Media bias in favour of Conservatives in 2006 election

[normanchateau]

The McGill University Observatory on Media and Public Policy (OMPP) statistically analyzed newspapers to see if there was a bias against Stockwell Day in the 2000 election. And there certainly was. However, the OMPP analysis of the 2006 election revealed a strong anti-Liberal, pro-Conservative bias which raises the question of whether this bias contributed to the defeat of the Liberals in the last election.

During the 2006 election campaign there were 3,753 articles written about the election in the 7 newspapers studied (The Calgary Herald, The Globe and Mail, The National Post, the Toronto Star and the Vancouver Sun, La Presse and Le Devoir).

Of those 3753, 3035 mentioned the Liberal party. Out of those 3035, there were 40 with positive mentions of the Liberal party and 445 with negative mentions of the Liberals, giving a 11 to 1 ratio of negative mentions to positive (slightly higher than last election's 10-1 ratio).

Meanwhile, for the Conservative Party, the figures were 2730 total articles, including 144 positive mentions and 127 negative mentions, for a slightly positive overall slant (the positive mentions were similar to last election, but the negatives were cut in half).

The NDP garnered 2% positive mentions and 3% negative mentions, while the Bloc received 2% positive coverage, 4% negative.

The numbers for the party leaders are quite similar with Martin getting 5 negative mentions for every positive one, while Harper received more favourable than unfavourable mentions.

Detailed results and methodology appear in the pdf below:

http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/mar06/andrew.pdf

[gc1765]

I don't know whether it influenced the election or not, but there was definately bias from some of the media.

For example, The Globe And Mail

[136GreenRoad]

Of those 3753, 3035 mentioned the Liberal party. Out of those 3035, there were 40 with positive mentions of the Liberal party and 445 with negative mentions of the Liberals, giving a 11 to 1 ratio of negative mentions to positive (slightly higher than last election's 10-1 ratio).

Meanwhile, for the Conservative Party, the figures were 2730 total articles, including 144 positive mentions and 127 negative mentions, for a slightly positive overall slant (the positive mentions were similar to last election, but the negatives were cut in half).

Hardly surprising. The Libs were universally condemned by media due to the sponsorship scandal. And Harper ran a good campaign and Martin sounded like a tired old man.

[Mimas]

I don't know whether it influenced the election or not, but there was definately bias from some of the media.

For example, The Globe And Mail

Well, David Asper the heir of the late Izzy Asper and his CanWest media empire campaigned with Stephen Harper across the country. He made hefty contributions to Harper's leadership campaigns. As CanWest media journalists well know, anyone who writes against the owner's beliefs gets fired, even if the guilty one is the best editor in the country. Is it a surprise that the headline in the CanWest papers a couple of days before the election was "Why you should vote Conservative"?

[Mimas]

Of those 3753, 3035 mentioned the Liberal party. Out of those 3035, there were 40 with positive mentions of the Liberal party and 445 with negative mentions of the Liberals, giving a 11 to 1 ratio of negative mentions to positive (slightly higher than last election's 10-1 ratio).

Meanwhile, for the Conservative Party, the figures were 2730 total articles, including 144 positive mentions and 127 negative mentions, for a slightly positive overall slant (the positive mentions were similar to last election, but the negatives were cut in half).

Hardly surprising. The Libs were universally condemned by media due to the sponsorship scandal. And Harper ran a good campaign and Martin sounded like a tired old man.

It was surprising. The same media was praising Martin's achievements a year earlier but as soon as Martin decided to give Canadians a personal income tax cut (which would have given the media companies nothing) and Harper promised a GST cut (which results in millions of dollars in saved taxes for media companies) Martin turned into a villain and Harper into a great choice for prime minister. It's interesting that the media made more noise about the sponsorship scandal during the election when it was already very old news then when it broke a year earlier.

[normanchateau]

I don't know whether it influenced the election or not, but there was definately bias from some of the media.

For example, The Globe And Mail

Well, David Asper the heir of the late Izzy Asper and his CanWest media empire campaigned with Stephen Harper across the country. He made hefty contributions to Harper's leadership campaigns. As CanWest media journalists well know, anyone who writes against the owner's beliefs gets fired, even if the guilty one is the best editor in the country. Is it a surprise that the headline in the CanWest papers a couple of days before the election was "Why you should vote Conservative"?

I was out of the country during the last six weeks of the campaign and had no idea that the Globe and Mail endorsed Harper. Given Harper's performance since the election, it's hard to imagine he'll be endorsed next time.

What's surprising about that endorsement is that the OMPP analysis showed a Globe and Mail bias towards the Liberals based on ALL the G+M opinion pieces (and not just the final endorsement). On the other hand, G+M news, as opposed to opinion pieces, did indeed show a bias towards the Conservatives.

[136GreenRoad]

Of those 3753, 3035 mentioned the Liberal party. Out of those 3035, there were 40 with positive mentions of the Liberal party and 445 with negative mentions of the Liberals, giving a 11 to 1 ratio of negative mentions to positive (slightly higher than last election's 10-1 ratio).

Meanwhile, for the Conservative Party, the figures were 2730 total articles, including 144 positive mentions and 127 negative mentions, for a slightly positive overall slant (the positive mentions were similar to last election, but the negatives were cut in half).

Hardly surprising. The Libs were universally condemned by media due to the sponsorship scandal. And Harper ran a good campaign and Martin sounded like a tired old man.

It was surprising. The same media was praising Martin's achievements a year earlier but as soon as Martin decided to give Canadians a personal income tax cut (which would have given the media companies nothing) and Harper promised a GST cut (which results in millions of dollars in saved taxes for media companies) Martin turned into a villain and Harper into a great choice for prime minister. It's interesting that the media made more noise about the sponsorship scandal during the election when it was already very old news then when it broke a year earlier.

Didn't surprise me. From the get-go Harper outcampaigned Martin. He deserved support he got..

[Michael Hardner]

The term 'bias' is usually used to describe an inclination that exists in an individual or an group that is brought to their roles as journalists from outside.

However, this thread (and to some degree the article) seems to be using the term to describe any kind of reporting at all. If a "negative" article is written about the Liberals, one that mentions the sponsorship scandal for example, then the article is described as having a bias.

I suspect that this approach is being done with an agenda to neutralize those who accuse the media of having a liberal bias (in the normal sense of the term) but it does a disservice to the truth, in my opinion.

[normanchateau]

Didn't surprise me. From the get-go Harper outcampaigned Martin. He deserved support he got..

But isn't the conventional wisdom among Conservative supporters that the media are biased towards the Liberals?

[normanchateau]

I suspect that this approach is being done with an agenda to neutralize those who accuse the media of having a liberal bias (in the normal sense of the term) but it does a disservice to the truth, in my opinion.

But exactly the same methodology was employed to show a pro-Jean Chretien bias and an anti-Stockwell Day bias in the 2000 election. How could OMPP have foreseen in 2000 that the bias would be reversed in 2006?

[136GreenRoad]

Didn't surprise me. From the get-go Harper outcampaigned Martin. He deserved support he got..

But isn't the conventional wisdom among Conservative supporters that the media are biased towards the Liberals?

Yes, it is and I am sure that many Tories won't believe that the media was more anti-Lib than anti-Con. It doesn't surprise me though. I thought Martin was pathetic in the campaign.

[normanchateau]

Didn't surprise me. From the get-go Harper outcampaigned Martin. He deserved support he got..

But isn't the conventional wisdom among Conservative supporters that the media are biased towards the Liberals?

Yes, it is and I am sure that many Tories won't believe that the media was more anti-Lib than anti-Con.

Yes, I agree that many Conservatives won't believe it. Why burden themselves with contrary data and scientific evidence when their personal beliefs and preconceptions suggest otherwise.

[Argus]

Yes, I agree that many Conservatives won't believe it. Why burden themselves with contrary data and scientific evidence when their personal beliefs and preconceptions suggest otherwise.

Odd that. I mean, some guy no one's never heard of does a study which conflicts with what people've been seeing, hearing and reading for years, surely that's enough to convince most people.

[sharkman]

I'll believe it. I would say it's about time, except I strongly prefer the media not actively campaign for either side and let the people decide without all of the scaremongering and crap they usually throw at us.

Martin was a lame duck and almost gave the media little choice.

But now the media has swung from one extreme to the other. Just report the frickin' news and keep your damn opinions on the editorial page. It's not too much to ask.

[Mimas]

Didn't surprise me. From the get-go Harper outcampaigned Martin. He deserved support he got..

But isn't the conventional wisdom among Conservative supporters that the media are biased towards the Liberals?

Yes, it is and I am sure that many Tories won't believe that the media was more anti-Lib than anti-Con. It doesn't surprise me though. I thought Martin was pathetic in the campaign.

It's all relative to your point of view. Just because the media is not as right-wing as you are, doesn't mean that the media is left-wing. Some right-wingers are so far right that they would say that Thatcher and Reagan were centre-left. The fact is that most of the big news outlets in the country are owned by conservatives and ran by conservatives, which is not a huge surprise at all because the Conservatives are the most pro-business party on the political scene in Canada. CanWest, Globemedia, etc. are multi-billion dollar corporations who obviously care more about their own financial well being than about Joe Shmoe Canadian. Of course they will endorse the politicians that will give them the deepest tax cuts and the most favourable treatment.

Martin was a great friend of business for more than a decade. He gave out the hugest tax cuts to business and the wealthy that they could have every imagined. The media put Martin on a pedestal and declared him the greatest finance minister in Canadian history. But he got old and stupid and strayed from his path. When Martin made a deal with the NDP and spent their tax cuts on education, housing and other stuff the corporations couldn't benefit from, the media's tune changed significantly. When he promised personal tax cuts instead of GST cuts that business would benefit from, Martin effectively signed his resignation. Not that I miss him, but as long as Harper keeps the media bosses happy, he will have a great advantage over anyone running for his seat. So far he is doing a great job. We'll see how long he can keep it up.

[sharkman]

It's all relative to your point of view. Just because the media is not as right-wing as you are, doesn't mean that the media is left-wing. Some right-wingers are so far right that they would say that Thatcher and Reagan were centre-left. The fact is that most of the big news outlets in the country are owned by conservatives and ran by conservatives, which is not a huge surprise at all because the Conservatives are the most pro-business party on the political scene in Canada. CanWest, Globemedia, etc. are multi-billion dollar corporations who obviously care more about their own financial well being than about Joe Shmoe Canadian. Of course they will endorse the politicians that will give them the deepest tax cuts and the most favourable treatment.

Martin was a great friend of business for more than a decade. He gave out the hugest tax cuts to business and the wealthy that they could have every imagined. The media put Martin on a pedestal and declared him the greatest finance minister in Canadian history. But he got old and stupid and strayed from his path. When Martin made a deal with the NDP and spent their tax cuts on education, housing and other stuff the corporations couldn't benefit from, the media's tune changed significantly. When he promised personal tax cuts instead of GST cuts that business would benefit from, Martin effectively signed his resignation. Not that I miss him, but as long as Harper keeps the media bosses happy, he will have a great advantage over anyone running for his seat. So far he is doing a great job. We'll see how long he can keep it up.

Then again, just because the media is not as left wing as some are, it doesn't mean they are right of center. So, because newspapers are owned by corporations, they are right wing? Wake up. They employ poor SOBs who have had the bad luck to be educated in our system of higher learning. You know, where all the left fringe socialist communist bleeding heart environazi professors work. Before our misguided youth( the ones who know they hate the US but don't know why, as they dress and talk like American rappers and pop stars) get a clue on life they have left wing dogma shoved down their throats. Its these who work for the media organizations who hire mostly those who think like they do, and so the sorry cycle continues.

Thats why they Main stream media has swung back to a pro-liberal(even pro Liberal) bias. I can't pity you for not figuring this out.

[normanchateau]

Yes, I agree that many Conservatives won't believe it. Why burden themselves with contrary data and scientific evidence when their personal beliefs and preconceptions suggest otherwise.

Odd that. I mean, some guy no one's never heard of does a study which conflicts with what people've been seeing, hearing and reading for years, surely that's enough to convince most people.

Yeah, why believe scientific evidence from three researchers at McGill University when years of personal beliefs and preconceptions suggest otherwise? And of course when the same methodology at the same McGill research institute shows a pro-Chretien bias as it did in 2000, then the methods are obviously suspect....

[Argus]

Yes, I agree that many Conservatives won't believe it. Why burden themselves with contrary data and scientific evidence when their personal beliefs and preconceptions suggest otherwise.

Odd that. I mean, some guy no one's never heard of does a study which conflicts with what people've been seeing, hearing and reading for years, surely that's enough to convince most people.

Yeah, why believe scientific evidence from three researchers at McGill University

When we all know that all academic studies are completely unbiased and flawlessly accurate.

[jdobbin]

Thats why they Main stream media has swung back to a pro-liberal(even pro Liberal) bias. I can't pity you for not figuring this out.

You can always start your own newspaper.

[normanchateau]

Yes, I agree that many Conservatives won't believe it. Why burden themselves with contrary data and scientific evidence when their personal beliefs and preconceptions suggest otherwise.

Odd that. I mean, some guy no one's never heard of does a study which conflicts with what people've been seeing, hearing and reading for years, surely that's enough to convince most people.

Yeah, why believe scientific evidence from three researchers at McGill University

When we all know that all academic studies are completely unbiased and flawlessly accurate.

Yeah, personal beliefs, preconceptions and biases are far more valid and reliable than scientific evidence-based data.

[sharkman]

Thats why they Main stream media has swung back to a pro-liberal(even pro Liberal) bias. I can't pity you for not figuring this out.

You can always start your own newspaper.

In Canada there are a few papers that are center or center right, but conservatives have absolutely no choice with TV. We need a Jimmy Patteson type to start a Canadian News channel that treats both left and right fairly.

[sharkman]

Yeah, personal beliefs, preconceptions and biases are far more valid and reliable than scientific evidence-based data.

This is funny, really. When the left likes a study they forget all about the biases involved, or who financed it.

[jdobbin]

In Canada there are a few papers that are center or center right, but conservatives have absolutely no choice with TV. We need a Jimmy Patteson type to start a Canadian News channel that treats both left and right fairly.

Pattison is widely expected to bid on the CHUM stations that will be sold off by CTV.

[Michael Hardner]

But exactly the same methodology was employed to show a pro-Jean Chretien bias and an anti-Stockwell Day bias in the 2000 election. How could OMPP have foreseen in 2000 that the bias would be reversed in 2006?

Exactly. This isn't bias they're talking about. If it was, then it wouldn't change with every election.

It's reporting.

Yeah, personal beliefs, preconceptions and biases are far more valid and reliable than scientific evidence-based data.

Norman - there's nothing wrong with the data. What I disagree with is that reporting necessarily constitutes bias.

For example, based on my assessment of the study, my 'bias' against it means I'm Conservative, right ? Well, I'm not.

[jbg]

Didn't surprise me. From the get-go Harper outcampaigned Martin. He deserved support he got..

But isn't the conventional wisdom among Conservative supporters that the media are biased towards the Liberals?

From the articles I read from the online editions of the major papers, it was.

They were forced to make at least some reports about Sponsorgate and "beer and popcorn" so I suppose that reporting the news as it happened could be called bias.