KOPEL: Do Rocky, Post give Dems a break?
Analysis of two recent scandals says they do
David Kopel
Saturday, March 22, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
A common complaint of conservative media critics is that the mainstream media downplay the party affiliation of a Democrat who is involved in a scandal, while playing up the party identification of a Republican in a scandal.
So I decided to see how the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post had treated two recent scandals, one involving New York Democratic Gov. Elliot Spitzer and the other involving Florida Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Foley. Spitzer, of course, resigned March 12 after a federal investigation suggested that he had multiple liaisons with a prostitute. Foley resigned in September 2006 after the revelation that he had sent salacious text messages to congressional pages, some of whom had been minors at the time.
The Foley citation counts are from the ALLNEWS database on Westlaw, which has most Rocky and Post articles, but has been known to have some omissions; for Spitzer, I supplemented Westlaw with searches of the newspaper Web sites for articles during the week of March 10-15, and counted articles found on the Web sites, even if they did not appear in the print editions of the papers. I counted all articles, including editorials and Op-Eds (which don't affect the totals much), and did not count letters to the editor.
The first data set is for each politician in the years before their escapades became public.
From 1995 through mid-2006, Foley was mentioned in 11 stories in the Rocky, all of which noted that he is a Republican. He appeared in nine stories in the Post, all but one of which mentioned his party.
In the past three years (prior to the scandal), there were 23 Post articles which did not indicate Spitzer's party, and four of which did. During that same period, Spitzer's party was named in five Rocky articles, and not identified in 67. One reason that Spitzer appeared so much more often in the Rocky was that the Rocky national business briefs included many short items about his work as New York attorney general.
The vast majority of pre-scandal Spitzer stories involved enforcement actions from his attorney general days, often with an angle related to a Colorado company, such as the mutual fund firm Janus Capital, or as a sideline to the Joe Nacchio-Qwest coverage. In the stories, there was little or no questioning of Spitzer's very aggressive tactics or his prosecutorial judgment. In general, these stories portrayed Spitzer favorably, as a law enforcement official acting against alleged corporate abuses.
Arguably, the omissions could be seen as anti-Democrat bias, although the more plausible explanation is party identification is considered a more important fact about a congressperson (such as Foley) than about an elected law enforcement official in another state.
Although the omission of Spitzer's party from any particular article can be justified, the Rocky and the Post let down their readers by running so many articles about Spitzer with so rarely a mention of his party.
How about coverage after the scandals broke?
Foley's text messages had been known to some insiders for months, but their release was delayed until late September 2006, for maximum influence on the mid-term elections. Between late September and the end of 2006, there were 20 Rocky stories which indicated that Foley was a Republican, and 14 which did not.
In the Post, 25 stories revealed Foley's party, and eight did not. So both papers mentioned Foley's party more often than not, while the Post did so at a higher rate.
For coverage of Spitzer last week, the difference between the papers was astonishing. Seven stories in the Post (including print and online) said that Spitzer was a Democrat, and 15 did not.
In the Rocky last week, only three stories noted Spitzer's party, and 24 did not. Spitzer's party didn't make it into the print edition of the Rocky until the Thursday story covering his resignation the day before.
So during the scandal coverage, both papers mentioned Spitzer's party at a rate far below the rate of mentioning Foley's party.
It is easy to identify some stories where Spitzer's party was irrelevant, such as biographies of his call girl. But it is difficult to defend the word "Democrat" being omitted from some of the other stories, such as the Spitzer biography in the March 10 online Rocky.
The overall results give some credence to suspicions about media bias in party ID in scandal stories. On the other hand, it should be remembered that even in the pre-scandal days, Spitzer was identified as a Democrat much less often than Foley was identified as a Republican.
In 2007-'08, mentions of Foley's party (two of the six Post articles, and one of the five Rocky articles) has dropped, as his name has become a shorthand for a genre of misconduct. Time will tell if "Spitzer" becomes a concise way to say "faithless hypocritical bully."
Dave Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute, an attorney and author of 10 books. He can be reached at kopeld@RockyMountainNews.com.
Comments
Posted by rellimpank on March 22, 2008 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
---thanks to Dave Kopel for again doing the legwork to remind us of the bias of the print and electronic garbage wraps, which I read mostly to stay aware of what the enemies of my way of life are doing---
Posted by texass on March 22, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, Kopel is so unbiased coming from the Independence Inst, a republican spin tank. Is this all he had to write about today?
Posted by SASQUATCH on March 22, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
America is tired of the MSM message that is in the tank for Democrats. As a result, circulation is down, advertising is down, revenues are down, profits are plunging and layoffs are soaring. Take a look at the 5-year stock chart of NYT, America's #1 liberal rag. A picture is worth a thousand words...two thousand if its part of "All the News That's Fit to Print."
Posted by asa_watcher on March 22, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
THIS JUST IN: George Bush is a Republican!!! The press seems to have ignored this fact for the better part of 8 years!! When was the last time we read: "Republican President, George Bush"? Perhaps we should be reminded of THAT over and over again.
Its the same ol' same ol' from the right-wing conservative grid brains: Unless Americans are told something again and again, they are too stupid to figure it out for themselves. This strategy has been well rewarded, and worked so well before:
"Sadam was responsible for 9/11."
"Sadam has WMDs and nukes aimed at the U.S."
"Sadam and al qaeda worked hand in hand".
And that's only about Iraq.
The right wing has learned that if you tell us for 15 years that Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of Satan, Lo, she is the embodiment of Satan.
So watch for it: "Obama is really a closet America-hating Muslim extremist attending an America-hating Christian church." How many times will that be "inferred" until those who are so inclined will start passing that bit of information on and on and on??
We haven't been told ENOUGH that Spitzer IS A DEMOCRAT !!!! Who'd a thought, the governor of New York is a Democrat?? Tell us over and over so we can internalize it, live it, breath it, know it as a fact of life. Then, when we hear "Democrat" we'll think "Spitzer". Yea, that'll work. We are too stupid to know, unless told over and over and over. That's what conservatives think of our intelligence.
Please remind me again, which party is George Bush affiliated with??
Posted by GK on March 22, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All MSM is and has been dominated by a conservative bias. The press are lap dogs for this administration. They beat the drum for the war in Iraq and conduct nothing but softball fluff interviews of these Republican hacks.
Posted by JYP3500 on March 22, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kudos to Kopel. Again, irrefutable evidence of media bias.
That’s why I dropped both Denver newspapers and never looked back. Their obvious left-leaning reporting made me angry. They continue to (dishonestly) sell Littwin & Campos as legitimate news reporting. And I love how they conveniently leave out the word “illegal” in almost every article about illegal immigration. Evidently, they a) believe most readers are stupid, and b) have enough circulation in Denver District 1 to keep them solvent.
I subscribe to the Wallstreet Journal now, and couldn’t be happier.
Posted by vamjl on March 22, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
asa_watcher = liar.
It's your girl Hillary that's fueling the Obama sh*t and you know it, but it's just 1 more lie the dems will tell that its the right-wing saying it. Well, that makes Hillary part of 'the vast right-wing conspiracy'.
So, who was the governor of NY before Spitzer the Democrat? That's right, a REPUBLICAN, George Pataki. For 12 years. So I'd say yes, you are too stupid too know the party affiliation of the governor of NY. YOU ASSUMED they are ALL Democrats. You ARE wrong!
Posted by Cwillyrun1 on March 22, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If a few of you didn't know Bush's party affiliation, or had to be reminded, you are the deaf ones led by blind Democrats. Foley got in trouble for the page scandal, but what Democrat years earlier did the same thing, and not only didn't get in trouble, but was actually cheered by the Democrat controlled Congress when he returned? Hypocritical! In general, the media is liberal and easier on Democrats than on Republicans. I'm independant because I'd rather vote for the best candidate than to not have a choice, and both parties really don't seem to have the average citizens' best interests in hand.
Bush has Iraq, but it was Kennedy (a President I would've admired) and Lyndon Johnson that have Vietnam on their resumes. Johnson likely wanted to protect the military contracts in his home state of Texas.
Thankfully we have the internet and options on cable to get our news, so we can choose to ignore the liberal bias in our mainstream media!
Posted by asa_watcher on March 22, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
vamji= ad hominem attack
I am a "liar"
I am "stupid"
"YOU ASSUMED they are ALL Democrats."
I did? where did you get that??
"It's your girl Hillary that's fueling the Obama sh*t and you know it,"
Yea, fox news airs it for her every night. And a lot during the day.
"So, who was the governor of NY before Spitzer the Democrat? That's right, a REPUBLICAN, George Pataki."
So where was David Kopel to remind us of that?? And Rudy Giuliani was a Republican too?? No Kiddin' ??
Irrelevance is irrelevance isn't it?? Unless, of course, you don't like it. I think you got my point, but don't realize it.
Posted by vamjl on March 22, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So YOU decide when a point is relevant? Apparently a point is irrelevant only if YOU don't like it. Your response proves the article made its point. And it's KILLIN' YOU!
We haven't been told ENOUGH that Spitzer IS A DEMOCRAT !!!! "Who'd a thought, the governor of New York is a Democrat??" Not, Who'd of thought Spitzer is a Democrat? Your question implies that all NY governors are Democrats. Thats where I got that.
And yes, I got your point. You like to blame the "right-wing" even when your dream girl Hillary is the one smearing Obama.
Posted by gary on March 22, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kopel proves what everyone knows....the Denver News Agency...is biased and loves the Dems. We do not have two newspapers..it is just one and the same.
Nuff Said!
Posted by SDaedalus on March 22, 2008 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kopel: "The overall results give some credence to suspicions about media bias in party ID in scandal stories."
No, not really.
Crunching Kopel’s own numbers, you can draw the completely opposite conclusion, namely that both papers are significantly biased –against- Democrats in reporting party ID in scandal stories.
Presumably, in comparing the respective coverage of the Foley and Spitzer scandals, a newspaper that reminds readers of one fallen politician’s party affiliation with greater daily frequency than the other is biased against either that individual or -- as Kopel would have it -- the party he represents. The question presented then becomes: how frequently did both Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News publish articles reminding readers of the party affiliation of both Foley and Spitzer during the coverage of their respective scandals?
During the Foley scandal, readers of the Rocky Mountain News waited an average of 5 days for an article telling them that Foley was a Republican. Readers of the Post had to wait an average 4 days.
During the Spitzer scandal, readers of the Rocky Mountain News waited an average of 2.3 days for an article telling them that Spitzer was a Democrat. Readers of the Post were reminded on average…brace yourself…every single day.
Does this mean that the Rocky is biased twice as much in favor of Republicans, and the Post is biased four-times as much against Democrats?
No.
It only means that Kopel cooked his analysis with an obviously flawed comparison between periods of scandal coverage lasting approximately 100 days (Foley) with one lasting 7 days (Spitzer). Depending on how you present his numbers, you can get whichever answer you want.
Media bias in favor of Democrats may well exist, but Kopel’s ironic “analysis” suggests the Rocky Mountain News can be counted on to supply conservatives with whatever validation they require to make their case for victimization at the hands of the media...which is a sad little bias in its own right.
=========
BTW, to conserve your collective brain-power, here is how same numbers demonstrate a different bias:
=== Period of Foley scandal coverage: ~100 days
14-15 weeks (late Sep. through – end Dec. 2006)
= Number of articles mentioning party affiliation:
Rocky: 20
Post: 25
= Frequency:
Rocky: 1 article every 5 days (avg.)
Post: 1 article every 4 days (avg.)
=== Period of Spitzer scandal coverage: ~7 days
1 week – “March 10-15”
= Number of articles mentioning party affiliation:
Rocky: 3
Post: 7
= Frequency:
Rocky: 1 article every 2.3 days (avg.)
Post: 1 article every (1) day (avg.)
Posted by anderson on March 22, 2008 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kopel often has something intelligent to say, but this column was based on a dubious proposition (media bias: democratic v. republican?) that of course was not proven by his analysis. But then, he didn't try to prove it, just to suggest it, playing to those who live in what Stephen Miller calls "anger communities". And they react predictably, as someone in Kopel's position knows they will.
In addition to SDaedalius' comments on how the analysis was cooked, I'll add this: Spitzer was a national figure long before this scandal. I knew his party affiliation as I'm sure many others did. I'd not heard of Foley before his scandal.
Posted by tchoupitoulas on March 23, 2008 at 12:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm having a difficult time understanding the logic behind a majority of the responses to this post. On one hand, people subjectively spew about how liberal/biased/slanted the paper is, yet they take the time to read the article and expend additional energy posting to it. If it's so bad, why continue subjecting yourself to it? It's great if this balances a viewpoint or gives insight, but it doesn't sound like that is the case. It's like saying how much you hate wine while simultaneously booking a week-long wine tasting vacation to Napa Valley.
The bright side is this: there are choices....lots of them. If this isn't to your liking, there are other options that abound that may be more balanced/conservative/etc. depending on your tastes. Otherwise, the sneering dissents just affirm the long-held contradiction that people will complain endlessly about something, yet do nothing to improve upon their own situation. Much easier, granted, but it kills whatever credibiity is left of a fairly weak argument.
Even the author of the article fails to identify what can be done to rectify the issue. Changes in staff? Credentialing? Partnership with other publications that have an alternative viewpoint? His failure to address the solution certainly didn't happen here, and I'm sure if anyone has suggestions on how to proceed it would be the Independence Institute.
Posted by greenleaf on March 23, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe some of you don't remember the unfortunate Bill Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky mess . I do! It went on for months! There were many important things to report but the affair was on the front page forever! The Republicans turned it into a feeding frenzy.
I know that this is a "poster child " example, but people love to see the mighty fall. This is true regardless of party affiliation, race or religion. Because human nature demands it, the papers print it.
Another point to consider is another unfortunate human frailty: Absolute power corrupts absolutely; it always has and it probably always will. So for all of you disgruntled Republicans whining that the media has exposed your party leader's sex scandals, cronyism, graft and associations with corrupt lobbyists, don't worry! I believe that the Democrats will have the political power and capital after the November elections. After a few years in power, I trust that the weaker among them will take their places in front page scandals, much as your heroes have done recently.
Posted by rickg19611 on March 26, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gotta love the responses of the left to the facts..... like a bunch of whining 5 year olds, they try to defend liberal bias by pointing fingers and through their wails of anguish, they claim that it's ok because they think someone else does it too.
Funny how they can't provide any proof of their excuses.
Posted by Sandy48 on April 8, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did you see the sidebar in today's POST regarding the conviction of former Rep Thomas Wright of NC? In reporting the guilty conviction and his 6 to 8 year prison sentence, the POST somehow forgot to mention that Wright is a Democrat. Further evidence of David's assertion.
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.