Bias in election coverage?

44 comments on “Bias in election coverage? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. shorts 1

   27 November 2012 at 10:26 am

   National do PR way better than any of the left leaning parties and manage to manage the media way better to

   You’re right in that the answer is to use the media to your own ends and I’d add to do so in a positive manner, control the dialogue

   now can Labour do so?
   • Tom Gould 1.1

     27 November 2012 at 2:05 pm

     I guess with Goff and Shearer being undermined by some on their own side, no surprises here.
2. insider 2

   27 November 2012 at 10:36 am

   LAbour made a strategic decision not to promote Goff. You can’t blame the media for following that lead. Why should media have to invent a balance the parties aren’t promoting?

   Robinson’s analysis is pretty shallow if it does not acknowledge the influence of strategy – having co leaders is another example which could on the face result in an imbalance. It would be interesting to see if her ‘leader balance’ is reflected in news coverage of the respective spokespeople in LAbour and National.
   • Lanthanide 2.1

     27 November 2012 at 10:53 am

     I’ll repost my reply to you, then:
     “That might explain fewer items of coverage, but the images of Key also tended to be larger than those of Goff. So I don’t think that really jibes as an explanation.”
     • insider 2.1.1

       27 November 2012 at 11:57 am

       I suspect the size bias is more in the positioning of the stories. Stories on inner pages,particularly the political ones, tend to run smaller pics. It’s a design issue not a bias one.
       Key I suspect was regularly on the front page of papers partly due to say the teapot issue and partly as PM he had more opportunity to be there on ‘non election’ stories. Was prominent teapot coverage good for him politically?
       Here’s an example

       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10766325

       this was front page with a big picture. According to Claire’s research it would be a sign of positive bias because he is smiling and happy (even though John Banks is there too) but the headline is hugely negative as is the story overall.

       I’m not sure a column cm count is telling the whole story, or is itself in any way balanced. It’s data I suppose, but not much more.
       • karol 2.1.1.1

         27 November 2012 at 12:03 pm

         I’m not sure a column cm count is telling the whole story,
         

         Agree.  Biases can also be seen in the way headlines and the first paragraph are framed, and in the relationship between the most visible elements and the subsequent development of the story further down the page.  Many people, though, only glance at the images and headlines, and maybe the first paragraph. 

         An in-depth analysis needs to attend to the way all those elements operate. 
3. karol 3

   27 November 2012 at 10:46 am

   Eddie: I say: yes, the msm is part of the establishment and inherently stands for the conserving the status quo but the answer is to use the msm and its weaknesses for you, not treat it as an enemy.

   The problem is that the NZ LP seems to try too hard to pander to the MSM with tame, but unimaginative PR and photo ops, in an attempt not to offend.  First they need to decide what they actually stand for, then go hard out in presenting that positively, without pandering to the neoliberal assumptions prevalent in the MSM.
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     27 November 2012 at 1:47 pm

     Treating the MSM like it is a major constituency of the Labour Party has brought us to this undemocratic point.
4. Pete 4

   27 November 2012 at 10:46 am

   I would expect the incumbent to have more coverage, even during an election campaign, as the business of government is carried out. I wonder if a similar study can be done for 2008, when there was a clear narrative for a change of government.
   • karol 4.1

     27 November 2012 at 11:02 am

     Margie Comrie’s study, which I referred to here, shows that Key got more screen time than Clark in the news on TV3 & TV One during the 2008 election campaign.  Comrie shows, (p284: Table 5), that TV One gave significantly more coverage to the National Party leader getting noticeably more time on TV One, and the Labour leader slightly more time on TV3.

      
     • insider 4.1.1

       27 November 2012 at 12:30 pm

       The biggest outlier in that study was teh coverage NZF got. Owen Glenn issue I presume.
       • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.1

         27 November 2012 at 12:58 pm

         NO!
   • ak 4.2

     27 November 2012 at 1:04 pm

     Correct, Pete. 2007-8 (akshly, 04-08) was far more marked, (Democracy under Attack!) and analysis of poll publication (spec NACT-favourable polls) would show a hugely more glaring bias.

     Both ignored. And the 6 o’clock slot holds a stronger sway anyhoo.

     This looks suspiciously like a “yeah ok but it’s not that bad, see?” exercise that will no doubt be cherry-picked and rolled out by our resident tories henceforth.

     But yep, labour needs to look and learn.
5. Phil 5

   27 November 2012 at 10:53 am

   Good work Dr Robinson. We all knew it was a rigged election. It worked though. It convinced the left that it was a waste of time turning out to vote. So the Keystone Kops get elected by a JK nostril. Hardly a mandate…. but it’s enough for any dictator.
   • tc 5.1

     27 November 2012 at 11:40 am

     More inconvenient truths for the right that’ll be put down to a ‘busy govimint’ or ‘labours fault’ if they ever ask shonkey’s crew.
6. framu 6

   27 November 2012 at 12:44 pm

   interestingly, none of this even touches the MSM treating the election as a horse race instead of a contest of ideas.

   To me thats the more important aspect. If they hadnt spent several months telling us who was losing in the polls and who they felt would be the winner on the day, we might have had a vastly different result regardless of how many pictures and what size they were

   they could have published a whole edition of smiley pictures of goff – but if they spend the entire time pointing the finger and saying “hes gonna lose” without discussing any policy you can be pretty sure of the result.
   • Populuxe1 6.1

     27 November 2012 at 1:39 pm

     “interestingly, none of this even touches the MSM treating the election as a horse race instead of a contest of ideas.”
     Probably because the ideas weren’t really all that different. 
     • framu 6.1.1

       27 November 2012 at 3:04 pm

       well… true enough 🙂
     • karol 6.1.2

       27 November 2012 at 5:35 pm

       Actually, if the MSM focused more on policies, MPs other than the leaders and the background to these, maybe they would have shown up some real differences between the parties.

       As it was, the strong focus on strategic framing of the election as horserace,  made the election a more superficial contest between personalities.  Key won, while disguising his true agenda. 
       • GregJ 6.1.2.1

         27 November 2012 at 8:27 pm

         I provided a link below to Canterbury University’s Dr. Babak Bahador’s “New Zealand Media Coverage of the 2008 Election Study: Final Results” which showed Policy issues coverage (50.4%) barely ahead of non policy issues (49.6%).

         Bahador’s mid-way report on 2011 Election doesn’t have that comparison so it will be interesting to see the Final Results report to see if the balance has got worse or better. However it does show that the “horserace” component of the non-policy section was much stronger than 2008 (44% versus 20%) so assuming the Policy/Non-policy balance stays roughly the same it certainly made the “contest” between personalities a much stronger feature of the 2011 election.
         • karol 6.1.2.1.1

           27 November 2012 at 8:44 pm

           That’s interesting.  Thanks for the link, Greg.  i will read it more closely at a later date.
   • infused 6.2

     27 November 2012 at 1:52 pm

     Just out of interest, why do they have to?
     • framu 6.2.1

       27 November 2012 at 3:05 pm

       have to what?

       are you talking horse race vs policy?
7. Populuxe1 7

   27 November 2012 at 1:41 pm

   Ok, mountain out of molehill. Labour deliberately didn’t promote Goff because he lacks media charisma, and of course Key had more photographs – (1) the teapot business (duh!) and (2) he’s the goddam PM, of course there are going to be other non-election stories for the media to cover. Paranoid much?
   • TheContrarian 7.1

     27 November 2012 at 1:51 pm

     Nationals biggest asset was Key, Labour couldn’t do that same with Goff so…

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10761970
8. infused 8

   27 November 2012 at 1:49 pm

   Maybe if Goff wasn’t so shit… Everyone turned off to him. Why do you think?

   Why do you think Shearer hasn’t got any air time until recently? Same thing. No one wants to read about a bumbling bafoon.
   • Populuxe1 8.1

     27 November 2012 at 3:12 pm

     I don’t think Goff was shit – I think he needed a bit of media advice, but had he stayed on until 2013 I think he would have become a compelling leader and grown into his mana.
     • QoT 8.1.1

       27 November 2012 at 6:02 pm

       He’s had since 1984 to figure out how political leadership works, Pop. If he hadn’t got a clue by 2011 I have no idea how three more years would have helped.
       • Populuxe1 8.1.1.1

         27 November 2012 at 6:57 pm

         How exactly? Most leaders Goff has served under have been total spotlight hogs. He’s never had a real chance to make an impact on the public consciousness. 
         • QoT 8.1.1.1.1

           1 December 2012 at 12:29 pm

           If he can’t learn from observation I’m not sure how he made it through primary school, much less got into Parliament.
     • lprent 8.1.2

       27 November 2012 at 6:20 pm

       The usual problem is to know that you need media advice in the first place. Politicians seldom do until they get burnt.
       • QoT 8.1.2.1

         27 November 2012 at 6:46 pm

         Well, he might have figured it out sooner if he read blogs.
         • Populuxe1 8.1.2.1.1

           27 November 2012 at 6:54 pm

           Bloggers tend to have an overly optimistic view of how important blogs are to people who don’t spend their entire lives online.
           • Crimson Nile 8.1.2.1.1.1

             1 December 2012 at 12:40 pm

             You should relay your observation to some of the MSM commentators, it will make them happy.
           • QoT 8.1.2.1.1.2

             1 December 2012 at 12:46 pm

             Not my point. My point is that when you’ve got a group of people providing you with their opinions for free, and those opinions turn out to be pretty good assessments of a situation, maybe you (i.e. Shearer in this case) should consider paying attention.
9. Fortran 9

   27 November 2012 at 2:07 pm

   Mountain out of a Robinson molehill – not her academic remit though, nothing better to spend taxpayers money on !!
   Labour chose to not put Goff on the promotions – simple.
10. Raymond A Francis 10

    27 November 2012 at 2:46 pm

    It would be interesting to do similar research on TV coverage (which is much more influential) and or the election before the last when Miss Clark was PM
    • GregJ 10.1

      27 November 2012 at 7:53 pm

      You may find what you are looking for in New Zealand Media Coverage of the 2008 Election. There is a section on TV coverage of the various leaders.
11. Rich 11

    27 November 2012 at 6:57 pm

    I’d suggest:
    – arrange actions and events that force their way onto the front page. That’s the point of (big) protest marches, the Green’s asset sale CIR, Greenpeace occupying drilling rigs, etc. Nobody really thinks these’ll influence the ruling classes, but they do give the media something to film.

    – avoid buying (and quoting or linking to) newspapers and encourage everyone else to do the same. The NZ papers are in a fairly parlous state – a few more bad years and a big financial crash could see either APN or Fairfax filing for bankruptcy or just giving up in favour of easier ways to make a living.

    – treat the media as the opposition. Latch on any weaknesses or stuff-ups like the Murdoch phone tapping scandal. That’s done a huge amount of damage to the media/government complex in the UK.
12. NattyM 12

    27 November 2012 at 7:04 pm

    I remarked on more than one occasion how the MSM was actIng as the John Key PR team. On one occasion when the Labour Party released important policy on the family and children, it had about 4 paltry lines on p2 of the Dom Post. What took up about half the rest of the page? A photo of John Key holding a small child. No story, just another pointless photo op for their poster boy.
13. History Repeats 13

    28 November 2012 at 3:37 am

    The Labour Party’s election communication strategy was based on promoting the party rather than a presidential leader styled campaign run by others. This strategy was well discussed during the election. Goff was invisible in LP promotional material. Remember there were no pics of Goff on LP billboards. Given this the results of this survey shows that the LP strategy worked.

    Whether that strategy was correct is another issue.
14. unicus 14

    28 November 2012 at 9:36 pm

    In the six week period prior to the last election virtually every hourly news bulletin on National Radio led with a Key or National Party story .

    This Government has interfered in state owned media at policy and editorial levels to a degree not seen since Muldoons time .
15. Tanz 15

    29 November 2012 at 4:23 pm

    Doesn’t the Engineers and Printing Union have control of the press? I’m surprised Key got so much coverage, but he lives for it. Goff did not get a fair go by the right wing Herald.
16. Tamaki 16

    1 December 2012 at 2:58 am

    To blame the media is somewhat nieve. The Labour Party’s strategy was to run a non Presidential style campaign while the other parties all ran this style. I suggest that the LP’s media strategy influence what is run in the press and if their focus is on Team Labour rather than Labour Leader then the Media is likely to reflect that.

    Other party’s spent time setting up events to influence the media, to show their leader,wheras if Labour focus was on a wider team and party message. They didn’t place the same emphsis. Clearly this strategy was a disaster for Labour.

    Infact to illustrate the poor media strategy take a look at this labour ad from the 2011 campaign. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5870477/Labour-campaign-video-harks-back-to-history . Does this approach connect with the young 18+ generation of today swinging voter looking for a better place to live?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS