What is Digg?277 Comments
- TheFlamingoKing, on 10/10/2007, -5/+264Some quick stats pulled from these numbers:
Percentage of Total Time by Party
ABC
43.2% Republican
56.8% Democrat
CBS
47.7% Republican
52.3% Democrat
NBC
40.0% Republican
60.0% Democrat
CNN
43.0% Republican
57.0% Democrat
FOX
85.2% Republican
14.8% Democrat
MSNBC
39.4% Republican
60.6% Democrat
Ranking of Bias (from most Conservative to most Liberal)
FOX (duh)
CBS
ABC
CNN
NBC
MSNBC
Percentage of Total Time by Candidate (all stations)
10.2% McCain
9.0% Biden
8.0% Huckabee
7.9% Richardson
7.8% Obama
7.6% Edwards
6.5% Romney
6.4% Dodd
5.8% Giuliani
5.4% Hunter
5.1% Tancredo
4.4% Clinton
3.8% Kucinich
3.5% F. Thompson
2.6% Brownback
2.3% Paul
2.0% Gravel
1.6% T. Thompson
FOX : Fair and Balanced +/- 35% FTW - Robcataus, on 10/10/2007, -10/+88I'm more interested in percentage of Digg submissions devoted to each candidate. I predict even Fox would be beat in terms of bias.
- TheFlamingoKing, on 10/10/2007, -3/+52Sorry, wanted to get this one in there, too:
Percentage of Candidates Ignored
ABC 16.7%
- Republican 5.6% (33%)
- Democrat 11.1% (67%)
CBS 44.4%
- 33.3% Republican (75%)
- 11.1% Democrat (25%)
NBC 44.4%
- 27.8% Republican (63%)
- 16.7% Democrat (37%)
CNN 5.6%
- 5.6% Republican (100%)
- 0.0% Democrat (0%)
FOX 11.1%
- 0.0% Republican (0%)
- 11.1% Democrat (100%)
MSNBC 5.6%
- 5.6% Republican (100%)
- 0.0% Democrat (0%)
This includes the "candidates" like Fred Thompson, that have not actually declared themselves as candidates for the presidency.
All in all, kinda surprised that ABC is not as liberally biased as I had previously believed. Not surprised about NBC, and certainly not about FOX. - seancurran, on 10/10/2007, -5/+43As much as I hate the living hell out of her, I was surprised to see how much coverage Hillary wasn't getting.
- OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -14/+52Scum:
FOX
CBS
ABC
CNN
NBC
MSNBC - tunafizzle, on 10/10/2007, -9/+46I can has double bad grammar?
- epicstruggle, on 10/10/2007, -7/+38Fox has such a high Rep to Dem ratio because most of the democratic candidates are boycotting the network and the debate Fox news and the Black caucus wanted to hold.
- GamerSDG, on 10/10/2007, -4/+33I wounder if they also add all the law and order time slots to Fred Thompson?
- WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+28This would be much more useful if they would include "appearances in news reports" or at least include it as a seperate category. Anyone think "What Hillary Said About Obama Yesterday" isn't free advertising for both of them?
- santaliqueur, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26Wait, it's "going to be leaked" soon, but some no-name on Digg already knows about it? hmmm....
- tunafizzle, on 10/10/2007, -10/+33I can has grammar?
- NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2390% Ron Paul
- djavulkai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Uh... don't forget that most of the demoncrats are afraid to go on Fox. They have time and time again rejected interviews and news conferences.
This tells a story, but not the whole story. - dafragsta, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23Is it too early to cry conspiracy against Ron Paul? A lot of people feel strongly about him, he makes sense, is a TRUE conservative (as I could see myself aligning) and doesn't make platform decisions along party lines. God forbid we get a candidate like that in the forefront. Instead, we get candidates that show exaggerated enthusiasm and irrational overreactions to grandstand for the cameras rather than be a true leader.
I guess if the chips fall as it looks like they will, the alternative is Clinton/Obama, which many feel is a foregone conclusion. I'd personally rather have a more centrist and level headed leader than a professional politician and a naive idealist. Ideals are only good when they can be manifested in the real world. (Not just on a campaign flyer.) - TargetDog, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21That's less offensive to me than when he strapped his dog to the top of his car for a cross country road trip.
- tpv2066, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1990% Democrat
95% Ron Paul Supporters
100% crazy - tororosso, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16Ron Paul is getting less coverage than Brownback ...
- Desolite, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16I'd like to see Digg's percentages.
- Desolite, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15don't mind him, he was just reading a lolcats article.
- 0zzy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13MSNBC's Morning Joe is about to talk to Joe Biden in a few minutes, why so much Biden on MSNBC?
- BrokenWind, on 10/10/2007, -12/+24indeed, FOX would be more "balanced" if everyone they request to interview actually accepted.
- Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Are you crazy. I'm from the UK and originally (as in, a few years ago) I thought democrats would be pretty left wing like our Labour party.
They're not, the difference between republican and democrat is astoundingly small. - wizbor, on 10/10/2007, -6/+17Hmmm lets see now, the NY Times publishes a stat (they would never think of slanting the news let alone statistics...ever) 5 stations lean left, 1 station leans right and guess who gets dugg down. Yep its now obvious diggers prefer to control speech and remove any opposing points of view.
The scary part is the PUBLIC airway stats, ***** the privately owned cables stats they can do whatever they want. - wahgnube, on 10/10/2007, -8/+19Ah, but Digg (and Digg-like fora) are powered by hordes of mere mortals, not centrally controlled like outlets such as FOX News.
If Digg happens to bring up one sort of candidate more than the other, it just means that's the popular opinion (at least amongst users who use sites like Digg). It's not a "bias." - lava, on 10/10/2007, -10/+20Reality has a clear liberal bias.
- jackofarcades, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13I re-did your first table using only the Big "3" candidate of each party. For Republicans, I chose Guiliani, Romney, and McCain. For Democrats, I chose Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.
FOX
Republican - 92.3 %
Democrat - 7.7 %
ABC
Republican - 36.3 %
Democrat - 63.7 %
CBS
Republican - 52.1 %
Democrat - 47.9 %
NBC
Republican - 49.2 %
Democrat - 50.8 %
CNN
Republican - 37.0 %
Democrat - 63.0 %
MSNBC
Republican - 45.9 %
Democrat - 54.1 %
Total w/o Fox
Republican - 43.3 %
Democrat - 56.7 %
Total w/Fox
Republican - 53.2%
Democrat - 46.8%
Total w/o Fox + CNN
Republican - 45.7%
Democrat - 54.3%
When we go to just the big 3, Fox scores even worse, ABC suddenly becomes liberal, and NBC is the most fair and balanced of them all.
I'd like to see a little more detail. A list of interviews for every candidate broken down by network, show, length, and time aired would be fantastic.
I think FOX, CNN, and ABC are the ones that really stand out. Fox is obvious, while CNN and ABC have large skews. While NBC and MSNBC have a large skew in the total numbers, it mostly comes from interviewing random losers like Biden and Dodd. CBS does a good job. - oyourmom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10So you know who the devil is.
- mjhamilton, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Why hasn't any one realized that this is "interview" time? The bias goes both ways, the networks have biases against certain candidates and the candidates have biases against certain networks... They might be looking for a lot of face time, but they want positive face time. It doesn't necessarily mean the networks are being as picky as it might seem.
- Y2JCrisis, on 10/30/2007, -6/+15Should this be the case for a "news" organization? If it were the "Fox Political Network", bias like that would be fine. It isn't though, they try and pass themselves off as "fair and balanced". Why is it so hard to see anything wrong with that?
Also, McCain seems to have a lot of coverage by all the networks and CNN. Last I checked he was nothing close to a Democrat. He's the only one who still thinks that Iraq was a good idea outside of the administration.
Also, Democrats and Republicans don't act THAT different to begin with. - bentman78, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9They're trying to do something like that here called the Fairness Doctrine. The only problem is it only applies to Talk Radio, where conservatives have an overwhelming advantage. Print/Television/Internet is certainly where liberals hold the advantage. So in other words, it's an attempt to stifle a form of media where liberals don't hold an advantage, and a attempt to stifle free speech.
I personally thing a Fairness Doctrine in any form of media is a bad idea, but it's ironic the Democrats are only pushing it on a from of media they don't have an advantage. - exhume, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14If the democrats accepted, then they'd be crucified by the agenda-driven hosts of the Fox shows. It still wouldn't be balanced. Why enter the lions' cage when you know they haven't eaten for days?
- scabbers, on 10/30/2007, -18/+27Obviously, the rednecks of America like to be told what to do by an old Australian.
- Terh, on 10/30/2007, -2/+11Republican time on CNN: 362
Democrat time on CNN: 479
1.32 Dem to Rep time ratio
Republican time on Fox: 612
Democrat time on Fox: 106
5.77 Rep to Dem time ratio
I bet if you yell more ***** at your monitor people will believe you despite obvious statistics. Seems to work on most Fox News fans anyway. - NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9He was on of the wives :P
- dclowd9901, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Yeah, who wouldn't want to interview with Bill "Cut-Off-Your-Mic-If-You-Make-Me-Look-Bad" O'Reilly?
- AgCynic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Are you kidding?? 5 networks favor the left and only 1 favors the right. And the only reason Fox is so far right is that democrats won't accept invitations to appear on the network. Of the 6 candidates with the most air time, 4 are democrats!!!
Thank you, Fox News, for allowing candidates from BOTH parties to campaign in the 2008 election. - Loki124, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8No one seems to account for the idea that the News channels don't pick and choose on their own who is going be be interviewed. This chart doesn't indicate whether they don't want Obama on Fox or whether Obama doesn't want to be on Fox. Hilary may not be that interested in spending alot of time in interviews yet.
- Chode2235, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The only public station in US of A is PBS which isn't listed here. Theyre all private for profit stations, only some are broadcast over the air and some over cable. Do you know what you talk about?
- elnerdo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You forgot the other part:
Percentage of total air time (All other parties): 0% - Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8FOX news interview
Obama interview: So Mr. Obama, Do you think you are setting a good example for young Americans when you smoke?
Giuliani interview: So mr. Giuliani, tell us once again how you saved the day on 9/11!
[/fair and balanced my ass] - Mafoo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I agree. The demographic that uses digg (young, techy males), do not represent the country as a whole. I'm willing to bet that most people that would vote for republicans have never heard of digg and do not use social internet sites such as youtube, facebook, ect.
- polyGone, on 10/30/2007, -1/+8Not fair or balanced, either.
- TheFederalist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8LET ME POINT OUT that this is not a chart of how often candidates are on the channels, but how much they have been INTERVIEWED. With that in mind, it should change the way you interpret the info.
For example... people are on here bashing FOX for having more Republicans... but when it comes to interviews the candidate has to AGREE to appear, therefore if Democrats avoid FOX (as they have at every turn) they will inevitably have a higher ratio of Republicans. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I do too. He has always struck me as a good balance between "fuc# you" and "let's discuss this".
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6They may be for it, but they won't explicitly say it during a presidential campaign. They'll either tend to say something in the direction of it, or away from it, e.g. Democrats might talk about Civil unions instead of gay marriage. Nobody ever gets elected by proposing radical changes, and nothing ever gets done that way. Public opinion moves in a stepwise fashion. You can't just propose legalizing drugs, you need to start with the safest drug (marijuana) and for use by those least likely to abuse it (dying cancer patients). Then, once people accept that as just the "way things are", you can start to move in the direction of it being legal for everyone.
Cigarettes were first banned on airplanes, then in restaurants, now we're seeing bans in all public places and eventually they'll probably be banned altogether. It wouldn't have been possible to just ban them completely from the start. - santaliqueur, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Yep. The democrats are so much better, and will fix it all. I agree.
- dirtkahuna, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Evidently, they haven't INTERVIEWED Obama. This graph excludes news reports.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7So basically there is no free speech in the UK. Who gets to decide which points of view get to be heard? We have enough channels and different forms of media that anyone who wants to be heard can be. We don't need the government deciding what we should hear.
- NeilieN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6This really is not all that surprising considering most of the democratic candidates refuse to be interviewed by fox news. This is a count of the number of times they have been interviewed, not how many times they have been covered in a story. I think a more interesting graphic would be how much time they have devoted this year to each candidate....as the title misleadingly implied.
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The idea is that they should all be equitable, not that wild bias from one network somehow counterbalances...it's about holding all networks to standards of objectivity.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 271 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 