Comments on: Slant and wind

By: Andrew1

Andrew1 — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:27:32 +0000

In your study you write, ‘We do not regard differences in the volume of coverage in itself as being a form of media slant.’
But to me, this is one of the most important forms of media slant (or ‘bias’ – which I understand is a word you deliberately avoided). It is true that incumbents typically get more coverage than opposition – but public policy debates are more mixed. I bet you would find that the ABC gave a disproportionate amount of time to opponents of league tables for instance, as well as giving a disproportionate amount of time to opponents of the PC’s report on the parallel importation of books – two issues where the left/right divide is clear but the Coalition/ALP divide is less clear.

By: Estimating Media Slant in Australia « Andrew Leigh

Estimating Media Slant in Australia « Andrew Leigh — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 01:16:52 +0000

[...] Update: See also discussions about our methodology by Sinclair Davidson and Andrew Norton, plus a response from Joshua. [...]

By: Andrew Norton » Blog Archive » Can public intellectuals be used to assess partisan media slant?

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:46:22 +0000

[...] Joshua Gans responds, with my reply in his comments [...]

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:44:29 +0000

Joshua – I said that most public intellectuals are not party partisan. I think Sinc is right that your methodology isn’t very good at picking up the political stances of public intellectuals. On a quick look at Phillip Adams mentions in Hansard, for example, your positive or neutral test really just shows that Coalition MPs can mention Adams’ long history in the arts and media or some story he has reported without a digression on his left-of-centre political views, not that he is pro-Coalition. Marie Bashir seems to be mentioned because she is Governor of NSW, not because MPs have any particular opinions on her ideology or party preference.

If you want to use public intellectuals surely there are far better tests of their political position: for example their own stated views, or using the coding methodology, where the coders have been expressly asked to put their mind to the issue of slant/bias, rather than using mentions by MPs who may have been talking about something else at the time.

I think public intellectual mentions could pick up ideological or issue bias by newspapers, but party slant is more difficult.

Most of your specific findings aren’t highly counter-intuitive, but on the other hand the methodology isn’t really strong enough to replace readers or listeners own impresssions if formed over an extended period of time, not just one election campaign.