Campaign watch

Bay Area news media display evenhandedness in political reporting

But differences apparent in sourcing; some newsrooms distracted by fluff

By Michael Stoll
Analysis by John McManus and Kate Davidson
Posted Nov. 19, 2004

Bay Area news media were mostly fair -- though some reporters abandoned their ususal balanced reporting when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger flexed his "political muscle" at campaign rallies. (Image: KNTV Ch. 11.)

It isn't news to anyone that politics this year has become extremely partisan. And while that has stoked heated charges of media bias, we found the news media in the Bay Area managed to play most political stories fairly.

We did, however, find substantial differences in another important category of political reporting: the number of sources questioned, especially independent expert sources who can raise a report beyond the typical "he-said, she-said." (See graph below.)

In Grade the News' analysis of the quality of news from the campaign trail this fall, we rated 1,150 stories from the eight most popular Bay Area daily news media for the style of reporting and how much attention they were paying to different kinds of races, for four weeks preceding the Nov. 2 election. But we also measured how careful they were to be fair in political reporting.

We counted as "fair" any story that gave each side in a controversy or electoral race a chance to respond (whether they accepted or not), and sought comment from those accused of wrongdoing. There did not have to be equal space or time given each side, because pros and cons are rarely equal. But if one side was quoted directly or on camera, the other side should be given the same prominence. Some stories, such as profiles of a single candidate, were exempted from the fairness analysis because we usually found the competitors profiled on another day.

We also excluded columns and editorials from the fairness survey. Although the most compelling editorials described enough of the other side of an argument to make it clear what the writer was opposing, labeled opinion articles need not provide equal opportunity for both sides to present arguments.

Except for occasional failures to question Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's practiced and partisan one-liners, the media behaved conscientiously overall.

The San Francisco Chronicle came in first at 98.5% fair. The Contra Costa Times, KTVU Channel 2 and KGO Channel 7 also were judged to be fair more than 95% of the time. KRON Channel 4 and KPIX Channel 5 and the San Jose Mercury News were judged fair more than 90% of the time. Only KNTV Channel 11 was judged to be unfair or partially fair more than a tenth of the time, with a rating of 86% fair.

Not that Channel 11 wasn't concerned with fairness. On Oct. 31, reporter Garvin Thomas bucked the trend at other TV stations of fawning adoration of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's "star power." At one political rally, Mr. Thomas interviewed people opposed to the governor's stances on several state ballot propositions.

When Mr. Schwarzenegger said Proposition 64 would eliminate "shakedown lawsuits," Rosemary Shahan from Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety told us it really benefited big businesses and polluters. When Mr. Schwarzenegger called Proposition 72 "a job-killing health-care tax," Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins of the South Bay Labor Council said the measure was "just trying to level the playing field" for workers.

Channel 2 produced a similarly thorough report on the same day about Propositions 72 and 64.

Arnold goes unquestioned

Too often the actor-politician's on-screen presence had the effect of making reporters momentarily forget to get more than one side. The governor barnstormed through the Bay Area several times weekly, endorsing a host of propositions, unendorsing others and putting -- as most stricken reporters couldn't resist saying -- his "political muscle" behind the candidacies of George W. Bush and Republican Legislature candidates Steve Poizner and Abel Maldonado.

Mr. Schwarzenegger's rallies made good TV, but rarely led to enlightening journalism. One story, on Oct. 31 on Channel 5, amplified the rhetoric the governor proffered on his "road to reform" tour. The report showed his ad opposing Proposition 66, but failed to quote anyone countering his claims that it would let tens of thousands of "murderers, rapists, child molesters" out of prison. That was a point of contention mentioned in a Chronicle article on page B3: The judge who reviewed ballot arguments for Prop. 66 called the claim that 26,000 criminals would be let out "patently false."

Channel 7 that day was particularly sloppy. The only opposition to the governor's agenda mentioned on air was from "lobbyists" who attended the rally but "mostly just blended into the crowd." On a later date, however, KGO's Willie Monroe reported sources challenging the 26,000 released convict claim.

Sources indicate depth

Although as a general rule newspapers tend to give the best context and depth to complicated political stories -- and do repeatedly in the grades we regularly hand out to the local news media -- we found that that wasn't necessarily the case in coverage of the campaigns this fall.

In our analysis, the Chronicle quoted the most sources per article, even after we leveled the technological playing field between newspapers and television, by capping our count of independent expert sources at three and identified sources at five. The cap is designed to offset the advantage of print, which has more space than television newscasts have time. Channel 11's coverage offered viewers the fewest sources.

Graphic indicates average number of sources per story, weighted by time or space. "Independent expert" sources are limited to three per story; all others to five. Academics, policy analysts, documentary audits and scientific polls qualify as "independent experts." Named individuals and documents count as sources if they are quoted or paraphrased. Polls conducted by news organizations count as five sources (applies only to KTVU Channel 2's sponsorship of the Field Poll).

The Chronicle quoted 1.4 expert sources per story on average, and 4.1 other sources.

The Times came in second, and KTVU Channel 2 came in third. (The Mercury News and the Times might have rivaled The Chronicle had their scores not been depressed by the inclusion of the voter guides, which rarely quoted anyone. The Chronicle this fall did not produce a voter guide.)

When we awarded grades, based on a formula that gave twice as many points for expert sources, all the newspapers got an A for context, as did Channels 2 and 5. Channels 4 and 7 got B's, and Channel 11 got a D+. That station quoted, on average, just 0.2 expert sources and 2.4 other sources.

Independent, expert sources are particularly helpful in sorting out competing claims on the campaign trail. That task becomes increasingly important as the election approaches, since last-minute inaccurate attacks can sometimes sway voters.

The quality of the sources wasn't always apparent from our analysis, however. Channel 2's Jim Vargas did a moving piece on the sentencing-reform initiative, Proposition 66. He quoted inmate Cavin O'Ferral, whose "third strike" was possession of a $20 rock of cocaine.

"To give a non-violent, non-serious person -- a victimless crime -- to give that person 25 years to life, that's like giving an innocent man the death penalty," he said. Mr. Vargas also quoted advocates on both sides of the proposition, but Mr. O'Ferral had a particularly germane first-person perspective.

Election puff pieces

For all the informative reporting before Election Day, some of the coverage was downright laughable. Some stories seemed designed to capitalize on the intense interest in the presidential race but did not concern themselves with actual politics. Others appeared designed to tug at our heartstrings but not fill our brains.

On Oct. 30, the Chronicle's Datebook section ran a profile of actor Ron Silver, who unlike most actors was for Bush. The Home & Garden section ran a feature titled, "Candidates with clippers," which invited readers to imagine gardening with various presidents.

On Oct. 25, the Mercury News did a story on the front of its C section, A&E, called "Political fortunes," invoking the candidates' astrological charts and pointing out the president's "lucky ear."

Channel 11 ran a piece on Oct. 29 about the Campos family. It was billed as a story about the elections, but it was really a five-minute light feature on the family's strength, courage and love in the face of personal tragedies, with a little bit about their efforts to reach out to Hispanic voters at the end.

On Nov. 1, Channel 11 ran a piece in the sports report comparing politicians and athletes. Both, the report noted, are "larger-than-life figures" and both "make hand gestures."

Channel 11 ran a network story on Oct. 25 on Bush and Kerry Bobbleheads. The reporter's face was then morphed onto the toy while he was asking questions of the inventor. Is this news?

Suffice it to say, we didn't include any of these stories as campaign reporting, but we worry that casual readers and viewers might make that mistake, especially since the stories received prominent placement.

Our study

In print, we looked just at stories beginning on the front page, local news front, editorial page and special voter guides; in TV, an hour of the premiere evening newscast weekdays, a half-hour on weekends (except for Channel 4 on Sunday where we included "4 the record")and any campaign specials. We focused on what we determined to be the most read and watched parts of the news.

Stories were classified by Grade the News' three most experienced analysts, listed in the byline. However, there was no formal reliability analysis conducted.

See also, responses from editors.

What do you think? Discuss it in The Coffeehouse.

This site is supported and maintained by the Grade the News project team.

Feel free to disseminate, but please attribute and link to us.