Betsy's Page

Sunday, August 01, 2004

John Tierney seems to think that these results show that the press isn't really biased against Bush and for Kerry.
But do journalists really want John Kerry to defeat George W. Bush? It depends where they work and how you ask the question, at least according to the unscientific survey we conducted last weekend during a press party at the convention. We got anonymous answers from 153 journalists, about a third of them based in Washington.

When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic.

But political ideology isn't the only possible bias. Journalists also have a professional bias: they need good stories to make the front page and get on the air.

So we asked our respondents which administration they'd prefer to cover the next four years strictly from a journalistic standpoint. We expected the Washington journalists to strongly prefer Mr. Kerry, partly because they complain so much about the difficulty of getting leaks from the Bush White House, but mainly because any change in administration means lots of news.

Sure enough, the Washington respondents said they would rather cover Mr. Kerry, but by a fairly small amount, 27 to 21, and the other journalists picked Bush, 56 to 40. (A few others had no opinion.) The overall result was 77 for Bush, 67 for Mr. Kerry.

Why stick with the Bush administration? "You can't ask for a richer cast of characters to cover," one Washington correspondent said. "Kerry will be a bore after these guys."

Since presidential relatives are such a rich source of embarrassing stories, we asked the journalists to predict which ones would make the most interesting news. The clear favorites were the Bush twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara, probably because of their proven track record (brushes with the authorities over under-age drinking). They got 74 votes. Teresa Heinz Kerry was next, with 39.

Liberals complained in 2000 that Mr. Bush got off easy because he was better than Al Gore at charming reporters. So we tried to test for a likeability bias. With which presidential nominee, we asked, would you rather be stranded on a desert island? Mr. Kerry was the choice of both groups: 31 to 17 among the Washington journalists, and 51 to 39 among the others.

"Bush's religious streak,'' one Florida correspondent said, "would drive me nuts on a desert island."

They like Kerry better and would rather spend time with him, but think that the Bush administration and daughters are more interesting to cover. Somehow, that doesn't strike me as a balanced attitude.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:43 AM 1 comments

Comments:

John Tierney seems to think that these results show that the press isn't really biased against Bush and for Kerry.

But do journalists really want John Kerry to defeat George W. Bush? It depends where they work and how you ask the question, at least according to the unscientific survey we conducted last weekend during a press party at the convention. We got anonymous answers from 153 journalists, about a third of them based in Washington.

When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic.

But political ideology isn't the only possible bias. Journalists also have a professional bias: they need good stories to make the front page and get on the air.

So we asked our respondents which administration they'd prefer to cover the next four years strictly from a journalistic standpoint. We expected the Washington journalists to strongly prefer Mr. Kerry, partly because they complain so much about the difficulty of getting leaks from the Bush White House, but mainly because any change in administration means lots of news.

Sure enough, the Washington respondents said they would rather cover Mr. Kerry, but by a fairly small amount, 27 to 21, and the other journalists picked Bush, 56 to 40. (A few others had no opinion.) The overall result was 77 for Bush, 67 for Mr. Kerry.

Why stick with the Bush administration? "You can't ask for a richer cast of characters to cover," one Washington correspondent said. "Kerry will be a bore after these guys."

Since presidential relatives are such a rich source of embarrassing stories, we asked the journalists to predict which ones would make the most interesting news. The clear favorites were the Bush twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara, probably because of their proven track record (brushes with the authorities over under-age drinking). They got 74 votes. Teresa Heinz Kerry was next, with 39.

Liberals complained in 2000 that Mr. Bush got off easy because he was better than Al Gore at charming reporters. So we tried to test for a likeability bias. With which presidential nominee, we asked, would you rather be stranded on a desert island? Mr. Kerry was the choice of both groups: 31 to 17 among the Washington journalists, and 51 to 39 among the others.

"Bush's religious streak,'' one Florida correspondent said, "would drive me nuts on a desert island."

They like Kerry better and would rather spend time with him, but think that the Bush administration and daughters are more interesting to cover. Somehow, that doesn't strike me as a balanced attitude.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:43 AM 1 comments

Comments:

You're just doing a bang-up job with this site, Betsy! I came across your blog via Hugh Hewitt's site, and I consider your blog one of my Top-10 must reads! (I even have your blog on my link list.) I'm relatively new to this blogging thing, but you're free to check out my own blogspot site (started on July 6th): http://arbiterofcommonsense.blogspot.com

Keep up the great work!

# posted by

Trubador : 6:07 PM

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Sunday, August 01, 2004

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Sunday, August 01, 2004 John Tierney seems to think that these results show that the press isn't really biased against Bush and for Kerry. But do journalists really want John Kerry to defeat George W. Bush? It depends where they work and how you ask the question, at least according to the unscientific survey we conducted last weekend during a press party at the convention. We got anonymous answers from 153 journalists, about a third of them based in Washington. When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic. But political ideology isn't the only possible bias. Journalists also have a professional bias: they need good stories to make the front page and get on the air. So we asked our respondents which administration they'd prefer to cover the next four years strictly from a journalistic standpoint. We expected the Washington journalists to strongly prefer Mr. Kerry, partly because they complain so much about the difficulty of getting leaks from the Bush White House, but mainly because any change in administration means lots of news. Sure enough, the Washington respondents said they would rather cover Mr. Kerry, but by a fairly small amount, 27 to 21, and the other journalists picked Bush, 56 to 40. (A few others had no opinion.) The overall result was 77 for Bush, 67 for Mr. Kerry. Why stick with the Bush administration? "You can't ask for a richer cast of characters to cover," one Washington correspondent said. "Kerry will be a bore after these guys." Since presidential relatives are such a rich source of embarrassing stories, we asked the journalists to predict which ones would make the most interesting news. The clear favorites were the Bush twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara, probably because of their proven track record (brushes with the authorities over under-age drinking). They got 74 votes. Teresa Heinz Kerry was next, with 39. Liberals complained in 2000 that Mr. Bush got off easy because he was better than Al Gore at charming reporters. So we tried to test for a likeability bias. With which presidential nominee, we asked, would you rather be stranded on a desert island? Mr. Kerry was the choice of both groups: 31 to 17 among the Washington journalists, and 51 to 39 among the others. "Bush's religious streak,'' one Florida correspondent said, "would drive me nuts on a desert island." They like Kerry better and would rather spend time with him, but think that the Bush administration and daughters are more interesting to cover. Somehow, that doesn't strike me as a balanced attitude. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:43 AM 1 comments Comments: John Tierney seems to think that these results show that the press isn't really biased against Bush and for Kerry. But do journalists really want John Kerry to defeat George W. Bush? It depends where they work and how you ask the question, at least according to the unscientific survey we conducted last weekend during a press party at the convention. We got anonymous answers from 153 journalists, about a third of them based in Washington. When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic. But political ideology isn't the only possible bias. Journalists also have a professional bias: they need good stories to make the front page and get on the air. So we asked our respondents which administration they'd prefer to cover the next four years strictly from a journalistic standpoint. We expected the Washington journalists to strongly prefer Mr. Kerry, partly because they complain so much about the difficulty of getting leaks from the Bush White House, but mainly because any change in administration means lots of news. Sure enough, the Washington respondents said they would rather cover Mr. Kerry, but by a fairly small amount, 27 to 21, and the other journalists picked Bush, 56 to 40. (A few others had no opinion.) The overall result was 77 for Bush, 67 for Mr. Kerry. Why stick with the Bush administration? "You can't ask for a richer cast of characters to cover," one Washington correspondent said. "Kerry will be a bore after these guys." Since presidential relatives are such a rich source of embarrassing stories, we asked the journalists to predict which ones would make the most interesting news. The clear favorites were the Bush twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara, probably because of their proven track record (brushes with the authorities over under-age drinking). They got 74 votes. Teresa Heinz Kerry was next, with 39. Liberals complained in 2000 that Mr. Bush got off easy because he was better than Al Gore at charming reporters. So we tried to test for a likeability bias. With which presidential nominee, we asked, would you rather be stranded on a desert island? Mr. Kerry was the choice of both groups: 31 to 17 among the Washington journalists, and 51 to 39 among the others. "Bush's religious streak,'' one Florida correspondent said, "would drive me nuts on a desert island." They like Kerry better and would rather spend time with him, but think that the Bush administration and daughters are more interesting to cover. Somehow, that doesn't strike me as a balanced attitude. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:43 AM 1 comments Comments: You're just doing a bang-up job with this site, Betsy! I came across your blog via Hugh Hewitt's site, and I consider your blog one of my Top-10 must reads! (I even have your blog on my link list.) I'm relatively new to this blogging thing, but you're free to check out my own blogspot site (started on July 6th): http://arbiterofcommonsense.blogspot.com Keep up the great work! # posted by Trubador : 6:07 PM Post a Comment