« Suing spooks | Main | The Post vs. the vicious felon »

May 12, 2009

Media bias on Souter replacement?

Media Matters is out with a quick study that purports to find a GOP slant in cable television coverage of the retirement of Justice David Souter. As the summary touts:

"In the week following Justice David Souter's retirement announcement, significantly more Republican members of Congress, especially on Fox News, participated in daytime cable news discussions about or touching on the Supreme Court than did Democratic members of Congress and Obama administration officials."

It's an interesting idea for a study, but highly limited.

Look at the numbers. The "significantly more Republican" cast that discomforts Media Matters amounts to only one GOP representative at CNN, compared to zero Democrats. At MSNBC, the "significantly more Republican cast" amounts to three GOP representatives compared to two Democrats.

Suits & Sentences humbly suggests this sample is far too limited to be useful. Indeed, it's a little surprising that in the entire week following the Supreme Court justice's retirement announcement, the number of lawmakers from either party showing up on cable to discuss the matter was so low.

Finally: it actually makes sense for cable news to disproportionately seek out Republican views on this. They will be the presumed dissenters, and it's journalistically most useful to know their opening gambits.  And as for setting up conflict -- because, after all, the media's game is called Let's You and Him Fight -- the best bet is to go with the party out of power.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c64169e201157081c787970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Media bias on Souter replacement?:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

AlanDownunder

"... after all, the media's game is called Let's You and Him Fight -- the best bet is to go with the party out of power."

Not exactly their stock wager between Jan 01 and Jan 09.

Gary

Yikes! 1 to 0! They could just have easily said there was an infinite number of GOP comments vs. Dem. Or an uncomputable number of GOP comments vs. Dem.
When are people going to wise up about quoted "studies," "polls," and "research" that is unspecified and unexplained?

The comments to this entry are closed.

ABOUT THIS BLOG

mike

"Suits & Sentences" is a legal affairs blog written by Michael Doyle, a reporter for McClatchy's Washington Bureau. He was a Knight Journalism Fellow at Yale Law School, where he earned a Master of Studies in Law; he also earned a Masters in Government from The Johns Hopkins University with a thesis on the Freedom of Information Act. He teaches journalism as an adjunct instructor at The George Washington University's School of Media and Public Affairs.

Send a suggestion or news tip. Read Mike's stories at news.mcclatchydc.com.

Follow Mike on Twitter: @MichaelDoyle10

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

THIS MONTH

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2 3 4
    5 6 7 8 9 10 11
    12 13 14 15 16 17 18
    19 20 21 22 23 24 25
    26 27 28 29