Mea Culpa (Part Deux) - or don't believe everything you read!
I meant to post this sooner but...
I must apologize again.
I've pulled a fast one on you. I am encouraged that some people were at least skeptical of my previous post, but most probably didn't take the time to check it out the facts for themselves (as I am frequently guilty of as well).
So what did I do? Did I completely make up the Pew Media Study?
No... The study was real and the numbers I quoted are real.
I just switched some of the labels, and then photoshoped the original Chart to match the mixed up labels.
So here's the original, unaltered chart from the study:
Just so you know I'm not making it up this, you can find the original chart here on the pew research website and in context here .
In comparison, here's that fake chart I previously posted:
You can see that I switched the McCain and Obama labels (making it appear that Obama was the one that had the high amount of negative stories associated with him). Then I attributed the askewed coverage to FOX, rather than MSNBC. Finally, I attributed the actual FOX (apparent balanced coverage) numbers to the Media Overall.
Here are those raw numbers with the correct labels:
FOX
Media Overall
MSNBC
McCain
Obama
McCain
Obama
McCain
Obama
Negative
40%
40%
57%
29%
73%
14%
Neutral
38%
35%
29%
35%
17%
43%
Positive
22%
25%
14%
36%
10%
43%
Here's my own chart I created to help show those numbers in context:
So, in reality, it was FOX News that had the most balanced coverage. FOX was more negative than positive to both candidates, but I think that can be attributed to a healthy skepticism that media coverage should have. MSNBC was clearly biased, with a huge amount of negative McCain stories, and a larger amount of positive Obama stories than even the media overall. The Media Overall was still biased, just not nearly so as much as MSNBC.
What does this exercise of mine show?
1) You shouldn't trust what you read/hear on the web/news without trying to check the facts for yourself. Not only is it simple just to make things up, it's equally easy to misreport true stories (as my fake Chart shows - it took under 10 minutes to "adjust" the graphs in photoshop). Just because our own biases make us want to believe something, we should attempt to verify the veracity of a story before quoting as fact.
Some resent examples include:
Supposed Palin High School Grades - FALSE
Quotes from Governor Palin - FALSE
Palin mistakenly believed Africa was a country instead of a continent - FALSE VERACITY INDETERMINABLE
Obama claimed he visited/campaigned in 57 States - TRUE
2) Since FOX News provided the most balanced news coverage of the this heated election, is it that difficult to believe that FOX News provides overall balanced news coverage? In contrast, is it hard to believe the Media Overall is biased to the left overall, when their reporting on this election was?
And in the spirit of this post, I encourage you to check out the study and the numbers for yourself at http://journalism.org/node/13437
.
I must apologize again.
I've pulled a fast one on you. I am encouraged that some people were at least skeptical of my previous post, but most probably didn't take the time to check it out the facts for themselves (as I am frequently guilty of as well).
So what did I do? Did I completely make up the Pew Media Study?
No... The study was real and the numbers I quoted are real.
I just switched some of the labels, and then photoshoped the original Chart to match the mixed up labels.
So here's the original, unaltered chart from the study:
Just so you know I'm not making it up this, you can find the original chart here on the pew research website and in context here .
In comparison, here's that fake chart I previously posted:
You can see that I switched the McCain and Obama labels (making it appear that Obama was the one that had the high amount of negative stories associated with him). Then I attributed the askewed coverage to FOX, rather than MSNBC. Finally, I attributed the actual FOX (apparent balanced coverage) numbers to the Media Overall.
Here are those raw numbers with the correct labels:
FOX
Media Overall
MSNBC
McCain
Obama
McCain
Obama
McCain
Obama
Negative
40%
40%
57%
29%
73%
14%
Neutral
38%
35%
29%
35%
17%
43%
Positive
22%
25%
14%
36%
10%
43%
Here's my own chart I created to help show those numbers in context:
So, in reality, it was FOX News that had the most balanced coverage. FOX was more negative than positive to both candidates, but I think that can be attributed to a healthy skepticism that media coverage should have. MSNBC was clearly biased, with a huge amount of negative McCain stories, and a larger amount of positive Obama stories than even the media overall. The Media Overall was still biased, just not nearly so as much as MSNBC.
What does this exercise of mine show?
1) You shouldn't trust what you read/hear on the web/news without trying to check the facts for yourself. Not only is it simple just to make things up, it's equally easy to misreport true stories (as my fake Chart shows - it took under 10 minutes to "adjust" the graphs in photoshop). Just because our own biases make us want to believe something, we should attempt to verify the veracity of a story before quoting as fact.
Some resent examples include:
Supposed Palin High School Grades - FALSE
Quotes from Governor Palin - FALSE
Palin mistakenly believed Africa was a country instead of a continent - FALSE VERACITY INDETERMINABLE
Obama claimed he visited/campaigned in 57 States - TRUE
2) Since FOX News provided the most balanced news coverage of the this heated election, is it that difficult to believe that FOX News provides overall balanced news coverage? In contrast, is it hard to believe the Media Overall is biased to the left overall, when their reporting on this election was?
And in the spirit of this post, I encourage you to check out the study and the numbers for yourself at http://journalism.org/node/13437
.