Tag Archive for 'stats'

Track the candidates

Pardon a moment of bragging but here’s a widget created by Daylife (where I’m a partner) with the Washington Post (which syndicates this blog) to track media coverage of the candidates and the issues: which candidate is most associated (positively or negatively) with which issues. Go here to get the full effect.

Red press, blue press

Here’s an excerpt of a much longer post at Buzzmachine analyzing the findings of a new Pew Research Center survey on Americans’ attitudes toward news media. Relevant to PrezVid is the growing political divide over media and the impact of Fox News on media attitudes:

The growing political divide over the media

Pew found a growing partisanship in views of media. In 1985, we were unified with strong favorable opinions of network news: 88% of Republicans and independents and 92% of Democrats rated TV news favorably. Today, that’s only 56% favorable for Republicans, 70% for independents, and 84% for Democrats. Same story for the national papers: Democrats’ favorable ratings fell from 85% to 79%, independents from 80% to 60%, Republicans’ from 79% to a very grumpy 41%.

This pattern — the growing divide — holds, of course, in specific views of media behavior. Is the press too critical of America? 63% of Republicans say yes vs. only 23% of Democrats. Does the press hurt democracy? 48% of Republicans say yes vs. 28% of Democrats. Are media politically biased in their reporting? 70% of Republicans vote yes vs. 39% of Democrats (and, for comparison, 61% of independents… to me this indicates that “bias” means “disagrees with me”). Is the press liberal? Guess what: 75% of Republican say yes vs. 37% of Democrats. This divide also shows in the parties’ view of press performance. Are stories often inaccurate? 63% of Republicans say yes vs. 43% of Democrats. Note that in all these cases, the split is much greater than in 1985. The Republican-Democrat gap, as Pew calls it, grew from 9 to 40% in their views of whether the press is critical of America, from 6% to 20% over whether the press hurts America, from 6% to 31% over the question of political bias. These tribes are growing farther apart.

Why? Read on. . . .

Fox News, the great negativity machine

The Fox News tribe is markedly more critical of media and I don’t think that’s just because media are criticizing Bush and because Republicans — who, not surprisingly, outnumber Democrats 2-to-1 among Fox viewers — have long thought media to be biased and liberal. I think it’s because Fox News is inherently negative and is effective at spreading that negativity. You’ll find some justification for that view in the Pew numbers.

63% of the Fox tribe — that is, viewers who count Fox as their main source of news — believe that news media’s stories are often inaccurate vs 46% of CNN viewers and 41% of network news viewers. Foxers say that the news media are too critical of America: 52% of Fox viewers say that vs. 36% for CNN viewers and only 29% for network news viewers. Are media unfair to George Bush? 49% of Foxers say yes vs. only 19% of CNNers and 22% of network people. Are media politically biased? 54% of Foxers vote yes vs. 46% of CNNers and 42% of network viewers (note again that this is a widely held view). Now getting to views of specific media, only 39% of Fox viewers think favorably of the national papers vs. 69% of network viewers. That’s 72% vs. 83% for local daily papers, 59% vs. 87% for network TV news, 81% vs. 86% for local TV news.

More evidence for this Fox-negativity theory: CNN viewers are more favorable to Fox than Fox viewers are to CNN. That tells me that CNN viewers are nicer or at least less grumbly. They see the world through rose-colored TV lenses. The numbers: 79% of CNN viewers rate Fox favorably while 55% of Fox viewers say the same thing about CNN.

The divide over cable news carries into other media tribes. Says Pew: “Dislike of both major cable news networks runs notably high among Americans who count newspapers and the internet as tehir main sources of national and international news. One-third of people who count on the internet for most of their news express an unfavorable view of Fox, and roughly the same number (31%) feel negatively toward CNN.” Pew adds that the polarized views of Fox and CNN, not surprisingly, “are most prevalent at the ideological extremes — conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats.”

pewfoxified0809.gifNow here’s the interesting bit: Pew looked at “Fox-ified Republicans” — that is, data show that “being a Republican and a Fox viewer are related to negative opinions of the mainstream media. . . . Republicans who count Fox as their main news source are considerably more critical than Republicans who rely on other sources.” Specifically, 71% of Fox-ified Republicans hold unfavorable views of the n national papers vs. 52% of Republicans in other media tribes and 33% of nonRepublicans. Note, by the way, that only 28% of Republicans are Fox-ified. That’s an important political stat. That may be how the Democrats justified snubbing the Fox presidential debates, but I still say that was short-sighted.

With the mostest

I just went through YouTube to see which candidates had the most videos about them. This is a flawed survey because when I search for “Hillary Clinton” all YouTube is doing is responding with videos tagged “Hillary Clinton” and people can throw any tag on any video in hopes that it will be seen. Still, this turns into another interesting gauge of heat and strategy.

I went on this search because I was curious just how much Ron Paul video there was in YouTube. A handful of his rabid supporters have done an incredible job taking over YouTube. Videos about him are everywhere. Videos everywhere are tagged Ron Paul. This leads to an impression that he is everywhere: one guy with 100 hats on sticks over the fort wall.

Here are the counts. Keep in mind that these are not videos by the candidates but videos tagged with the candidates’ names. Keep in mind also that many videos are tagged with more than one candidate’s name. Do not use these numbers for betting. They are for entertainment purposes only…

DEMOCRATS
Barack Obama: 18,000
Hillary Clinton: 16,600
John Edwards: 16,000
Dennis Kucinich: 2,400
Mike Gravel: 2,300
Joe Biden: 2,300
Bill Richardson: 1,340
Chris Dodd: 1,130

Note that Dodd has been doing some of the most innovate YouTube work. At least in this measure, it hasn’t caught fire inspiring more videos to be made.

REPUBLICANS (hang onto your hats)
Ron Paul (drumroll please): 43,500
Rudy Giuliani: 6,960
John McCain: 6,770
Mitt Romney: 4,980
Fred Thompson: 1,310
Mike Huckabee: 441
Duncan Hunter: 427
Tom Tancredo: 321
Sam Brownback: 243

The Republicans’ strategy of avoiding YouTube seems to be working.

Internet video explodes

Here’s why internet video matters to the candidates:

Magid just released a new study showing exploding use of video on the internet (my emphases):

Daily usage of online video rose by 56 percent over the last year. In 2006, 9 percent of 12- to 64-year-old Americans who used the Internet reported using online video daily — every day. Today, in 2007, this number has risen to 14 percent of Americans 12 to 64 years old.

Weekly usage of online video has also risen over the last year. Now, a majority of online Americans 12 to 64 are using online video once a week or more. In 2006 this number was 44 percent, and now it is 52 percent — for a growth rate of 18 percent.

Even more remarkable is the amount of online video use among young Americans. Among young adult males 18 to 24, 35 percent report using online video at least once a day, and 80 percent report watching online video at least once a week. In all age-groups, males are more regular viewers of online video. Among females 18 to 24, weekly use of online video is 53 percent (versus the 80% for males). . . .

The types of video being consumed by Americans include a wide variety of content. News stories are reported by consumers as the most frequently viewed video they watch regularly on the Internet. Over a third of online Americans 12 to 64 watch online video news stories regularly. Video content described as jokes/bloopers, weather, and movie previews are tied for second most regularly viewed video content. Closely following these are music videos and “videos shot by consumers and uploaded to Web sites like YouTube” — a more consumer- friendly way of saying “user-generated content.” . . .

“The breadth of content viewed by consumers regularly online is amazing. This is not just short clips on YouTube. Consumers are watching news stories, movie previews, clips from TV shows, and, in some cases, even full-length TV shows and movies,” Vorhaus said. “The breadth of content online today is growing and consumers are using it,” Vorhaus concluded.

(via TvSeriesOnline)

Winning YouTube strategies

I’ll admit I laughed when she sat down to the webcam for her YouTube Spotlight video asking for help chosing a campaign song. But Hillary Clinton’s viral strategy works. Humor (a proxy for humanity), entertainment, and mixing it up with the real people made her videos a hit.

And I rolled my eyes every time I saw Ron Paul popping up everywhere. But judging by the traffic figures below, his strategy — make lots of videos, have your people make lots of videos, and put them everywhere — is also working.

The invaluable TechPresident, working with TubeMogul, shows the results for both strategies (go to the site for fully interactive graphics). First, here are the stats for the Democrats’ YouTube videos, showing Clinton surging past Obama for the first time:

picture-1.png

Here are stats specific to YouTube’s Spotlight feature:

picture-4.png

And here’s the picture from the Republican side, showing Ron Paul’s hockey stick (note also Giuliani’s clueless performance):

picture-2.png

A few lessons from this:
* Watch out: The candidates are all going to try to show their funny side.
* They’d be wise to mash voters’ videos with their own.
* Make lots of video. Candidates should be putting up a video of the day so we know to come back and see what they’re up to.




About

You are currently browsing the PrezVid weblog archives for 'stats' tag.

Longer entries are truncated. Click the headline of an entry to read it in its entirety.

Categories