Apparently not me

re: tables 78 and 79

What they are claiming may very well be true (and interesting). But I have two questions:

1. How did they decide to set an acceptable level of significance at .05?

2. What’s the standard deviation?

They could be onto something really important, but I’d prefer not to just take their word for it.

re: argument versus point

“This is a very common experience for me. I often ignore or disagree with examples in favor of dealing directly with points.”

(Which I kinda did in the prequel.)

Often, but not always. In this case we’re dealing with specific research. I’d like to know that it is well done. And I’d like to know how it was done.

“We shouldn’t confuse “point” and “argument.” If I disagree with the examples, I am disagreeing with the argument. I may still agree with the point. I may have other ways of arriving at there. Perhaps the question should read this way: If one disagrees with examples, should one disagree with the argument? Yes.”

I cannot make a decision yet on the argument because I still have questions about it. Regarding the last assertion, so far I have problems with the examples (specific research) so I’m skeptical about the argument.

I was thinking about table 78 & 79 starting on page 139?

Table 78 summarizes the results of statistical significance tests performed on these comparisons.
(Following widely used procedures, we employed the chi-square statistic, adjusted for table size,
and set an acceptable level of significance at .05.) Based on all evaluations, Clinton’s
administration was favored over Reagan’s to a significant degree in all news genres — television
news, the Times and Post, and the regional papers. In addition, Clinton’s domestic policies were
treated significantly better than Reagan’s at all press outlets, and his foreign policies fared
significantly better everywhere but the Washington Post.

There are a few things we still need to know, but I would assume that any structure would show differences of some kind. And as far as consistency goes, this negative tone seems very consistent given the data. What we don’t know, because these guys apparently didn’t do the math, is whether the differences between Clinton and the others are statistically significant.

It would help if we had these two things:

1. Similar data on all post-war presidents.
2. A proper statistical analysis of the data.
3. Analysis of a second year.

Let’s assume it is. Then what would account for the difference in negative tone between Reagan, Clinton and Bush? Or between Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

Would the structure cause such differences, or wouldn’t a “structure” suggest consistancy?

[my comment edited to eliminate stupid answer]

I think USA Today was the worst thing to happen to print journalism in the 20th C. What a newspaper puts out front speaks volumes about its seriousness. I don’t know about a corresponding habit to compensate. I hope so. I suspect not.

re: “Less news on the front page means less news read by the consumer?”

I don’t know. I would hope not. Finding out would make a good study.

re: “Your discussion on tone is interesting, and certainly your academic strength. But I’m confused by it. You explain that finding a negative tone is unsurprising because of the narrative and bad news bias – and that those biases should be included as context in measuring tone?”

Negative tone in an of itself may be good or bad. How can we know until we know the context? But I find this a fascinating moment in the study (I learned something, maybe): What if a negative tone is structural in exactly the way I suggest. Perhaps we need to be asking questions about what’s causing the negative tone structurally and whether such a tone is even a problem. The data suggest to me that a negative tone is natural to the practice of journalism. Now, don’t read too much into that. Because we still need to determine the value of tone. But I find this a very interesting proposition to consider.

re: “It would be more informative to divide tone into categories with greater fidelity than just positive and negative. Constructive, suspicious, accusatory, Gotcha!, etc., might be some.”

That could be interesting–especially since such categories would require understanding individual statements in context.

re: “I’m not comfortable with the “tough” question category because it’s too often a cop-out”

Yes, it certainly can be. But not all tough questions are “gotcha” questions–although POV plays a big role there All the more reason to be sure we keep all communicative units of study in context.

Michael Robinson and Margaret Sheehan. 1983. Over the Wire and on TV. New York: Russell Sage Foundation

And you’re correct – it was SLOPPY to omit that reference in the report.

It will be interesting to hear what response you get from them on methodology (and perhaps data).

The front page evolution is an interesting insight that did not occur to me when reading the report. However, isn’t there another side to that coin? If the newshole on the front page is smaller, are the reading habits such that there isn’t a corresponding loss of signal to the reader?

Less news on the front page means less news read by the consumer?

Your discussion on tone is interesting, and certainly your academic strength. But I’m confused by it. You explain that finding a negative tone is unsurprising because of the narrative and bad news bias – and that those biases should be included as context in measuring tone?

It would be more informative to divide tone into categories with greater fidelity than just positive and negative. Constructive, suspicious, accusatory, Gotcha!, etc., might be some.

I’m not comfortable with the “tough” question category because it’s too often a cop-out … i.e., from PressThink:

It’s true that Donahue is not really considered a journalist, but a media personality. However, in this case he was doing exactly what the press was doing at every campaign stop during the New York primary– asking “tough” questions about character issues. So he represented the figure of the journalist even though he’s not a member of that club. It turned out that people were more interested in the economy than Gennifer Flowers. They were ready to listen to the candidates and judge what they had to say.

What Donahue offered them was a different identity– they could be thrill-seeking spectators, character cops, mini-prosecutors with Donahue as their leader. Those gathered in Donahue’s studio didn’t want this identity, and he lost credibility with them by assuming that they did.

Two weeks ago, Clinton held his first news conference. It came after a long series of complaints from the press that the White House appeared to be abandoning the ritual. The first question, as always, came from Helen Thomas of UPI, the senior correspondent in the capital. I will read you verbatim what she said, and I ask that you listen carefully.

This is Helen Thomas, of UPI: “Mr. President, would you be willing to hold the summitt in Moscow if it would be best for President Yeltsin’s political health. And don’t you think that if you did go to Moscow it would engage the U.S. too closely in the power struggle in the capital?”

The intent of the Gotcha question is clear. It is designed to suggest that whatever Clinton does he’s wrong. Either he fails to help Yeltsin by not going to Moscow, or he invests too much in Yeltsin by going to Moscow. Thomas gives Clinton his choice of mistakes. This kind of behavior has become routine in Washington. Helen Thomas achieves a temporary but meaningless jolt of power by putting the president on the defensive before he speaks.

Thomas believes she is promoting candor with her “tough” question, but the more enduring message is that political discourse is a meaningless sparring match, in which hostile parties try to score points off each other. Certainly a better question would have been, “Mr, President, could you explain to us your thinking on Russian aid?”