I look at age demos/along with geography demos. Young people who live in urban areas don't watch TV - usually that demo is left. Older people who live in suburban/rural areas watch TV - usually that demo is right.
Basic number crunching..
How Obama Was Elected.
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
I look at age demos/along with geography demos. Young people who live in urban areas don't watch TV - usually that demo is left. Older people who live in suburban/rural areas watch TV - usually that demo is right.
Basic number crunching..
I look at age demos/along with geography demos. Young people who live in urban areas don't watch TV - usually that demo is left. Older people who live in suburban/rural areas watch TV - usually that demo is right.
Basic number crunching..
But, young people who live in urban areas usually don't follow the news at all, and more often then not, don't vote.
Also, what about older people in urban areas? Or younger people in suburban/rural areas? It is probably very likely that the other you get, the more you pay attention to the news. And the older you get, the more conservative you get (compared to your younger days).
So, older people probably consume more news, as a whole, and still watch TV news.
What is the ratio of young people who consume news on a regular basis, to young people who don't? Is that ratio the same as older news consumers?
To prove what you say (or disprove it) is a very complex question, with a lot of stats that are relevant.
But, shag, that doesn't matter - all I am talking about is how TV skews, and how that is changing. Nothing about voters - i don't really care about them in this discussion.
Yes, there are some older people in urban areas - fewer young people in suburbs/rural areas. The age/geo (with a liberal sprinkling of economic status) way of breaking demographics is pretty much a standard thing.
And, yes, as I stated, older people, who didn't grow up with new media are the ones left watching broadcast TV and reading newspapers - so yes, it is becoming more and more apparent that the 'liberal' part of that traditional media is starting to fail. That same media who use to cater to that same group, when they were younger, more liberal, and yes watching TV. Now that same group is older, probably more conservative, but stuck in the way they get their news delivered to them. They depend on TV, radio and newspapers, because that is all they used to have
Yes, so that is why broadcast TV is starting to move to the right. Since at least the 70s, it has been the most common news delivery source for young/left and old/right. So, it started to skew left because it needed to appeal to younger demos who were spending money because they 'saw it on TV'. That is why forever you have heard about how the 18 to 35 year old group is so important.
Well, now that new 18 to 35 demographic isn't watching broadcast TV. However the group that was in that 18 to 35 group is aging, still watching TV and moving to the right.
So, broadcast TV, and newspapers will probably shift more and more to the right as radio already has. Then it may somewhat fade away as that group ages and dies.
There are lots of numbers at Nielsen - if you really are into this sort of stuff...
But this discussion was originally about what Obama voters knew and didn't know. So who is and isn't a likely voter is very relevant..
But that doesn't mean it is correct. What are the samples? Why are they the way that they are? That kind of thing.
How much of this is speculation and how much can be rationally drawn from the numbers?
Most "older people" (if you are defining that as 'above 35') get a good chunk of their news from the web, or radio as well as newspaper and TV. The only people I know that stick with newspaper and TV, because that is likely what they are comfortable with) are senior citizens
...and for advertising, that makes sense. But we are talking consuming of news on TV. Most 18-35 year olds do not (and have not) watched the news as much as 36 and older do. That is not because they are getting the news somewhere else, it is because they are not seeking the news. (at least as much as the older crowd).
Again, we are not talking about watching TV. We are talking about seeking out and consuming the news. TV is only relevant in weather newscasts are being watched or not. If they are watching Galactica or Wheel of fortune, it is rather irrelevant.
Your argument seems based more on speculation from very broad numbers then it does from drawing a logical conclusion from more specific numbers.
One fact you don't seem to take into account; the 18-35 demographic is much more heavily influenced by Pop culture. Unless they are actively seeking the news, they are going to get most of the info on the candidates, political parties and current events from the pop culture they interact with (TV, Radio, Music, Magazines, Video Games, etc.). That has been true long before the rise of the internet and the new media and it will be true long after a new balance has been achieved.
Also, u seem to be looking at this from an advertising perspective. I assume that the demographics you deal with have more to do with advertising, and who is watching advertising. So I have to ask how various things like Tivo are effecting that; where people are able to avoid watching the commercials. Older people are less likely to want to go out and get Tivo and what not, while younger people would want to. So your advertising numbers will reflect a larger disparity there among TV viewers then is actually there.
Has there actually been a drop in the number of people in the 18-35 group watching TV? Or has that number stayed pretty consistent? Also, if there is a drop, what other possible explainations are their? Did the surveors change methodology?
Basically, there are a lot of degrees of separation between the numbers reported (for advertising purposes) of people in various age groups said to be watching TV, and the actual numbers and trends of people (and their political leanings and geographical location) in the various age groups watching the news, and likely to vote.
Also, you seem to be making some logical leaps it reach the conclusions that you do concerning the trends (while avoiding certian facts).
Shag - initially the thread was about Obama voters - but it became sort of more involved on media bias. And of course the whole excitement of broadcast media bias. Which is fine - it is biased.
Like I said - you can go to Neilsen and find out all sorts of tracking...
This is a great article from the Carnegie Reporter - Abandoning the News
With over half of Internet users now connecting via high-speed broadband services, daily use of the Internet among all groups is likely to climb, because broadband access, the way an increasing number of households go online, makes daily usage more likely. Already, Internet portals—widely used, general interest web sites such as Yahoo.com and MSN.com that include news streams all day, every day—have emerged in the survey as the most frequently cited daily news source, with 44 percent of the group using portals at least once a day for news. Measured by daily use, local TV comes in second at 37 percent, followed by network or cable TV web sites at 19 percent, newspapers at 19 percent, cable networks at 18 percent and national broadcast networks at 16 percent.
And by other measures, the Internet is already clearly ahead of other media among the young. According to the Magid survey, young news consumers say that the Internet, by a 41-to-15 percent margin over second ranked local TV, is “the most useful way to learn.” And 49 percent say the Internet provides news “only when I want it” (a critical factor to this age group) versus 15 percent for second-ranked local TV. This audience, the future news consumers and leaders of a complex, modern society, are abandoning the news as we've known it, and it's increasingly clear that a great number of them will never return to daily newspapers and the national broadcast news programs.
Other notable findings revealed by the survey: although ranked as the third most important news source, newspapers have no clear strengths and are the least preferred choice for local, national and international news. On the TV front, cable news is the fourth most valuable news source just ahead of national network programs. Those broadcast newscasts are, however, considered the number-one source for national news. Cable is considered up-to-date and accessible, but not as informative as the Internet.
But, an interesting report from as old as 1998 stated this was happening... A Pew report (I knew about this because of campaign work...) I dug around and found a link - I was actually surprise I could still find it... It also talks about the credibility of TV news slipping...
And more currently - a newer Pew report
"Mainstream media need to search for the right business model that integrates the online experience into what they do," Horrigan says. "We're seeing the beginnings of a significant segment of the population having their daily newsgathering habits formed by what they see on the Internet."
This compares with just five years ago, he says, when Pew researchers found that high-speed users "were using the Internet to fill in their newsgathering habits. Now, it governs where they go and what they do" to get news.
The report is based on a survey in December 2005 of 3,011 adult Americans, 1,931 of whom are Internet users and 1,014 of whom have high-speed connections at home.
Within a "high-powered" group of Internet users — those who use broadband four or more times a day — 71% go online for news on an average day, while 59% get news from local TV, just over half from national TV and radio, and about 40% from local newspapers.
But especially for the under-36 age group, the local newspaper, local television and national TV newscasts play lesser roles in their newsgathering, the study finds.
The study paints a bleak outlook for traditional ink-on-paper newspapers. But it also finds that younger readers — those under 36 who are often written off as not interested in news — are being drawn into the news habit earlier thanks to the appeal of the Internet.
"To maintain relevance in a community, a local print paper has to have a very robust online presence," Horrigan says. And if local newspapers quickly merge online technology into their print operations, they stand to draw younger, Internet-dependent readers "who find traditional media less relevant for them" but are drawn to local news websites.
Here is an interesting overview from 'State of the News Media 2008
Nightly News Audience Demographics
A great report from Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy,
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
There are lots of these - if you really want them I can get them to you in pms...
Like I said - you can go to Neilsen and find out all sorts of tracking...
This is a great article from the Carnegie Reporter - Abandoning the News
With over half of Internet users now connecting via high-speed broadband services, daily use of the Internet among all groups is likely to climb, because broadband access, the way an increasing number of households go online, makes daily usage more likely. Already, Internet portals—widely used, general interest web sites such as Yahoo.com and MSN.com that include news streams all day, every day—have emerged in the survey as the most frequently cited daily news source, with 44 percent of the group using portals at least once a day for news. Measured by daily use, local TV comes in second at 37 percent, followed by network or cable TV web sites at 19 percent, newspapers at 19 percent, cable networks at 18 percent and national broadcast networks at 16 percent.
And by other measures, the Internet is already clearly ahead of other media among the young. According to the Magid survey, young news consumers say that the Internet, by a 41-to-15 percent margin over second ranked local TV, is “the most useful way to learn.” And 49 percent say the Internet provides news “only when I want it” (a critical factor to this age group) versus 15 percent for second-ranked local TV. This audience, the future news consumers and leaders of a complex, modern society, are abandoning the news as we've known it, and it's increasingly clear that a great number of them will never return to daily newspapers and the national broadcast news programs.
Other notable findings revealed by the survey: although ranked as the third most important news source, newspapers have no clear strengths and are the least preferred choice for local, national and international news. On the TV front, cable news is the fourth most valuable news source just ahead of national network programs. Those broadcast newscasts are, however, considered the number-one source for national news. Cable is considered up-to-date and accessible, but not as informative as the Internet.
But, an interesting report from as old as 1998 stated this was happening... A Pew report (I knew about this because of campaign work...) I dug around and found a link - I was actually surprise I could still find it... It also talks about the credibility of TV news slipping...
And more currently - a newer Pew report
"Mainstream media need to search for the right business model that integrates the online experience into what they do," Horrigan says. "We're seeing the beginnings of a significant segment of the population having their daily newsgathering habits formed by what they see on the Internet."
This compares with just five years ago, he says, when Pew researchers found that high-speed users "were using the Internet to fill in their newsgathering habits. Now, it governs where they go and what they do" to get news.
The report is based on a survey in December 2005 of 3,011 adult Americans, 1,931 of whom are Internet users and 1,014 of whom have high-speed connections at home.
Within a "high-powered" group of Internet users — those who use broadband four or more times a day — 71% go online for news on an average day, while 59% get news from local TV, just over half from national TV and radio, and about 40% from local newspapers.
But especially for the under-36 age group, the local newspaper, local television and national TV newscasts play lesser roles in their newsgathering, the study finds.
The study paints a bleak outlook for traditional ink-on-paper newspapers. But it also finds that younger readers — those under 36 who are often written off as not interested in news — are being drawn into the news habit earlier thanks to the appeal of the Internet.
"To maintain relevance in a community, a local print paper has to have a very robust online presence," Horrigan says. And if local newspapers quickly merge online technology into their print operations, they stand to draw younger, Internet-dependent readers "who find traditional media less relevant for them" but are drawn to local news websites.
Here is an interesting overview from 'State of the News Media 2008
Nightly News Audience Demographics
A great report from Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy,
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
There are lots of these - if you really want them I can get them to you in pms...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Oh NOW they admit it...
Halperin at Politico/USC conf.: 'extreme pro-Obama' press bias
By: Alexander Burns
November 22, 2008 04:55 PM EST
Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.
"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."
Halperin, who maintains Time's political site "The Page," cited two New York Times articles as examples of the divergent coverage of the two candidates.
"The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies," Halperin said. "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."
The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is," according to Halperin.
The former ABC News political director acknowledged that some of the press coverage was simply reflecting the reality of Obama's presidential campaign.
"You do have to take into account the fact that this was a remarkable candidacy," Halperin said. "There were a lot of good stories. He was new."
New York magazine's John Heilemann, one of Halperin's co-panelists, offered another reason for all the positive press coverage Obama received.
"The biggest bias in the press is towards effectiveness," said Heilemann, who is authoring a book on the 2008 race along with Halperin.
"We love things that are smart."
Because Obama's campaign was generally so well run, he argued, the press tended to applaud even his negative tactics.
"We'll scold you for being negative," Heilemann said, "but if it seems to be working, the tone of your coverage becomes more positive."
Another of Halperin's fellow participants, Los Angeles Times writer Mark Barabak, disagreed more strongly with the Time writer's comments. Still, Halperin's general point met with little resistance
"I think it's incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we're being fair," he said. "The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I've ever covered, by far."
Halperin at Politico/USC conf.: 'extreme pro-Obama' press bias
By: Alexander Burns
November 22, 2008 04:55 PM EST
Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.
"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."
Halperin, who maintains Time's political site "The Page," cited two New York Times articles as examples of the divergent coverage of the two candidates.
"The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies," Halperin said. "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."
The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is," according to Halperin.
The former ABC News political director acknowledged that some of the press coverage was simply reflecting the reality of Obama's presidential campaign.
"You do have to take into account the fact that this was a remarkable candidacy," Halperin said. "There were a lot of good stories. He was new."
New York magazine's John Heilemann, one of Halperin's co-panelists, offered another reason for all the positive press coverage Obama received.
"The biggest bias in the press is towards effectiveness," said Heilemann, who is authoring a book on the 2008 race along with Halperin.
"We love things that are smart."
Because Obama's campaign was generally so well run, he argued, the press tended to applaud even his negative tactics.
"We'll scold you for being negative," Heilemann said, "but if it seems to be working, the tone of your coverage becomes more positive."
Another of Halperin's fellow participants, Los Angeles Times writer Mark Barabak, disagreed more strongly with the Time writer's comments. Still, Halperin's general point met with little resistance
"I think it's incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we're being fair," he said. "The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I've ever covered, by far."