Logic Times
Calculating the Value of Media Bias
Posted by Aslan, 11/28/04, 10:46am. Comments (1)
What are the consequences of media bias? This appears to be a simplistic question with a simplistic answer: the media promotes the dominant secular humanist philosophy of its members and undermines all opposing views. Bias can be as subtle as framing a current headline for the identical Associated Press article…
Scalia rejects religious 'neutrality' in government
Scalia: Faith infuses U.S. government, history
…as outrageous as Rathergate…
…or as malicious as the NY Times missing weapons story on the eve of the election:
Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq
By JAMES GLANZ, WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: October 25, 2004
This article was reported and written by James Glanz, William J. Broad and David E. Sanger.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.
The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.
The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed. American officials have never publicly announced the disappearance, but beginning last week they answered questions about it posed by The New York Times and the CBS News program "60 Minutes."
No reasonable person any longer questions that a liberal media bias exists. The only remaining discussion is whether such bias is an inadvertent byproduct of a homogeneous culture or conscious ideological warfare. The compelling effect of Rathergate and the NY Times hit piece is that they have, for the first time, made the second position a reasonable, even sensible, one to hold. Conspiracy theories may still be the province of the fringe, but belief in media slander is now mainstream (slander: “A false and malicious statement or report about someone”).
How do we calculate the impact of media bias? While this question is infuriatingly difficult to answer, one can demonstrate the scope and significance of media bias with the following analysis:
During the election of 2004, the two major parties and their 527 advocates spent $600,000,000 on TV and radio advertising, more than triple 2000 levels (here, here, here and here). Due to the extreme variability in advertising costs, such as...
market (for example, New York, New York vs. Youngstown, Ohio),
time slot (prime time vs. 4:00am),
media (TV vs. radio),
and even within each of these categories (Manhattan vs. Queens, cable vs. network)
…it is impracticable to assay actual time spent on advertising. However, using data from the reputable and very thorough UW Madison Wisconsin Advertising Project, we have created the LTMA (Logic Times Media Average), which produces a 2004 value of $1478.49 per ad minute (using this data; see calculations here). Let me stress that this value as an absolute measure is about as accurate as astrology – its purpose is to provide a crude means to estimate how much time that $600,000,000 represents. Dividing 600,000,000 by the LTMA of $1478.49 we get 405,820 minutes of advertising this past election cycle, or 281.82 days of advertising.
Therefore, the two main political parties valued three-quarters of a year of television and radio advertising in geographies ranging from New York to West Virginia at about 600,000,000 dollars.
What then does this suggest about the value of media bias for liberal candidates?
If CNN skews 20% of its 24-hour cable news coverage (at 48 minutes of non-commercial material an hour) in favor of a liberal candidate in the eight-month election cycle (the point at which the national candidates were set), this represents a value of $81,754,420.45 to the favored candidate.
If CBS skews 30% of its various newscasts (morning show, anchor news, TV news magazines) in favor of the liberal candidate, this represents a value of $14,051,541.02.
If NPR skews 50% of Morning Edition and All Things Considered (a conservative estimate!), then this represents a value of $42,580,427.32 (of course, no one listens to NPR, so an adjustment would be necessary here).
I am not suggesting that these twenty, thirty or fifty percent figures are accurate or that the LTMA itself represents a practical estimate of cost per average minute of media time. This exercise simply provides a cautious tool to demonstrate the significance of media bias in the political process.
The LTMA is clearly cautious for it severely dilutes television value (with radio spots) and ignores the most beneficial aspect of media bias: the claim by the media itself that it is not biased. Communication perceived by some, particularly undecided voters, as impartial carries far more weight than partisan advertisement.
Since television remains the primary information source for most voters (here) and receives the greatest percentage of candidates' dollars (here), the impact of free and stealthy promotion of one political and cultural ideology has real value. If this is true, then when this active promotion subsides, the candidate previously discriminated against would begin to recover some of his or her standing. And this is indeed exactly what we find (here, here and here). The job approval ratings for President Bush have steadily climbed since just before November 2nd, from 48% at the time the missing weapons fabrication was taking hold to now 55%. And if this commentary is true, the job approval rating – provided there are no dramatic national/global events - should continue to climb to a level representative of a time when media bias was less in play than during the election cycle, or about 60% (it was 61% in January of 2003, Gallup).
Also, if this phenomenon is true, then as the clout of the traditional media wanes, the opposing political and cultural philosophy should flourish. The success of Fox and other cable news outlets and the explosion of the Internet have exactly coincided with the 1990s rise of conservatism and the dominant standing of the Republican Party today. If you doubt this, ask yourself what would have been the result of Rathergate and the NY Times story circa 1980 – Kerry would be president.
The stunning conclusion one must draw from this review is that, without media bias, the modern secular humanist (i.e., raging liberal) incarnation of the Democrat Party is entirely non-competitive. The only hope for this failed European model of government is to camoflague it (see Political Mimicry) or do away with it and redefine the party. To our delight, the Democrat Party, with Howard Dean battling Harold Ickes for the DNC chair, shows no signs of re-inventing itself.
Copyright © 2004 Dan Hallagan. All Rights Reserved.