test 3 Flashcards
(54 cards)
horse-race coverage
- coverage about which candidate is ahead of behind or getting ahead or falling behind, which meaning focusing on metrics like polls and fundraising and on the strategies that candidates are using
- news media frequently blamed for this, but some blame may rest with news consumers as well-people read horse race coverage the most-the challenge for reporters is that the campaign may not produce much newsworthy events or moments every day-candidate give the same speech over and over-thus reporters may seek out any moment that seems novel or interesting
invisible primary
- takes place before the caucuses and primaries are held-consists of conversations and negotiations among party leaders and potential or confirmed candidates-it’s invisible because these conversations are not always known to the broader public or even to reporters and other professional observers of politics-to the extent that these conversations reflect differences of opinions within the party, it is probably in the party’s best interest to keep them invisible, lest all the party’s dirty laundry get aired
- chief goal of invisible primary: finding a way to consolidate support behind a single candidate, ideally before the primaries even take place
- endorsements by party leaders are the most visible part of the invisible primary
- share of endorsements during invisible primary associated with how many delegates that candidate won in the party convention months later-
Molotov majority
- the 75% rep.s not Romney supporters-furious at status quo, wanted anyone else-some thought-but not really accurate
- -the notion of the “molotov party” wanting “anybody but Romney” also suggested a party cleaved by ideology, with the moderate minority supporting Romney and the conservative majority opposing him-but this was not how the Republican party looked at the end of 2011-not enthusiastic about him but didn’t hate him
- -the notion of the “molotov party” wanting “anybody but Romney” also suggested a party cleaved by ideology, with the moderate minority supporting Romney and the conservative majority opposing him-but this was not how the Republican party looked at the end of 2011
- republicans not nearly so difficult to control and pin down as this model suggested
- so false idea
inflation vs unemployment survey-bias
-“Would you say that compared to 1980, inflation has gotten better, stayed about the same, or gotten worse?”
-Same question with “unemployment” instead of
“inflation.”-different responses
-Does this prove that people are “biased?” And can you think of any way to ask the question to reduce biases?
“Pack journalism” or echo chamber effect
- If reporters are homogenous in their prior beliefs, other reporters’ stories are likely to confirm and strengthen the same beliefs.
- Easier for reporters to understand and accurately report beliefs of people who think like they do.
- Most reporters read each other’s work.
- Ethics policies reflect this tendency and push reporters to move beyond it.
- came from same bias-not cuz each did ind. research on it
Non-political (or at least partisan) example of
confirmation bias:
-Rolling Stone Nov. 2014
-The Columbia University Graduate School of
Journalism Report
-published fake story-didn’t go into sources cuz big issue
percentage partisan press over time
- decreased
- always more dem. than rep.
- but over time many more papers w/o partisanship
Selection Bias
Decision of what to make available or not. What story to report. (E.g. Baum and Groeling article studied this using Reuters newswires to establish “universe” from which websites could choose stories.)
• Viewers have a harder time defending against selection bias because they literally don’t
know what they’re missing.
Presentation Bias
Putting a quote way out of context.
Showing someone in horribly biased in coverage.
Editing to cast figure in unflattering light. (Editing image.)
Making one side seem more extreme.
Not equally interviewing both sides.
But… In Journalists’ Defense
-Lots of reasons why attitudes and cognitive biases might not translate into biased news.
-Ethics, professionalism and fairness should trump, if
they’re doing their job.
-Owners’ bias might counteract if focus is competition
(although hard for them to oversee everything)
-Perceived bias might be in the “eye of the beholder”
(result of attitudes and cognitive biases of viewer).
-Charges might come from partisans trying to “work the
ref” or inoculate themselves from attacks, or exposing
own biases
Groeling 2008
Solution: Uses presidential approval polls to
observe news decisions.
Partisan bias is preferring positive news for one party, but negative for the other
-hyp: report these polls when big changes-may be preference for neg. changes or could be reporting all even if didn’t change
-bias toward neg-not partisan-always neg., pres. didn’t matter
-look at patterns for diff networks for diff press
-ABC: pretty flat but somewhat pos. Clinton bias-negative coverage for Bush-more likely to have neg. bias during republican administration-so ABC is biased
-NBC: same
-Fox: not as biased as may have thought
-this is selection bias
-viewer bias too-see bias of Fox but not ABC (as shown in the “Shot the Messenger” experiment)
“Shot by the Messenger”
Baum and Groeling 2008
Online experiment
1610 UCLA participants
Communication Studies (55%) and Political
Science (45%) courses taught between Spring
2006-Winter 2007 (George W. Bush
administration).
21% Republicans (including leaners); 54%
Democrats (including leaners); 25%
independents.
60% liberal, 23% conservative.
-same newsbit-one said Fox on bottom, other CNN-story is critical of Bush
-Each respondent views only one newscast.
-Asked open ended questions asking if they thought the coverage was fair or was too critical.
-Coded these questions to show attitude of respondent.
People more likely to criticize balance of news story when shown CNN
People more likely to praise balance of news story when watching Fox
How do you report and plan for the “right” news?
“Unknown unknowns” problem
Solutions:
1. Compare coverage with peers. “Get it first; but first, get it seconded.”
2. Rely on common news values (e.g., get most authoritative sources)-At the extreme: feeding frenzies.-Journeys with George Bush DUI story at the end of the campaign.
3. Plan “news” in advance-Have stories on reserve (ex. front page of NYT today)-“Appointment” stories, e.g. Caitlyn Jenner interview
4. Beats
National: White House, Congress, crime, judiciary
Local: different areas, government, etc.
Watch for “expected” stories
Example: Iraq beat
Army PR representative writing during Iraq insurgency
“[In] my first meeting with a Fox News crew … [they] laid out what
qualified as “newsworthy””
“Women taking an active leadership role in the new government,”
“detainee/prisoner abuse cases,”
“any WMD news,” and
“individual soldier contributions (such as one soldier who bought school
supplies and teddy bears for Iraqis out of his own pocket).”
Not that uncommon. (As with gorilla, you see what you look for.)
“These were the stories deemed airable and
[Fox] wouldn’t respond to anything outside of
that… unless it was something really spectacular.
Fox stood out most as a network that knew what
it was going to put out before it even shot the
footage.”
“Other news organizations were more subtle
about what they wanted to cover but pretty
much everyone had their stories written before
they showed up. To Al-Jazeera especially, the
video footage was merely a formality.”
Rosenstiel’s “The Clock”
Rosenstiel tracks a single news package from beginning
to end (so-called “tick-tock” story)
Note: very different today (changes in technology).
Typical campaign day was dictated by schedule of news (Why this
order?)
Morning policy speech
Afternoon wall paper
Evening live rally
Night fundraisers (Why?)
Some sources got cut because they didn’t form pithy sound bites (you
experience this with your storyboards,
Who gets to be a source?
Have you?
People covered by beats, mostly (e.g., student athletes at
UCLA)
Look for news where they expect to find it
Journalists desire exclusive information from authoritative
sources.
Ideally: get exclusive info from most official, important,
sources on subjects (hierarchy of sources)
Self-fulfilling prophecy: Hard to break in.
What do sources want?
Help themselves and hurt their enemies (in politics)
Sources and journalists fight for control of stories, like:
Timing of release
Content of story
Attribution (if any). See next slide.
“Spin” of story (emphasis or of different story elements): talk
about this later…
Wording/specificity of quotes (sometimes including quote
approval)
Key in power relationship: scarcity
White House and “treating reporters like mushrooms”
Official AP Source Rule Definitions: On the record
“The information can be used with no caveats, quoting
the source by name.”
Official AP Source Rule Definitions: Off the record
“The information cannot be used for publication.”
Official AP Source Rule Definitions: Background
“The information can be published but only under
conditions negotiated with the source. Generally, the sources do not want their names published but will agree to a description of their position. AP reporters should object vigorously when a source wants to brief a group of reporters on background and try to persuade the source to put the briefing on the record. These background briefings have become routine in many venues, especially with government officials.”
Official AP Source Rule Definitions: Deep Background
“The information can be used but without attribution.
The source does not want to be identified in any way, even on condition of anonymity.”
Why be anonymous?
Don’t politicians love to be known?
(Old Joke: Most dangerous place to be is
standing between a politician and a camera)
Main point: Avoid consequences
“Trial balloon” - consequence-free tryout
Potentially incorrect information- don’t get fired
E.g. FBI and police in Richard Jewell (1996 Atlanta bombing) case
Avoid “fingerprints” on dagger- trash opponents without public
knowing you were responsible. (Who?)
See “oppo” campaign articles.
Obama “Off the Record”
Byers 2013
Meeting with columnists (not reporters) frequently. Not public.
[Technically more “deep background” since invited columnists
do report his thinking without attribution]
Wants to win columnists over and get his point of view
printed (again, without his fingerprints)
Contrast to scripted, on-the-record press briefings
Can focus on preferred issues instead of current events
-reporters don’t like this-tried to protest but didn’t work-
“When he was NYT Washington bureau chief, Bill Kovach told his reporters to walk out of government briefings if were kept off the record. They did so, but were thwarted when their colleagues from other news organizations stayed in their seats and refused to fill in the Times reporters afterward. Kovach appealed to the other
organizations’ editors for support, in particular the hometown Washington Post, but they declined and the initiative failed within a month.”
Anonymity Controversial within Journalism
“Reporters who work the corridors of criminal justice, the foreign policy world and the intelligence community cannot do their jobs without unidentified sources. Many who cover those twin cesspools of duplicity, self-regard and back-stabbing - Hollywood and politics - are addicted to the practice.” News organizations are trying to organize to reduce the number of “background” briefings. NYTimes has policy of exposing motivations of sources. But... Even with the policies, about half of the A section stories cited anonymous sources; about half had no detail re: source’s motivation or perspective.
