'Data Doesn't Lie' Proclaims WashPost's Cillizza As He Peddles Faulty Study Saying Obama Getting Unfavorable Media Treatment
In his "The Fix" blog yesterday, Washington Post political reporter Chris Cillizza uncritically furthered a faulty Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) that argues that President Obama has actually received more negative news coverage this political season than the Republican presidential primary contenders. This morning, Post print edition editors excerpted Cillizza's item on page A4, the "Campaign 2012" news page.
While Cillizza noted in his blog post that there are "mitigating factors" in the survey data -- that langauge was cut from the print edition excerpt -- he confidently asserted that "for all the chatter about Obama’s preferential treatment by the media, the data tells a very different story. And the data doesn’t lie." But as my colleague Rich Noyes explained on Monday, the data examined by the study are fundamentally flawed and hence worthless to arrive at a conclusion about the media's judgments of the candidates (emphases mine):
But "the press" hasn't been tougher on Obama than the Republicans. PEJ's "good press/bad press" statistic mixes reports of the campaign horse race (who's ahead, who's behind) with judgmental coverage of a candidate's background, issue positions, etc. And, according to PEJ's own statistics, the vast majority of the reports they examined (they peg it at 64%) are about campaign strategy.
[Check out my earlier blog post for more explanation of the flaws in PEJ's methodology.]
What this all means is that the GOP candidates got better "good press" scores because they each won primaries this year. This is obvious when you look at the report's explanation of how Romney, Santorum and Gingrich each fared with "the press" (I'm stripping out the statistics, because they are a meaningless distraction):
[Romney] enjoyed one week of clearly positive coverage... in the week following his solid, if widely expected win in New Hampshire on Jan. 10. But that media bounce was short lived. The week of his loss on Jan. 21 to Newt Gingrich in South Carolina, negative coverage of Romney... outstripped positive....
Santorum’s Iowa victory on Jan. 3 also produced a burst of positive coverage for him....But during the week of his third-place finish in South Carolina on Jan. 21, the tone of Santorum’s coverage dropped markedly....
Gingrich only enjoyed a single week in which positive coverage about him significantly outweighed negative, the week he won the South Carolina primary.
In other words, PEJ is not actually tracking how the press -- journalists, reporters, commentators, etc. -- are evaluating, ranking, spinning, etc., the campaign. Their sample is so heavy with redundant Web posting of the same horse race results that it completely masks the spin that journalists impart to the coverage.
Think about it this way: Can any serious media observer argue that the media elite have been more positive towards Christian conservative Rick Santorum than Barack Obama? On its face, this study is not measuring what it purports to measure, i.e., the tone of campaign journalism.
Undoubtedly, given the resources they've put into this project, you'll see additional reports throughout the campaign year. If President Obama takes a polling lead over Mitt Romney, you'll see PEJ claim a burst of good press for the Democrat; if Romney takes the lead, they'll continue to say that the press is beating up on Obama. Don't believe it.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:11pm.
"Unfavorable media treatment" ??????
HA HA HA HA HA HA
Stop it--my sides hurt.
Especially when this morning
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:12pm.
Especially when this morning the media are falling over themselves to gush about how cool Obama was on Jimmy Fallon's program "slow-jamming the news."
Was that not
Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:57pm.
the biggest farce in Presidential history?
I think, though, that Romney should run with it. He could say, "I saw the President on Jimmy Fallon the other night, 'slow-jamming' with The Roots. I thought he was great. In fact, I think he should stay on the late night shows, and let the rest of us get on with fixing the horrible economy he's left for us."
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Ken - tale of the photos, and this Front Page gloss over Obama
Submitted by Gary Hall on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 3:39pm.
Sure haven't seen much like this for the other side (this is the print edition headline - no byline present):
Obama plays up different aspects of his life story
Of note, are the pictures. On the front page, print edition, we see "A young Barrack Obama with his Grandparents . ." and inside, as the story continues to fawn on, there;'s this smiley-wavy one: here. Needless to say, that within the lines of flowing poetry, we find that familiar misrepresentation from the staff writer, "The story about his mother's fight with insurance companies is little mentioned." Well, perhaps Obama got the message that he'd been caught lying; apparently the LAT's still wants it out there. I'm to revisit this article in a moment, just below.
Someone at the LA Times must have directed within the past week, or so -- that it is time to embellish the paper with beautiful and warm and meaningful pictures of President Obama with real people. The picture doesn't even have any context to the story at hand. Since the stories are mostly fabricated out of the journalist's own picture of what they want it to be, why not do the same with the photos. Like here -- a photo of Obama talking to some folks in a community college, in Ohio, attached to a story headlined, "Ebbing crises may aid Obama" - a story almost entirely about the European Debt crisis outlook "improving (?)." The next morning we hear about the end of times, in Greece.
Other examples, in the past week -- here (in Colombia, keeping distance from SS agents) . .
and here, back hanging with students in New Hampshire - pitching his student loan plans . .
and here, strutting his stuff at another university in N Carolina, with the "An America Built to Last," banner, behind.
Now, when it comes to Gov. Mitt Romney:
Well, they got him with people once, here. Look at all of those excited and smiling folks in the crowd. Humph. Note: this is the story - which starts in the lower right hand corner of the second page of the paper with the headline of "Romney claims 5 states and the prize." The picture is on page AA-7 as the story continues. Wasn't last night a great night for Romney - and a super speech - a turning point in his campaign to take back America? Well, you won't find it here. Remember - the front page story today is noted up above; a completely fabricated story, not connected to the news of the day. Simply a story the LAT's wants to run up front, with the intent of overshadowing Romney.
. . and here; Romney all alone in an empty factory. I like the banner way in the background, "Obama isn't working." Still, the article found much room in which to promote Obama's message.
. . and here, standing lifeless in front of the American flag, in a ever so "sweet" front page page article written by two constant Obama fans, Seema Mehta and Maeve Reston, titled,"Romney tries to corral conservatives." Begins with Romney being "too bitter a pill to swallow." Not to worry, I'm certain that by next week, Seema and Maeve will team up and do a piece on Obama trying to corral the socialists and communists camps - that he hasn't abandoned them.
. . and, here, standing all alone again (no halo over his head - and they did not PhotoShop that one moony looking light around his head, like they loved to do for Obama - here. The article? Headlined, "Stressing business success has pitfalls." Comparing Romney to CA's failed Senate effort by Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman's failed run at the Governorship, simpy made it clear to me that the LATimes is right on track to continue to tear Romney down - on a daily basis - just as they did Fiorina and Whitman . . and Bush, and McCain, and . . and . .
The war is on.
(;~/ gary
I'm guessing Pew is referencing
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:37pm.
fact vs opinion. If you simply report the facts, this president should be receiving the worst press since FDR.
unfavorable?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:54pm.
It just means that not everyone in the media likes him, like Fox News or others. If everyone liked him, then it would be favorable.
-Jon
Can't measure one of the most
Submitted by forest on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 1:06pm.
Can't measure one of the most effective ways the MSM works for Obama - spiking or minimizing damaging stories like Fast and Furious and Reverend Wright or ignoring myriad gaffes by Obama and Biden.
whatever the data, WaPo is ALWAYS mendacious
Submitted by russedav on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 1:24pm.
unless it accidentally tells the truth, something they always seek to avoid.
The study is flawed. I teach
Submitted by texastommy on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 1:58pm.
The study is flawed. I teach statistics and research in a doctoral program here at my university. There is a technical term I always use to describe studies like this when my students try to reference them in their dissertations. That term is "ca-ca."
In keeping with being a smart
Submitted by Lakewood Ed on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 3:17pm.
In keeping with being a smart ass. strictly speaking it's "data don't lie", datum doesn't lie.
Hee-haw
Data
Submitted by nogard on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 4:33pm.
No, data doesn't lie but is easily manipulated, and I have found that anything that comes out of a liberals mouth is generally either a misunderstanding of the truth, a misrepresentation of the truth, a distortion of the truth, or an out right lie.
A few words: Lancet vaccine article.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 7:08pm.
The author of the infamous Lancet article, Andrew Wakefield, was found to have cooked the books, resulting in a retraction of the article by the journal and the loss of his medical license. He was found to have falsified data, resulting in a hysteria that caused untold damage to patients and society at large. We will probably never know the true extent of it, but a journal retraction is a major poke in it's eye with a sharp stick. Losing a medical license for something other than patient harm usually only happens if there are narcotics or other criminal charges or for gross incompetence or willful fraud. It is a huge deal in the medical community to lose a license, and he will more than likely never practice again. He should have been criminally prosecuted, but perhaps there is no way to do it in the UK.
At least two or three major studies that I have read contradicted nearly all of Wakefield's assertions, and the US even set up a special court to contain the damage. All of that money and emotional capital wasted because of one man's false data.
Cillizza is full of crap if he thinks numbers do not lie.