convention coverage

[varwoche]

FOX News Channel showed 74 total minutes of live primetime speech coverage on the first night of the Republican National Convention (RNC) -- 33 minutes more than the network showed of speeches on the first night of the Democratic National Convention (DNC). The disparate coverage came after FOX News Channel host Cal Thomas said that, in order to be "fair and balanced," the coverage should not differ from the DNC coverage -- and after FOX host Bill O'Reilly announced (mpeg/windows media) that his show would air the same amount of coverage of RNC speeches as it did of DNC speeches.

mediamatters.org

 

[American]

33 minutes? I'd say that's OK, considering the networks skipped the ENTIRE OPENING NIGHT for the republicans, while they covered that of the democrats.

 

[varwoche]

Assuming true, point taken.

I'm interested in a comprehensive data set -- network and cable. Plus print media for that matter.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Assuming true, point taken.

I'm interested in a comprehensive data set -- network and cable. Plus print media for that matter.

then dont trust mediamatters.org

 

[varwoche]

then dont trust mediamatters.org

The page contains raw data. Do you have reason to dispute the raw data?

Can you please provide evidence that mediamatters is an unreliable source? Seriously. I'd like to know if they're legit -- I only first read them a couple of weeks ago.

 

[WildCat]

I don't know if the coverage was much different, but networks broadcast for ratings. The Republicans had John McCain, Schwarzenegger, Zell Miller. People wanted to see this, whether they agreed w/ it or not.

Dems had Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and for some reason the buffoon known as Al Sharpton. The first 2 are are as exciting as watching paint dry, the latter like listening to fingernails scratching a chalk board.

 

[corplinx]

I posted on this the other night. The second night, fox showed less of the RNC than they did the second night of the DNC.

I don't mean to offend the dignity of former office-holders Gore, Carter, and Clinton; but I think the speach of "maverick republican" John McCain who Kerry teased as a VP pick was a good play by the RNC people. There was suspense about what he would say, and they didn't want to miss anything and played it entirely.

So, did it get more play? Of course!

The thing I don't like about Fox's coverage is what happens afterwards:
Fred Barnes: conservative
Mort Kondracke: right leaning centrist
Mara Liason: left leaning centrist
Bill Krystol: republican

This is the discussion panel and its led by Brit Hume. Where are the democrat or liberal analysts?

 

[corplinx]

And by the way, mediamatters is not a reliable source.


Check this:

News Channel showed 74 total minutes of live primetime speech coverage on the first night of the Republican National Convention (RNC) -- 33 minutes more than the network showed of speeches on the first night of the Democratic National Convention (DNC).

*The disparate coverage came after FOX News Channel host Cal Thomas said that, in order to be "fair and balanced," the coverage should not differ from the DNC coverage --

*and after FOX host Bill O'Reilly announced (mpeg/windows media) that his show would air the same amount of coverage of RNC speeches as it did of DNC speeches.

If Fox is such a bastion of distortion, why does mediamatters resort to it.

First they state a fact, that there was more speechtime aired.

Secondly they try to draw a consistency problem since Cal Thomas who appears on Fox Newswatch as an analyst suggested the network should devote the same amount of time.

Thirdly, they mention O'Reilly _who is on before the big keynotes_ said that he would give the same amount of coverage and try to draw the same inconsistency. However, O'Reilly was speaking of his own show which preceded the big speeches on Monday night that got the lopsided coverage. MediaMatters provides no evidence that O'Reilly did not fulfill his pledge to give equal coverage on his own show.

Really, mediamatters is just an anti-fox propaganda organ at this point.

 

[corplinx]

Here is some laughable material from mediamatters, on the second night fox had less coverage than they did of the dnc speeches. However, mediamatters was still bitching.

Halfway through the Republican National Convention (RNC), Media Matters for America found that FOX News Channel has aired 23 minutes more of live speech coverage of the first two nights of the RNC than it aired of the first two nights of the Democratic National Convention (DNC). While FOX News Channel did air ten fewer minutes of speeches on the second night of the RNC (55 minutes) than it aired of speeches on the second night of the DNC (65 minutes), the cumulative disparity still remains.

This is spin in its purest form. Now look, I've tolerated some of you people playing dumb about the distortion and bias of mediamatters. I don't feel like going through and debunking things I think most of you should be able to see through like a two-bit card trick.

No more mediamatters please.

 

[varwoche]

First they state a fact, that there was more speechtime aired.

Secondly they try to draw a consistency problem since Cal Thomas who appears on Fox Newswatch as an analyst suggested the network should devote the same amount of time.

Thirdly, they mention O'Reilly _who is on before the big keynotes_ said that he would give the same amount of coverage and try to draw the same inconsistency. However, O'Reilly was speaking of his own show which preceded the big speeches on Monday night that got the lopsided coverage. MediaMatters provides no evidence that O'Reilly did not fulfill his pledge to give equal coverage on his own show.

Each point you make, exclucing the ones I snipped, true, blatantly so. (And even the snipped conclusion that mm is unreliable -- I don't know enough to judge.)

Their agenda is obvious. Still, is there reason to question the raw data?

Better yet, since I don't care about mm anyway... Do you have other source(s) for this type of data? (The tabular numbers; not the verbage.) Seriously.

 

[corplinx]

Each point you make, exclucing the ones I snipped, true, blatantly so. (And even the snipped conclusion that mm is unreliable -- I don't know enough to judge.)

Their agenda is obvious. Still, is there reason to question the raw data?

Better yet, since I don't care about mm anyway... Do you have other source(s) for this type of data? (The tabular numbers; not the verbage.) Seriously.

I don't dispute the raw data at all. In fact, we had a short thread about this Tuesday night after the numbers for the first two nights were tabulated.

Now, you keep mentioning raw data, if it was your intention to only discuss the raw data then perhaps you should have merely posted it instead of the incomplete data (you only posted Monday and all four days are out) which shows a skew followed by misleading statements from mediamatters (the thomas/oreilly ones).

If you want to discuss these things in a "just the facts" manner, then I sincerely beg you to present them as such. I would enjoy discussing the implications of lopsided coverage. Its an interesting discussion.

 

[Ladewig]

Speaking of convention coverage, did anyone else notice the difference between the radio coverage and the televison coverage. Watching TV, one came away with the idea that Bush spoke in the midle of the room and people crowded around the stage. The radio coverage pointed out that there was a concrete barricade, a pit, and a large ring of Secret Service agents between the president and the crowd. Furthermore, all movement during the speech was prohibited: no one was allowed to use the ailses. I mention all this stuff because a candidate who repeated said, "America is safer" looks a bit out of touch with a phalanx of security.

 

[varwoche]

I don't dispute the raw data at all. In fact, we had a short thread about this Tuesday night after the numbers for the first two nights were tabulated.

Now, you keep mentioning raw data, if it was your intention to only discuss the raw data then perhaps you should have merely posted it instead of the incomplete data (you only posted Monday and all four days are out) which shows a skew followed by misleading statements from mediamatters (the thomas/oreilly ones).

If you want to discuss these things in a "just the facts" manner, then I sincerely beg you to present them as such. I would enjoy discussing the implications of lopsided coverage. Its an interesting discussion.

Fair enough. Just so you know, I tried to paste the table, it didn't work, I was lazy...

Anyway, I tried at this a few days ago. My thread scolled so far away I can't find it. I have a sincere interest in analyzing media for fairness. I'd love to participate in an experiment of sorts, where some metrics are defined and we collate data over the next 2 months for subsequent analysis. And we have a clean line of demarkation with the end of the conventions.

I have fiddled a bit with database models surrounding this topic, fwiw.