|
|
two peas in a pod
Study: Rhetoric aside, war news reporting similar
By Jeff Bercovici
Everybody knows that Fox News Channel is little more than a soapbox for mouth-frothing, flag-waving conservative cranks, while CNN is run by a bunch of crypto-Socialists bent on preserving the hegemony of the liberal media elite.
Right?
Perhaps not.
According to a new study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism, there’s not nearly as much difference between the two networks' news reports as you might think.
That’s only one of the study’s surprising conclusions.
Here's another one: In the weeks following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, much of the most factual, best-sourced reporting was to be found on morning news shows like "Good Morning America" and "Today."
Titled "Return to Normalcy? How the Media Have Covered the War on Terrorism," the study, conducted in connection with Princeton Survey Research Associates, looked at the patterns in television, newspaper and magazine reporting that emerged over the fall and winter.
It did this by analyzing 2,496 stories that ran or aired during periods in September, November and December.
The object was to root out and identify such journalistic no-nos as excessive opinion mongering and pronounced pro- or anti-U.S. bias.
Overall the American press comes out well, at least early on.
Researchers concluded that the U.S. media responded to the attacks with coverage that was overwhelmingly factual and well-sourced, with analysis and opinion kept to a minimum.
But, alas, that was not to last. Researchers found that as the months went by, analysis and opinion gradually crept back in, and the proportion of fact fell from 75 percent of the news to 69 percent.
"The level of factualness declined to levels lower than those seen in the middle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal," says the report.
The other trend that showed up was a distinct unwillingness to challenge or criticize U.S. policy or the Bush Administration.
In September, 71 percent of news stories were classified as entirely or predominantly pro-U.S. That figure fell to 50 percent in December.
It is here that the gulf between CNN and Fox News Channel turns out to be nonexistent.
Much has been made in recent weeks of the unabashedly pro-American stance taken by Fox News with regard to the terrorist attacks and the war in Afghanistan.
Sure enough, 78 percent of the relevant stories on "Special Report with Brit Hume" were all or mostly supportive of the White House’s actions.
But wait: On CNN's "NewsNight with Aaron Brown," 77 percent of the relevant stories were entirely supportive of the Bush Administration.
"Looking at the two signature evening newscasts of the two cable networks over nine days, there was no appreciable difference," says the study.
Or rather, there was no difference in the content of the reports. Tone is another question altogether.
Fox News on-air personnel referred to Osama bin Laden’s hideout as a "rat's nest" and to critics of U.S. military strategy as "pessimists." CNN's Brown, in contrast, is described as " vanilla--to a point where it is hard to disagree with him."
The study also found that the networks' morning news shows, not normally known as paragons of journalistic excellence, nevertheless provided it in the latter part of September, confining 74 percent of their stories to hard facts and naming 92 percent of their sources.
ABC's "Good Morning America" was the standout in this regard, sticking to a higher proportion of fact and choosing more serious story topics than its competitors.
Alas, that too was too good to last.
Although "GMA" was still delivering 65 percent factual reporting in December, the overall level of factuality in morning news had dropped 46 percent, according to the study.
January 30, 2002 © 2002 Media Life
-Jeff Bercovici is a staff writer for Media Life.
Printer-Friendly
Version | Send
to a Friend
Cover Page | Contact
Us
