomes only 37% were optimistic and 47% were pessimistic.
No surprise there. It is much easier to show optimism when a small downturn won't be a serious threat to your family's future.
The effect of education was similar to income. Among those with low education, on average, only 36% saw their family’s economic conditions getting better (42% worse), while those with medium and high levels were considerably higher, with 50% and 51%, respectively, saying it was getting better.
Now we are getting to see that there is a class/educational difference in outlook.
The young are far more inclined to perceive economic conditions as improving than are the old—especially in regard to their own conditions. Worldwide, a striking 59 percent of those 18 to 29 years old see their family’s economic conditions as getting better, but only 49 percent of those 30 to 44 see this; 41 percent of those 45 to 59; and just 31 percent of those above 60. Where their country is concerned, 45 percent of the youngest group are optimistic, but only 37 percent of the oldest group; and for the world, 41 percent of those from 18 to 29 are positive, but just 28 percent of people sixty years and older.
Roughly what I would expect to see. Generational differences are common and young people are more in tune with the pace and technology of this economy.
Overall, women tend to be slightly more pessimistic than men about economic prospects. Gender differences are minimal regarding their family’s economic conditions—49% of men were optimistic as compared to 46% of women. In regard to their country’s economic conditions 51% of women thought things were getting worse (38% better) while this was true of 46% of men ( better 44%). Similarly 47% of women saw the world economy getting worse (31% better) as compared to 42% of men (38% better).
Gender differences, again not completely unexpected, though very very interesting.
Now we have one for just North America:
Americans are quite optimistic about their family situation (58%), lean remarkably negative on their country’s prospects (45% better, 51% worse) and also lean negative about the global economy (39% better, 46% worse).
Their northern neighbors in Canada, are more upbeat. They are positive about their family prospects (62%) and their national economy (61%). However they hold a grim view of world trends (35% better, 53% worse)
In stark contrast is Mexico—one of the most negative countries surveyed. Sixty-nine percent are pessimistic about their family’s economic circumstances, 66% about their country’s economy, and 62% the world economy. Though Mexico had reasonable economic growth in 2004 (4%) it is slowly rebounding out of several years of stagnated growth.
Notice how much more positive the Canadians are than the Americans. Interesting, as the Canadians generally have a much more difficult set of economic hurdles than the United States. Mexico may be doing better, but the income gap is huge in Mexico. That may play a role in the pessimism many Mexicans see. Canada holds a grim view of the world's status, but Canada also views itself as playing a large role in providing refuge and help to many of the world's trouble spots. In general, Canadians are knowledgable about world affairs as well.
Good poll Plane, you could have discussed it better though.