Susan Moeller's blog

Goh Chai Hin/AFP/Getty Images

You've got to hand it to the Chinese. They know how to put on a show, as the world saw during the opening of the Beijing Olympics in August—and today for closing ceremony of the Paralympics.

And the world's media were a pushover audience, according to a new study led by the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda (ICMPA) at the University of Maryland and conducted by the Salzburg Academy on Media & Global Change.

How did media cover the Olympics? Overwhelmingly as a sporting event rather than as a political power game. Prior to the Olympics, there was much speculation that the global press would turn the games into an international anti-China campaign—after all there had been extensive coverage of the protests against China's human rights record during the global torch relay and of the rioting in Tibet.

But that all essentially disappeared off the front pages of global newspapers. The brilliantly conceived and staged opening ceremony attracted 'gee-whiz' coverage. The press ignored the attending heads of state—and even, in most instances, the parade of their own countries' athletes—to focus on the new Chinese superpower flexing its muscles with choreographed musicians, lights and fireworks.

The first week of athletic competition was also treated as almost pure spectacle. The reporting—not just of the athletes, but of China—was overwhelmingly either positive or neutral in tone.

Which regions of the world were most favorably disposed towards China? The Arab news outlets were the most positive, followed by other Asian countries (such as India), then Latin America, then Europe and the United States. Which region had the most jaundiced eye? Africa.

The Olympics study also looked at other issues. For example: Were mens' or women's events better covered? The press in the Arab world emphasized the achievements of male athletes and the African media focused on women. The Chinese media offered the most balanced coverage of male and female contestants.

The study, conducted live during the Olympics by faculty and students attending the Salzburg Academy in Salzburg, Austria, looked at the coverage of the first week of the games, from August 8 – 14. Working in their native languages—Afrikaans, Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Hindi, Korean, Portuguese and Spanish—the researchers analyzed 68 leading newspapers, in 29 countries, across six continents (click here for the full list of countries).

Susan Moeller is director of ICMPA and associate professor at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism and School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, College Park.

Below is the list of 29 countries studied by the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda at the University of Maryland and the Salzburg Academy on Media & Global Change.

1. Argentina
2. Australia
3. Austria
4. Brazil
5. Canada
6. Chile
7. China
8. China-Taiwan
9. Colombia
10. France
11. Germany
12. India
13. Jordan
14. Kenya
15. Lebanon
16. Mexico
17. Namibia
18. Panama
19. Paraguay
20. Saudi Arabia
21. South Africa
22. South Korea
23. Spain
24. UAE
25. Uganda
26. United Kingdom
27. Uruguay
28. USA
29. Venezuela

Alex Wong/Getty Images News

The Scooter Libby trial dramatically illustrated that all is not well in the Bush administration and in Washington power politics in general. But it also showed how little most of mainstream media care about transparency, despite frequent calls from media organizations for greater accountability and openness from public officials. During the Libby saga, not only were journalists reluctant to say what they knew and how they knew it, but their news organizations were also loathe to admit mistakes and seemingly couldn’t bear going public with their internal staff and reporting guidelines.

A new study out from the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda measures just how candid media are about what they do and how they do it. ICMPA's newest study looks at 25 of the world's top news sites to see which ones correct their errors, are open about their journalistic standards, and welcome reader comments and criticism.

Which were the best?

• The Guardian
• The New York Times
• The Christian Science Monitor
• National Public Radio

Which were among the worst?

• Time magazine
• Al Jazeera
• CNN
• The Economist

Most news sites have bought into the concept of allowing readers to make comments about news coverage. But while interactivity has become a must-have component of websites, the distinct impression left by many outlets is that their interactivity is engineered for stickiness rather than as an honest effort to log readers’ complaints. Evidence for that? Only six news outlets studied have ombudsmen (or their equivalent)—all newspapers, with the exception of National Public Radio. And even more striking, nine of the 25 sites have no provision for visitors to write letters to the editor—effectively all of the broadcast outlets, with CNN and PRI's "The World" being exceptions.

The greatest surprise of the study was how most news outlets handle corrections. Only 11 out of the 25 news sites visibly post corrections, and again, it was broadcast media that have a particularly poor track record, including news outlets—such as CBS News—that have been burned by their inadequate responses to mistakes found in their reporting in the past.

Now it's true that media transparency doesn't ensure that individual reporters will always be honest brokers of information—as Jayson Blair and Judith Miller taught the New York Times. But a news outlet's commitment to being transparent helps its visitors understand the judgments made by the news operation and gives those visitors a venue for complaints and criticism when something goes awry. Ultimately—if not immediately—transparency leads to accountability. And accountability leads to credibility.

Take a look at the full study here, including details for each of the 25 news outlets.

Susan Moeller is director of ICMPA and associate professor at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism and School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, College Park.

If you think RSS feeds are giving you the same stories that you can find on a news site, think again. It's true that the ubiquitous little orange square that one increasingly finds on websites can be a gateway to a world of content. But is using RSS a reliable way to stay informed about the world itself?

Not yet. A new study from the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda concludes that RSS feeds work very poorly for anyone who uses news for more than infotainment. The study looked at 19 of the world's top news sites to determine which news outlets use RSS well—which outlets give users the range of information on their feed readers that most closely approximates what can be found on the home website.

Among the best: The LA Times, BBC World Service and Fox News.

Among the worst: Al Jazeera, The Guardian and the New York Times.

Rather than RSS, the study found, casual news consumers users should just stick with Google's Top Stories. The problem is that many news outlets don't want to share all the news that's on their site—especially stories that are not staff-written or produced. One reason may be that such stories, such as those by AP or Reuters, don't carry the "brand" of the news organization. But without those stories, many RSS feeds are not truly delivering news 24/7 and, in addition, lack the breadth of news their home sites deliver.

As a result, RSS users have no idea what they're missing. The study illuminated how difficult it was to get even all of the staff-generated stories from "today" via RSS feeds. And without going back to the home site and checking, a user doesn't know exactly what is NOT being sent via the RSS feeds. What's more, the study uncovered, just because two separate news outlets both have feeds labeled "International" hardly means that they have decided to send the same type or quantity of news through their feeds.

For complete examinations of these and other findings, take a look at the full study here.

Susan Moeller is director of ICMPA and associate professor at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism and the School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, College Park.

FARZANA WAHIDY/AFP

Remember in the aftermath of 9/11 when it seemed like every U.S. media outlet was asking plaintively "Why do they hate us?"—where "they" meant Muslims? The question prompted a media search for allies in an Islamic world that seemed universally hostile. But who were these sympathetic faces?

A new study out today from the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda has the answer. The study is titled The 'Good' Muslims: US Newspaper Coverage of Pakistan and one of its surprising findings is that the "good" Muslims are women.

ICMPA's newest study analyzes news coverage of Pakistan by 13 major U.S newspapers during two time periods: September 11, 2001 to December 31, 2002 and January 1, 2006 to January 15, 2007.

It is common in mainstream media's coverage of international affairs for entire countries (and even regions) to be tarred with a wide brush. Much of the reporting on the Palestinians and the Iranians falls into this category. But in other situations, especially when reporters are stationed on the ground and there is ongoing interest in a region, the politics and the peoples are not represented so monolithically. In those situations—coverage of the Balkans is a case in point—often one distinct group is identified as holding the moral high ground. Sometimes that group is represented as the victims of another group (often true, but not always as blamelessly as represented). Sometimes that group is identified as potential "saviors" in the situation—i.e. if only that group held the reins of power the situation would be ameliorated, at the very least. (Read the rest after the jump)