Hillary Clinton: Study says FOX News more fair than MSNBC  Is Fox News more fair to a Clinton than other cable news networks? It's an idea that seems preposterous, but one that Senator Hillary Clinton may have implied during an interview yesterday.
In light of the controversy surrounding David Shuster's suspension from MSNBC over sexist comments he made about Clinton's daughter Chelsea, John Harris, a reporter for The Politico, asked Clinton about the idea circulating in her camp that Fox News is giving the New York Senator "a better break than MSNBC."
Although she didn't give a full answer, she did elaborate on the subject slightly. "Well," she said, "there was some independent study that my staff sent me -- we didn't do it -- but it was some independent study which seemed to suggest that, that in terms of the fairness of the coverage -- you know, look, I'm a mom first. I'm a candidate second. And, you know, I really am troubled by this pattern of behavior and comments that you hear."
The study, entitled "Media Boost Obama, Bash 'Billary,'" was based on "a scientific content analysis of 765 election news stories (22 hours 15 minutes of airtime) that aired on the flagship evening news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX (the first 30 minutes of "Special Report with Brit Hume", which is most like the network news shows in content and presentation) from December 16, 2007 through January 27, 2008."
The research concluded that between mid-December, when the Iowa caucus began dominated the nightly airwaves, and January 27, NBC's coverage was most critical of Clinton – with only 36 percent of stories painting her in a positive light. Fox's coverage of Hillary Clinton, one the other hand, "was evenly balanced – 50% positive and 50% negative comments."
Overall, the study suggested that 84 percent of Obama coverage was favorable compared to a bare majority 51 percent of positive Clinton evaluations. It also found that while Bill Clinton received more attention than both Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards, 74 percent of comments were critical.
Yet the study might not have been as independent as advertised. Released on February 1, it was published by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which bills itself as a "nonpartisan research and educational organization which conducts scientific studies of the news and entertainment media." But according to the Center for Media and Democracy, the organization’s claims for impartiality are undermined by its funders.
Between 1986 and 2002, CMPA received 86 percent of its funding from three conservative foundations: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. The organization has also waged attacks on PBS for it’s "liberal bias."
This video is from WJLA ABC 7, broadcast February 11, 2008.
Full transcript available here.
 
| 
