It’s amazing to see how quickly John Key got over his fear of five-headed monsters once it came time to cobble together a government, and more amazing still how quickly the media chose to forgive and forget.
You’ll recall that just two weeks ago the media couldn’t get enough of John’s line that having a government composed of:
“all sorts of different parties” with “competing interests” would not be in the best interests of New Zealand during a period of “difficult economic times to manage”.
But, silly me, they bought that one when it was Helen Clark’s coalition options in question. Now that it’s John Key, it turns out what was irresponsible just two weeks ago was actually “smart” and “inclusive” all along.
They’re a funny bunch, our right-wing media.
Carol
“Also Key got about double the coverage of Clark”
Yes that’s what the raw data suggests but let’s not forget that -
“John Key received 13% more negative coverage than positive, while Helen Clark had 1% more negative coverage than positive”
Perhaps this supports the old adage that there’s no such thing as bad publicity ?
Daveski, I agree we need to see more of the analysis to really understand this research properly and the extent of biases either way.
My view is that the most viewed media outlets (The NZ Herald & TV One), over time tend to have been more biased to the right in the last few years. However, they are not always biased left in all stories or by all journalists equally. I do think the Herald is the most blatantaly right leaning, and I think they have a lot of influence in Auckland. Also I think the TV news tried to be more balanced than usual during the elections.
I think statistical content analysis of media is a pretty blunt instrument that can produce misleading results (I think this is true of content analysis of violence in the media, for instance). I think such analysis can’t deal well with ambivalent messages, or subtexts or dog-whistles that tap into prejudices, or the fact that some stories or topics have more impact than others.
For instance, I notice that the 2nd – 5th most covered topics were to do with the campaign itself, rather than issues of policy. So, were the stories rated as negative for Key/National, ones in which the focus of the story was on how negative Labour was in their campaign? Which actually could just make Labour look very negative. Meanwhile some of the more positive things on Labour’s record are way down the list (Kiwisaver etc). Was this Labour or the media’s fault? So I would like to know more of the detail. But if nothing else it shows that the media did a poor job in relation to helping the voters to understand policy issues.
And the polls got too much coverage – there is a danger they can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Could be. jtuckey.
I’ve noticed that too, Ianmac. I wonder how the researcg rated such articles? Nedative for Labour? Or neutral.
“I think statistical content analysis of media is a pretty blunt instrument that can produce misleading results”
Agreed but not nearly as blunt an instrument as personal opinions on blogs.
Ianmac, Carol: You’re absolutely right to rake methodology and content analysis practice over the coals. When the research is completed and released it’ll come with an explanation of the methodology and some details of how coding was conducted. However I’d be shocked if there was anything untoward about it. I’ve done this sort of research at university, and I do it for a living in my work, and when you’re going to publish your work in a peer-review system or before the eyes of a board of directors, you dot eyes and cross tees like crazy.
Daveski: Yes, the common mantra on leftie sites is that the MSM favour the right, just as on rightie sites the mantra is that the MSM favour the left. I’ve long argued both are bollocks (if anything the ideological bias in the media is toward consumerism, because it drives advertising, which is the media revenue stream). These results don’t really provide any steer either way on the question of left/right bias – unless you want to beg the question that National are `the right’ and Labour are `the left’, which makes for a single fairly tenuous data-point. Assumptions and conclusions like that are problematised by matters like incumbency (wouldn’t the government normally get more press, and since ministerial pressecs issue authoritative releases on policy, wouldn’t it usually be more positive?); the parties’ media strategy (Key isn’t a polished public speaker but he insisted on dominating the cameras and microphones instead of allowing his better-spoken comrades to do so); etc. I can go into more detail if you’d like – but honestly, it’s better to wait until the thing’s released, in which (if they’re any good) the author and his researchers will themselves discuss all these factors.
What the report does make clear is that there has been no bias in the media towards the National party and John Key (more specifically than `the right’), as most lefties suggest there has been. According to these results Key got a hard time from the media, and so did Rodney Hide. If anything this makes their election results all the more impressive.
L
Tiger wrote:
NX – the five-headed monster remark is via Key himself – leave aside percentages, Key was referring to any bringing together of diverse parties and painting it as inherently unstable – this was to scare people to vote for National. Key has done just what Labour has done – but now it’s a triumph of leadership…well, according to his supporters.
Your percentage noting also misses the point that here the one-headed monster needs the pimple(s) to govern – effectively the dog needs the tail…
I disagree. Listening to Key on 3 news* he said “….that will work going in one direction with a smaller group of parties, or do they potentially want a five headed monster”.
Proportionality was always implied when he talked about the ‘five headed monster’. That is the length of the tail that wags the dog – if you get my drift.
In National’s case the tail is one of those short stumpy ones you see on bulldogs.
*http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/Politics/tabid/370/articleID/77163/cat/67/Default.aspx#video
Carol: I think statistical content analysis of media is a pretty blunt instrument that can produce misleading results (I think this is true of content analysis of violence in the media, for instance). I think such analysis can’t deal well with ambivalent messages, or subtexts or dog-whistles that tap into prejudices, or the fact that some stories or topics have more impact than others.
You’re quite right, but this is a question of methodology. There are ways of bringing the nuance and level of detail which discourse analysis (for example) provides in alongside statistical, quantitative or qualitative content analysis. But it’s a hell of a lot of work, and it’s very, very hard to do in a methodologically sound fashion, and very few people do it. Good researchers, however will be quite explicit about what their research does and doesn’t, and can and cannot mean.
L
That you Carol – that was both informative and interesting
And the polls got too much coverage – there is a danger they can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I like that
Carol.
to what extent if any do you sense media played in a 59 percent turnout.? This would be for the campaigning period and prior up to let’s say 2 years..
Lew, I have a background in media research, and tend to favour a qualitative approach, though I think statistical analysis can be useful. I think we just have different perspectives on this, as occurs between different approaches to media analysis.( I have had one or two articles included in peer reviewed publications). And I think there’s a few media academics I know who would disagree with you on the lack of (left) bias in our mainstream media.
I do think the consumerist approach pretty much amounts to a right wing slant, though that doesn’t necessarily match onto the Labour/National divide. Labour has taken on board quite a bit of (right wing) neoliberal & consumerist policies/philosophies – though it’s been hard not to over recent years.
Some of the right wing bias I am aware of is as much in the way things are presented, and the more subtle meanings conveyed, which can be exposed through close analysis, and yes, discourse analysis. It’s also in the topics chosen and the things not said, the context etc. Statistical content analysis is not very good in examining such things.
But, yes, I agree, when the research is published, I’m sure they will highlight more of the nuances and limitations. And I do think the choice of media outlets examined, and the lack of a strong equivalence, must skew the data.
Northpaw, it’s hard to say. But it is a possibility that the media did have an influence. I know at least one Uni academic in the media/politics field has said something along those lines. Because it is a possibility, I think they should be far more careful about how they use these polls – maybe follow some countries in not being allowed to release poll results in the week or so before elections.
The MSM are largely irresponsible in the way they use such polls. They mainly use them to create a sense of an exclusive story. Over recent years they’ve inaccurately matched them onto a projection of parliamentary seats, with an FPP focus. Who knows how much this has influenced people’s views?
Carol, thanks for that.
You’ll also be aware of push-polling – (viz pushing a pov). To the extent that persistent and regular polling is conducted with – as was the case E08 – that pov could have gotten to be accepted as result = foregone conclusion. So why bother etc.. Push-polling, as used elsewhere and understood is partisan, Poll-push-polling (my wee suggestion) is something else.. not least of which would be the best intentions gone awry on democracy..
Carol: I have a background in media research, and tend to favour a qualitative approach
Yes, I can tell you know what you’re talking about. I also favour qualitative research, the more qualitative the better – I prefer discourse analysis for this reason (though currently most of my time is spent doing content analysis).
And I think there’s a few media academics I know who would disagree with you on the lack of (left) bias in our mainstream media.
Yeah, I accept it isn’t an open-and-shut case. I have a few problems with the bald statement `the media are biased to the right’, though. I’m a political scientist working with the media as an expression of politics, and I find there’s a tendency among media academics without a background in politics to overstate or oversimplify ideological matters. As far as systemic ideological media bias goes, I’m certainly not arguing there’s none – just that bias typically takes the form of distortion rather than a distinct skew either way.
I think there’s some merit to the argument that heavy focus on polls influenced the final election result, though – strong consisitent polling for one `side’ will tend to embolden that side and demoralise the other side. It’s about manipublating projected regret in voters.
L
Toyota me … things can often get a bit trivial on a blog but this level of discussion to me is what makes blogs like this so valuable. My thanks for your contributions and insights.
Hmmm. Well, the media academics I know tend to go for a pretty nuanced approach, in which there is a consideration of the ambiguities in relation to any poltiical perspective – more focus on discourse and the finely tuned negotiations that go on, rather than rigidly following any ideological line – a lot influenced by postmodernism/poststructuralism, and a few from a sociological background.
With respect to our MSM, I think the Herald in recent years tends to be blatantly pro-National, though it can present some leftish views in some articles – usually buried away from the main pages. TV One tends to lean more to the right, but it could be the result of a variety of interacting facors rather than a conscious position – stories available, pressure for ratings, individual reporters (Espiner leans more to the right than some of the other journos), and maybe just having absorbed some of the right wing philosophy that is inscribed into the aims of a commercialised TV channel
eg It always irritates me that, come budget time, TV One promotes their item on it by asking “Will there be something in it for you?” Rather than a more leftish question, which would be “Is it fair to all sections of ociety? Or a simplified version of,”What affect will this have on the different sections of society?”
I have been surprised by the conservatism of some political studies academisc I have come across
Oh – lost the edit function & that above posted itself before I had finished typing – apologies for the typos.
Daveski – I’m with you this has been totally absorbing and has opened my eyes a lot wider on MSM.
Interestingly it mostly confirms my thoughts and suspicions about the MSM but really good to see it written down and elaborated so well.
Many thanks to you all
Carol: The re-edit is ajax and sometimes a bit flaky. Especially on safari on macs for some reason. There is a new version ready for release I think, but I’ll check it out well before I put it up.
Carol: Yes, political science is much more conservative than that of media studies and most of the ~ologies. It’s not nearly as normative a discipline as it is descriptive, and it’s very much concerned with implementation.
One of the major reasons the right (such as it is) takes such a dim view of the humanities and of academics in general is because they take for granted a lot of postmodernist, poststructuralist, Marxist/Gramscian, relativist, etc. theory and perceive it to be a sort of orthodoxy. I adhere to a lot of that theory, but I don’t believe it is an orthodoxy anywhere outside the academy. In the (and I hate this propaganda term) `real’ world, other theoretical bases – realism, nationalism, etc. hold much more sway, Much of the problem I find with media academics is that they tend to presume that orthodoxy and apply it in a normative sense to the media and political action – essentially they judge the world as it is against a yardstick of how they think it ought to be in light of a whole lot of somewhat alien theory. They say reality has a liberal bias – but I don’t think it’s quite as liberal as a lot of academics think.
Lynn: Yeah, I’ve been hatin’ on this new ajax edit. Bring back the old one, I say!
L
[lprent: I'm coming to think that I should just write my own (usual time pressures apply). Unfortunately the old one was having problems with newer browsers and didn't work with the latest version of wordpress.]
Carol: I think such analysis can’t deal well with ambivalent messages, or subtexts or dog-whistles that tap into prejudices, or the fact that some stories or topics have more impact than others.
Too true Carol: nor deliberate omissions or under-reporting, nor the justification for reporting at all, nor timing of reports, nor placement or duration…nor….etc
Lew: There are ways of bringing the nuance and level of detail……. But it’s a hell of a lot of work, and it’s very, very hard to do…
Impossible I reckon Lew. Sorry, I know it’s your job an’ all (and I had high hopes that someone like yourself might be able to quantify it), but it’s a bit like trying to pre-judge or analyse the effectiveness of advertising: persuasion is an art form and the only real proof is in the pudding.
One pudding we have is the high male/Auckland tory vote, and the stand-out ingredient is the “Lenin/Clark” Herald. Geographical coincidence?
To quote my favourite fillum (The Castle), “it’s the vibe”. Death by a million “unbiased” repetitions of, e.g., “Her critics accuse her of…… nanny state-corrupt-Helengrad-anti-smacking-digging dirt-third-termitis-desperate-tied at the hip-social agenda-lightbulb banning-short showers……etc etc ad nauseam coupled with a studied nonchalance towards the greatest political flip-flop and blooper show in history.
Unmeasurable? Sure. So is the assumption that those who hire the sole informants of our swing voters’ opinions vote tory. So’s love. But not pudding.
Lew, I am interested to read your perspective on media academics. I will keep it in mind in the future when I’m reading or listening to some of them. At this point I’m having difficulty in matching it with the media academics I know (either quite well or in passing), and who include some of the best in the field in NZ. They are quite diverse in their approaches and interests. I don’t see them as having that big a disconnect between their theoretical perspectives and the ‘real’ world, though there is a difference here between individuals. And those of us interested in audience/reception and media use studies do spend some time focusing on how diverse people use and discuss the media.
Still it’s an interesting proposition/observation and I’ll keep it in mind for the future.
Iprent – something strange seemed to happen when I wrote that problem post, that seemed to be more than just an edit problem. As I recall I hadn’t finished typing when I must have hit some key or the mouse by mistake & the comments posted (I may not have added anti-spam the code words(?)), with the last paragraph incomplete. As you can see it ends mid sentence, and didn’t include the last sentence or two that I wrote. I was using a PC and Firefox. There was an edit link visible, but no timer counting down, and clicking on the edit link produced an error message.
ak, some good points. I too worry about the possible untoward influence of such dominant productions as the Herald. I think it would help if our main news outlets were less commercially oriented, raised the quality of their reporting, encouraged more diversity of perspectives in front page/headline stories, and encouraged more people to critically engage with the media. A big ask I know in our infotainment, consumerist environment. But IMO the problem is not so much that there is bias in the MSM, but that a large number of people consume the stories without being aware of and/or critical of the biases.
Hehehehe. I see Key has met with union leaders about Kiwisaver and will try to consider their concerns. Better add another head to that hydra…and I wonder how ACT feel about that.
I swear, Key is trying to be centrist but he had no idea how much blood is going to fly once all those heads start attacking one another. He has such a desire to please everyone – that sort of attitude is idealistic but will make for a huge mess once people’s expectations are shattered.
Carol: I suppose we probably know or have worked with some of the same people
Yes, it’s a complicated business and a complex and critical group of people, about whom I don’t intend to over-generalise. I certainly don’t mean to bag academia – I’m a part of it, in a way, and on the whole I don’t think the rest of the world listens to them enough – partly due to the ideological gap I talked about.
AK: Well, it’s impossible by definition to nail down all the meaning in a cultural system, because meaning is a function of audience – different things mean different things to different people, if that’s a banal enough way to put it. I agree it’s the vibe – but I question the assumption that The Herald (to take your example) is creating that feeling or reflecting. It’s a feedback loop – you can’t assign all the agency to the media outlet and its Tory-voting primaries, which is what the `media has a right-wing bias’ argument does. A great deal of the media’s function is in agenda-setting – telling people what to think about, rather than explicitly what to think – but by the same token a media outlet generally needs to tell its audience what they want to hear in order to be successful. It’s a devilishly hard bit of business to tease out whether the media’s main role is in reinforcing peoples’ prejudices or in forming them in the first place, and I’m always deeply suspicious of people who claim to have done so (unless I can see their working).
L
When you are right, you are right.
Whilst I could nit-pick one or two points I won’t.
Good call.
Ok, I can’t help it.
I have linked to this post on my blog but I have nit picked those points…
Sometimes the Left are Right: The Right-Wing 5 Headed Monster