Recent news coverage conveyed a strong bias in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage at a time when the American public was more evenly divided on the issue, a new study from the Pew Research Center revealed.
“Stories with more statements supporting same-sex marriage outweighed those with more statements opposing it by a margin of roughly 5-to-1,” the Pew study said. “… Twitter postings on the subject were nearly evenly split between support and opposition for the measure, aligning much more closely with public opinion than with the news media.”
The Pew study analyzed nearly 500 news stories from March 18 to May 12. Forty-seven percent of news stories during that period supported same-sex marriage, with 9 percent of news coverage opposing same-sex marriage and 44 percent considered neutral.
Conversely, public opinion at that time was “only” 51-42 in support of same-sex marriage. On Twitter that margin was even thinner: 31 percent of tweets supported gay marriage, 28 percent opposed it and 42 percent of tweets were deemed neutral.
“In order for a story to be classified as supporting or opposing same sex marriage, statements expressing that position had to outnumber the opposite view by at least 2-to-1,” the Pew study said. “Stories that did not meet that threshold were defined as neutral or mixed.”
The Huffington Post was perhaps the most biased mainstream written-news outlet: 62 percent of Huffington Post stories supported same-sex marriage, 7 percent opposed it and 31 percent were neutral. Two publications the Pew study singled out for their restraint were USA Today (67 percent neutral) and Wall Street Journal (70 percent neutral).
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments about legalizing same-sex marriage on March 26 and 27. “Those hearings led to a firestorm of coverage. Of all the stories examined in (the Pew) study, 55 percent came during (March 25-29),” reported the study that Paul Hitlin, Amy Mitchell and Mark Jurkowitz co-authored for the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.
In related coverage, a Deseret News article from 2011 reported that religion was important to 61 percent of Americans but only 36 percent of journalists.
Showing posts with label media bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media bias. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Media bias in favor of gay "marriage"? You bet. Here's some evidence.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly in favor of gay "marriage". Now the Pew Research folks have documented it.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Public trusts FOX News more than other networks.
An interesting poll was released by Public Policy Polling on registered voters' views of the major TV news networks. Do people trust or distrust them?
FOX News came out on top. 49% trust them. 10 percentage points out more than any other news network. 37% of voters don't trust them.
CNN was next highest with 39%. 41% don't trust them.
Among the major networks, NBC was highest. 35% said they trusted them. 44% did not trust them. 32% for CBS and 31% for ABC. CBS and ABC were not trusted by 46% of voters.
These results tell me people don't trust the TV news networks. They tend to support those who share their perspective on issues and the world. Every news broadcast has some inherent bias based on the worldview of the person(s) putting it together. People decide what to report and how to report it based on their worldview. It can't be avoided to some degree. That's not to say the goal shouldn't be fair and balanced reporting but bias is inevitable. People increasingly realize that.
I also think people are realizing that the networks, with the exception of FOX, have a liberal bias which is to the left of the general public. FOX is closer to where the general populace is at and certainly not to the far right; otherwise it's trust and mistrust numbers would be higher.
FOX News came out on top. 49% trust them. 10 percentage points out more than any other news network. 37% of voters don't trust them.
CNN was next highest with 39%. 41% don't trust them.
Among the major networks, NBC was highest. 35% said they trusted them. 44% did not trust them. 32% for CBS and 31% for ABC. CBS and ABC were not trusted by 46% of voters.
These results tell me people don't trust the TV news networks. They tend to support those who share their perspective on issues and the world. Every news broadcast has some inherent bias based on the worldview of the person(s) putting it together. People decide what to report and how to report it based on their worldview. It can't be avoided to some degree. That's not to say the goal shouldn't be fair and balanced reporting but bias is inevitable. People increasingly realize that.
I also think people are realizing that the networks, with the exception of FOX, have a liberal bias which is to the left of the general public. FOX is closer to where the general populace is at and certainly not to the far right; otherwise it's trust and mistrust numbers would be higher.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Left bias from Star Tribune on abstinence until marraige sex education
Over the weekend the Star Tribune ran a story on the Department of Health's decision to not seek federal abstinence funding monies for a state program supported by Planned Parenthood. (That fact alone should raise red flags as to it's bona fides as a true abstinence until marriage program.)
The article by Josephine Marcotty served as an attack piece on abstinence until marriage curricula and message and again shows the liberal media bias against the common sense message, "Wait until you're marriage to have sex."
First, Marcotty uses the language of the left when she describes the abstinence until marriage approach as "abstinence-only" sex education. There's much more to true abstinence education than only abstaining. It's waiting to share the most intimate aspects of oneself with one person, not multi-partners or at one night stands.
Marcotty writes, "At issue is the question of whether adolescents and teenagers should be taught the view embraced by social conservatives -- that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases." What's controversial about that? It's true on its face. Abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
She goes on to say "Several recent studies have raised the decibel level in the national debate because they found that abstinence-only programs are ineffective in reducing sexual activity among teenagers and adolescents." She doesn't say which studies those are or the controversial nature of those evaluations. There is plenty of evidence showing the abstinence message works.
Next she says, "In fact, critics of abstinence only education say it's prevalence might be one reason why the long decline in sexual activity among teenagers has stalled since 2001 and why American teens continue to have the highest rates of pregnancy and abortion in the industrialized."
Here she simply regurgitates the charges of contraceptive proponents without any response to the accuracy of these accusations. I would argue the exact opposite is true. The reigning orthodoxy in the sex education industry is condoms, condoms and more condoms. Since the onslaught of the sex revolution in the 60s we've seen an explosion of STDs from a few to a couple of dozen. I suppose she and "critics of abstinence only education" would say that abstinence caused that. In schools kids are inundated with condom messages; the main approach isn't abstinence until marriage but again condoms, condoms and more condoms.
Next she quotes from Michael Resnick, a UM professor who is a big proponent of condom education. He's hopeful we're moving away from the abstinence until marriage approach. "Are we seeing a turnaround in these positive trends because we are seeing the impact of ineffective educational strategies on kids?"
What's interesting about Dr. Resnick is a study he helped write was used as the basis for a monograph on sex education produced by the University of Minnesota in the late 1990s entitled, "Reducing the Risk: Connections That Make a Difference in the Lives of Youth." (The report Resnick helped write "Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health" published in 1997 in JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association." A longitudinal study on Adolescent Health published in JAMA in 1997.)
The monograph found that family characteristics that protect teens from early sexual intercourse and pregnancy were "perceived parent disapproval of adolescent sex" and "perceived parent disapproval of adolescent contraception." In other words, Resnick is now promoting activities which directly undermines factors which discourage early sexual intercourse and pregnancy among adolescents.
My comments on the subject, buried in the middle of the article, constituted three paragraphs of the 27 paragraph article.
Marcotty follows my comments by quoting from Bill Smith a vice president for SIECUS, the principal national promoter of comprehensive sex education standards which promote not only contraceptives, but also acceptance of homosexuality and oral and anal sodomy. He was aghast at my suggestion that STDs and emotional damage can happen to folks in their 20s not just teenagers.
Then she concludes with quotes from Brigid Riley, the head of MOAPPP the primary promoter of comprehensive sex ed in the state, and Resnick who said parents want to hear abstinence but also contraceptives.
Interestingly enough, a Zogby poll was done on parents views of the content of comprehensive sex education programs. If found that when parents discovered what's actually in comp sex ed curricula, e.g. promotion of condom use among other things, support drops dramatically.
Comprehensive sex ed advocates engage in a bait and switch approach. They say, "Oh we'll teach abstinence but we'll also information on contraceptives as well." A review of what their comprehensive sex ed curricula by the Heritage Foundation found the comp sex ed curricula actually spent less than 5% of their time on abstinence and zero on marriage. They spent over 600% more time on condom use than abstinence.
The bottom line in this battle over sex ed, abstinence and condoms is a worldview battle. On the one side are those who view sex as a recreational sport and have a pretty much anything goes attitude towards sex -- let's just try and mitigate the consequences through condoms and abortion. On the other side are those who maintain a moral vision of sexual expression within the context of a marriage relationship. History, common sense and morality point to the second approach as best for the individual and society.
The article by Josephine Marcotty served as an attack piece on abstinence until marriage curricula and message and again shows the liberal media bias against the common sense message, "Wait until you're marriage to have sex."
First, Marcotty uses the language of the left when she describes the abstinence until marriage approach as "abstinence-only" sex education. There's much more to true abstinence education than only abstaining. It's waiting to share the most intimate aspects of oneself with one person, not multi-partners or at one night stands.
Marcotty writes, "At issue is the question of whether adolescents and teenagers should be taught the view embraced by social conservatives -- that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases." What's controversial about that? It's true on its face. Abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
She goes on to say "Several recent studies have raised the decibel level in the national debate because they found that abstinence-only programs are ineffective in reducing sexual activity among teenagers and adolescents." She doesn't say which studies those are or the controversial nature of those evaluations. There is plenty of evidence showing the abstinence message works.
Next she says, "In fact, critics of abstinence only education say it's prevalence might be one reason why the long decline in sexual activity among teenagers has stalled since 2001 and why American teens continue to have the highest rates of pregnancy and abortion in the industrialized."
Here she simply regurgitates the charges of contraceptive proponents without any response to the accuracy of these accusations. I would argue the exact opposite is true. The reigning orthodoxy in the sex education industry is condoms, condoms and more condoms. Since the onslaught of the sex revolution in the 60s we've seen an explosion of STDs from a few to a couple of dozen. I suppose she and "critics of abstinence only education" would say that abstinence caused that. In schools kids are inundated with condom messages; the main approach isn't abstinence until marriage but again condoms, condoms and more condoms.
Next she quotes from Michael Resnick, a UM professor who is a big proponent of condom education. He's hopeful we're moving away from the abstinence until marriage approach. "Are we seeing a turnaround in these positive trends because we are seeing the impact of ineffective educational strategies on kids?"
What's interesting about Dr. Resnick is a study he helped write was used as the basis for a monograph on sex education produced by the University of Minnesota in the late 1990s entitled, "Reducing the Risk: Connections That Make a Difference in the Lives of Youth." (The report Resnick helped write "Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health" published in 1997 in JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association." A longitudinal study on Adolescent Health published in JAMA in 1997.)
The monograph found that family characteristics that protect teens from early sexual intercourse and pregnancy were "perceived parent disapproval of adolescent sex" and "perceived parent disapproval of adolescent contraception." In other words, Resnick is now promoting activities which directly undermines factors which discourage early sexual intercourse and pregnancy among adolescents.
My comments on the subject, buried in the middle of the article, constituted three paragraphs of the 27 paragraph article.
Marcotty follows my comments by quoting from Bill Smith a vice president for SIECUS, the principal national promoter of comprehensive sex education standards which promote not only contraceptives, but also acceptance of homosexuality and oral and anal sodomy. He was aghast at my suggestion that STDs and emotional damage can happen to folks in their 20s not just teenagers.
Then she concludes with quotes from Brigid Riley, the head of MOAPPP the primary promoter of comprehensive sex ed in the state, and Resnick who said parents want to hear abstinence but also contraceptives.
Interestingly enough, a Zogby poll was done on parents views of the content of comprehensive sex education programs. If found that when parents discovered what's actually in comp sex ed curricula, e.g. promotion of condom use among other things, support drops dramatically.
Comprehensive sex ed advocates engage in a bait and switch approach. They say, "Oh we'll teach abstinence but we'll also information on contraceptives as well." A review of what their comprehensive sex ed curricula by the Heritage Foundation found the comp sex ed curricula actually spent less than 5% of their time on abstinence and zero on marriage. They spent over 600% more time on condom use than abstinence.
The bottom line in this battle over sex ed, abstinence and condoms is a worldview battle. On the one side are those who view sex as a recreational sport and have a pretty much anything goes attitude towards sex -- let's just try and mitigate the consequences through condoms and abortion. On the other side are those who maintain a moral vision of sexual expression within the context of a marriage relationship. History, common sense and morality point to the second approach as best for the individual and society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
