The Center for Media Engagement at UT Austin has released a report on TV coverage of the coronavirus. Here's their breakdown of how often partisans were mentioned:
Broadcast news and CNN mentioned Democrats and Republicans about equally, demonstrating their desire for even handedness. Fox and MSNBC, by contrast, both mentioned their ideological opposites at a higher rate. Why? Because both networks are dedicated less to defending their own side than they are to stoking outrage about what the other side is doing. On this score, MSNBC is bad and Fox is even worse.
The report also takes a look at how well each network did on providing accurate mask information following the CDC's change of heart in April. They found that broadcast networks and CNN were very accurate; MSNBC was slightly worse but still pretty good; and Fox was terrible. Apparently toeing the Trump line prevented them from taking the plunge and just telling people they should wear masks.
By the way, this is why I continue to defend the "objective" media. For all their faults, they still tend to be more accurate than explicitly partisan media.
Kevin, I just want to note that your post is a "bothsides" post, in the sense that you don't mention in any way, that the -reasons- for MSNBC and FOX's asymmetric mentions of GrOPers/Dems, are not equally valid.
When one side literally wants to burn down our Republic, and the other .... well, the other wants to provide pandemic relief, to pretend that somehow these are comparable, is malpractice.
Dude, do better.
Exactly the comment I came here to post. Upvote.
I agree. But also I haven't watched MSNBC for a few weeks now. I no longer have the need to feed my own outrage.
I wonder how Nicole Wallace's ratings are doing. She was my go-to outrage fix for several years. As much as I like her, I just don't need that anymore.
Yeah, gotta emphasize this.
And even Broadcast's 'evenhandedness' is suspect: If there are more Republicans in office, why are they mentioning Democrats more often?
That's obviously a partisan view. The news shouldn't just discount views of half the country.
Aww, Atticus, you think that objective reporting is biased against half the country?
Aww, you think CNN is a bastion of objectivity? Who's Nick Sandman again?
Dude, where were you all summer? Your side did "burn down the Republic" in almost every major metropolitan area in 2020.
It's worse than the "bothsiderism" antiscience mentioned. I actually clicked on the link to scan the report. It's garbage. For instance they use as an example of MSNBC disseminating incorrect info:
“As we get into the fall, the question of the election is going to be who can lead this country out of one of the most epic disasters it’s ever faced and when you have an incumbent who’s talking about people shooting up Lysol to deal with the coronavirus, it would suggest that he’s not up to the job, and in the end, there’s only two types of elections.”
So it's "incorrect" to have mentioned that President Trump talked about folks being injected with disinfectant? They also nailed CNN for a similar type of quote about Trump's crazy musing on that.
This is the crux with this sort of research. The results of such studies mostly end up reflecting the bias of the researchers.
Amen to the previous two comments.
I'd also say anyone who thinks CNN is "objective" and "even handed" but MSNBC is "ideological" and "partisan" hasn't watched much cable news the past few years.
One small sample, Don Lemon of CNN tonight:
https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1357174868903686147?s=20
Not about Covid per se, but a typical and hard-hitting takedown of GOP politics, which is what you'll find day and night on CNN.
Different shows have somewhat different takes, which is true of all the networks. But the generalizations in KD's post badly miss the mark.
That is right and not just with opinionators like Lemon or Cuomo. Even super-bothsider Dana Bash never hesitates using the L-word when talking about Trumpism rather than--as she would have done in better times--euphemisms like "incorrect" or "misleading" etc.
A good takedown of a corrupt official is not necessarily partisan.
One interesting finding from this study is that the clustering analysis of the various shows clearly demonstrates three distinct clusters: 1) the network news programs (CBS, NBC, and ABC); 2) MSNBC; and 3) CNN and Fox, which cluster closely together. If these clustering analyses are meaningful, I wonder why CNN and Fox are so close?
As for the bits Kevin reports, there is not much to be surprised at there, given that the study looked only at the half-hour 'objective' nightly news from the networks, while it included many programs from the cable networks, including many obvious opinion shows. Are the differences much more than a reflection of cable's need to fill hours of programming?