I am shocked. Shocked, I say, to hear that the media is biased against GW Bush in this election. New Study Finds Media Favored Kerry in First Half of October Published: October 26, 2004 NEW YORK A new study for the non-partisan Project for Excellence in Journalism suggests that in the first two weeks of October, during the period of the presidential debates, George W. Bush received much more unfavorable media coverage than Sen. John Kerry. In the overall sample (which included four newspapers, two cable news networks and the four leading broadcast networks), more than half of all Bush stories were negative in tone, during this period. One-quarter of all Kerry stories were negative, according to the study. At the same time, one in three stories about Kerry were positive, one in seven for Bush.
Could it be because there was more positive things coming out for Kerry after these debates than Bush? One or two weeks do not represent the entire campaign, let alone the entire four year term.
Oh come on! This is about as selective and disingenuous as you can get. Even the report itself says that. Look at the last sentence, These judgments, however, are based on just four not very typical newspapers in a not very typical period of the presidential race. That, in and of itself, is an indictment of of your HUUUUGE overstatement, even disingenuity which reads, I am shocked. Shocked, I say, to hear that the media is biased against GW Bush in this election. And note, if you care to, that it says that this is a mirror image of what happened 4 years ago when Bush got more favorable coverage than unfavorable. Using football terms, Kerry skunked Bush 4-0 in the 1st debate, won the second on penalties, and finished out the 3rd with a one goal victory, maybe in extra time. This is not only my opinion, but seems to be the accepted media position and of the undecided voters before, during and after. Bush was at his weakest point in the entire campaign to date during these 3 debates, not even being able to cogently defend his positions. Hell, in the 1st debate he was having trouble with any 2-syllable word that wasn't 'Poland'. In turn this opened the Pandora's Box of a close examination of Bush, his policies and his failures. All the media did was call it as it saw it. I suggest you take a look at say the 2 weeks after the intial invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq or subsequent to the WTC attacks. I'm not going too far out on a limb to suggest that Bush may have gotten very favorable coverage there. And media bias? Well answer this - since 1940, with the exception of Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton in 1992, in every presidential election, the Republican candidate has always received the support of more newspapers than the Democratic candidate. Do you have ANY reason why this might be so? Why do more newspapers consistently endorse the Republican? What Liberal media? Please explain, if you can.
Of course the media barons like Kerry over Bush. The folks who own or control the media are conservatives, not radicals. Kerry is a centrist conservative whereas Bush is a devisive extremist radical. You do the math. Anyway, Ian, where were you when the American press was giving Bush a free ride during the buildup to his invasion of Iraq, wallowing uncritically in the subsequent warnography, and pointedly failing to investigate whether or not his economic policy of "don't tax my rich buddies" actually helped the majority of the Amercian people? You were probably still whining about "the liberal media" and thereby proving that, like most of the Right, you are blinded by partisan party labels, can't see the actual substance of what is being done versus what is being said, and suffer from an unhealthy persecution complex.
Ian will no doubt try to say that most reporters vote Dem and that proves "the liberal media". Of course, that bit of obfuscation is designed to try to fool you into mistaking media inputs for what you are supposed to be measuring for bias, namely the media outputs, ie. actual stories, images shown in coverage, language used, stories that are ignored, etc.
In other news, reporters have concluded that in the week they were defeated 70-10, the Nebraska football team coincidentally received negative press.
Typical anti-Cornhusker media. It's the same anti-Nebraska media that treated Christian Peter and Lawrence Phillips like criminals!
Thought 1: Considering there are already studies that show Bush voters are ignorant of the election issues, does it matter who the media "favors"? Idiots are going to vote for the bastard anyways. Thought 2: Considering the said ignorance contrasted with the much higher awareness of actual issues among Kerry voters, isnt it also quite reasonable to conclude that the actual news, not the editorial bias, favors Kerry? Of course its not, because objective in this country is supposed to mean you give every two bit moron with a bone to pick "equal time", as long as you can frame the issue having 2 even remotely defendable sides.
So, two of three stories on Kerry were negative? And six of seven for Bush? And somehow that's a sign that the media FAVORED Kerry? And that's when Kerry had a very good 2 weeks, winning three debates. If 14 of 21 people tell me I'm wrong, I know I'm in trouble; it doesn't change things much or help much if 18 of 21 tell my opponent the same thing. Dunno about you, but it appears to me as if the media dislikes both of 'em.
Yeah, it's a stupid study. According to Rotten Tomatoes, 9% of reviews for Jimmy Fallon's Taxi were positive, while 16% of reviews for Hillary Duff's Raise Your Voice were positive. Using the same methodology used above, we can conclude that America's movie critics favor Raise Your Voice. Oh, that Hillary Duff-loving film critique community.
This has already been pretty thoroughly debunked, but I wonder what stories were coming out of Iraq for those two weeks, too.
The study also examined five popular political blogs: Eschaton, Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit, Talking Points Memo, and ABC's The Note. Wait, they found BIAS in BLOGS? OMGWTFBBQ! Project for Excellence in Wasting Time, more like it. Their high scores for Minesweeper must be freaking AMAZING.
Very good! Rep provided! You can find or create your own study to prove most anything. I'm an independent who voted for Bush in 2K. I've been amazed at his arrogance and where he's leading this country. I've been pro-Kerry and pro-Edwards since the Iowa caucus. I don't agree with everything they've done or said, but there campaign has been more honest than the Republican effort. They all take words out of context, hype unfavorable stereotypes, and give meaning to meaningless statistics.