Is Newspaper Coverage of Economic Events Politically Biased?

[billbuckhead]

Is Newspaper Coverage of Economic Events Politically Biased?


JOHN R. LOTT Jr.
American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
KEVIN A. HASSETT
American Enterprise Institute (AEI)


"Abstract:
Accusations of political bias in the media are often made by members of both political parties, yet there have been few systematic studies of such bias to date. This paper develops an econometric technique to test for political bias in news reports that controls for the underlying character of the news reported. Our results suggest that American newspapers tend to give more positive news coverage to the same economic news when Democrats are in the Presidency than for Republicans. When all types of news are pooled into a single analysis, our results are highly significant. However, the results vary greatly depending upon which economic numbers are being reported. When GDP growth is reported, Republicans received between 16 and 24 percentage point fewer positive stories for the same economic numbers than Democrats. For durable goods for all newspapers, Republicans received between 15 and 25 percentage points fewer positive news stories than Democrats. For unemployment, the difference was between zero and 21 percentage points. Retail sales showed no difference. Among the Associated Press and the top 10 papers, the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Associated Press, and New York Times tend to be the least likely to report positive news during Republican administrations, while the Houston Chronicle slightly favors Republicans. Only one newspaper treated one Republican administration significantly more positively than the Clinton administration: the Los Angeles Times' headlines were most favorable to the Reagan administration, but it still favored Clinton over either Bush administration. We also find that the media coverage affects people's perceptions of the economy. Contrary to the typical impression that bad news sells, we find that good economic news generates more news coverage and that it is usually covered more prominently. We also present some evidence that media treats parties differently when they control both the presidency and the congress."
-----------------------snip-------------------------

<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=588453>

John Lott is the same "statistician-economist-liar" who "proved" that cigarette smoking lowered healthcare costs and that more gun ownership meant less crime. Lott is also known to get on the internet as an alter ego named "Mary Rosh" who cheerleads his dubious conclusions.

[bryant69]

1. Just seeing American Enterprise Inst.

Makes me think this is crap.

Although in truth, I think the Media slants a little towards the right on economic stories, a little to the left on social/cultural stories and a lot to the lazy on all other issues. Right Wing Politicians tend to give them easy to digest stories, Left Wing Politicians tend to give them tough to digest issues; so they have a bias towards the right wing. Clinton was one of the few politicians who knew how to break this cycle a little.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[AndyTiedye]

2. Where is this Left-Slanted Media? I Want to Subscribe!

The media seems to be very slanted to the right, which is not surprising
since right-wingers own nearly all of it.

[w4rma]

3. I could care less about GDP growth when that money is given to a few folks

who could leave the country at any opportunity and who are investing their profits in other countries instead of in America.