<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FAIR Blog &#187; Judith Apter Klinghoffer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fair.org/blog/tag/judith-apter-klinghoffer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fair.org/blog</link>
	<description>The national media watch group</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:42:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The Right&#039;s Echo Chamber Reverberates on &#039;Reliable Sources&#039;</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/05/04/the-rights-echo-chamber-reverberates-on-reliable-sources/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/05/04/the-rights-echo-chamber-reverberates-on-reliable-sources/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:03:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jim Naureckas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amy Holmes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CNN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News Channel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History News Network]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Howard Kurtz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Pinkerton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judith Apter Klinghoffer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reliable Sources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ryan Lizza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Times]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=8608</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reliable Sources host Howard Kurtz (5/3/09) seemed startled when the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza argued that "just because Bush or some previous president didn't garner as much coverage as  Michelle and Barack Obama did doesn't tell you anything about press bias one way  or another."
"Are you kidding?" Kurtz exclaimed.
He didn't express any similar [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Reliable Sources</strong> host Howard Kurtz (<a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/03/sotu.02.html" target="_blank">5/3/09</a>) seemed startled when the <strong>New Yorker</strong>'s Ryan Lizza argued that "just because Bush or some previous president didn't garner as much coverage as  Michelle and Barack Obama did doesn't tell you anything about press bias one way  or another."</p>
<p>"Are you kidding?" Kurtz exclaimed.</p>
<p>He didn't express any similar surprise when <strong>CNN</strong> in-house conservative Amy Holmes came up with this "little-known fact":</p>
<blockquote><p>The <strong>Washington Times</strong> reported this <a title="Washington Times: Barack's in the Basement" href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/28/baracks-in-the-basement/" target="_blank">last week</a>.... Actually, at this  point in his presidency, Barack Obama is the fourth least popular of the past  five presidents. You wouldn't know that from the press coverage, and you  wouldn't know that George Bush...at this point in his presidency,  in 2001, after having had the recount, not even winning the popular vote, in  fact had higher Gallup approvals than Barack Obama does right now.</p></blockquote>
<p>Well, no, you wouldn't know those things, because they aren't true. At the 100-day mark, <a title="Gallup: Obama Job Approval" href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx" target="_blank">Gallup</a> found a job approval rating for Obama of 65 percent--three percentage points higher than the <a title="Polling Report: Bush Job Ratings" href="http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm" target="_blank">62 percent</a> that George W. Bush had at the same point in his first term. <a title="American Presidency Project: Presidential Job Approval Ratings Following the First 100 Days" href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/100days_approval.php" target="_blank">Gallup's polling</a> found that Obama had a higher 100th-day approval rating than Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr., Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon as well. Of the last seven presidents, only Ronald Reagan, at 68 percent, had a higher job-approval rating--and Reagan, as Media Matters' Eric Boehlert pointed out (<a title="Media Matters: The Washington Times Vs. Reality" href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/200904290007" target="_blank">4/29/09</a>), had just survived an assassination attempt in March 2001.</p>
<p>So how could the <strong>Washington Times</strong> have gotten it so wrong? A <a title="Media Matters: See second comment" href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/200904290007" target="_blank">commenter</a> on Media Matters' website traced this right-wing talking point back to a blog post by Judith Apter Klinghoffer on the <strong>History News Network</strong> (<a title="OBAMA'S POLL NUMBERS TRAIL THOSE OF W.; GALLUP COVERS IT UP" href="http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/79295.html" target="_blank">3/24/09</a>). Klinghoffer declared that "Obama's Poll Numbers Trail Those of W."--a conclusion she reached by comparing Bush's job-approval rating to a number she calculated by combining the ratings of "excellent" and "good" received by Obama when people were asked what kind of job they thought he was doing.</p>
<p>Needless to say, you can't directly compare the answers to two different polling questions--particularly not when you can compare the results of the <em>same</em> question being asked. But the apples-to-oranges comparison produced results that were appealing to the right, so you soon saw James Pinkerton citing this bogus finding on <strong>Fox News Channel</strong> (4/25/09): "Judith Klinghoffer, writing for the <strong>History News Network</strong>, made the point that Obama ranked seventh out of the last nine presidents in Gallup poll opinion ratings. So seventh out of nine is not so good." Three days later, the <strong>Washington Times</strong> was making the same argument--and then it ends up on the not-so-well-named <strong>Reliable Sources</strong>.</p>
<p>Kurtz did take issue, sort of, with Holmes' claim, which ran counter to a wealth of  <a title="Polling Report: Obama: Job Ratings" href="http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm" target="_blank">polling data</a> on Obama's approval ratings: "Although his numbers, we have to say, are pretty good." But when Holmes retorted: "They're pretty good, but comparatively. You're asking comparatively, how does  the press treat these politicians different, and they do," Kurtz conceded: "OK. Fair enough."</p>
<p>Actually, that doesn't seem very fair at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/05/04/the-rights-echo-chamber-reverberates-on-reliable-sources/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

