This study was done by Columbia University on the type of coverage the Iraq war was receiving on some of the major news networks and here are the results...

 

CNN: 20% of stories were positive, 80% were neutral or negative

Fox News: 38% of stories were positive, 62% were neutral or negative

MSNBC: 16% of stories were positive, 84% were neutral or negative

That's not surprising that the right wing proganda network has more stories that show what Bush has done in a positive light...

Before judgments are made, the question has to be what the stories themselves are. If CNN reported on a car bomb killing 10 troops while Fox chose to ignore it, then I say that may show Fox reporting more positive new percentage wise and CNN less. But at the same time, it show Fox as more of a propoganda machine than anything else.

 

On the other hand, if Fox is reporting troops building a hospital and CNN isnt, then CNN reports more negative news percentage wise and Fox less and certainly makes CNN look bad.

 

 

So I say this study turns a lot on the perspectives of the viewers themselves. For me, the war in and of itself is bad and not in any way linked to a judgement of the troops so what CNN does in the second example isnt as bad as what Fox does in the first example. For a person on the opposite side, the opposite is likely true.

I wish they split up the neutral and negative so we knew how "balanced" the stations are. Then again, it doesn't matter because I don't watch much TV news and if I do it's likely Fox.

That's not surprising that the right wing proganda network has more stories that show what Bush has done in a positive light...

710731[/snapback]

:lol that FAUX news for ya.

Before judgments are made, the question has to be what the stories themselves are. If CNN reported on a car bomb killing 10 troops while Fox chose to ignore it, then I say that may show Fox reporting more positive new percentage wise and CNN less. But at the same time, it show Fox as more of a propoganda machine than anything else.

 

On the other hand, if Fox is reporting troops building a hospital and CNN isnt, then CNN reports more negative news percentage wise and Fox less and certainly makes CNN look bad.

 

 

So I say this study turns a lot on the perspectives of the viewers themselves. For me, the war in and of itself is bad and not in any way linked to a judgement of the troops so what CNN does in the second example isnt as bad as what Fox does in the first example. For a person on the opposite side, the opposite is likely true.

710822[/snapback]

 

The problem is with your second example. I think a more comparable situation to the car bombing would be if fox reports the US finding a house in mosul where suicide attacks were being planned, and they arrest some suspects. In this case both of those things should be reported b/c theyre both at a similar scale in the war's importance. CNN not reporting the latter is just as bad as Fox not reporting the first one so it evens out. Another problem witht hat study is that neutral and negative are being grouped together. It would be good to see neutral, negative, and positive all goruped seperately. B/c what does this research consider to be 'neutral'