Understatement of the year: Study finds media more favorable to Kerry

[bryanthompson]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000685127

A big freakin' DUH to our friends at the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

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.

"This is the mirror image of what happened four years ago," the report states, when Bush benefited from coverage in the same period, enjoying twice as many positive stories.
...
In the final accounting, 59% of stories that were mainly about Bush told a mainly negative story, while 25% of Kerry stories played out that way. One in three stories about Kerry were positive, one in seven for Bush.

[cool_chick]

Ya, I've always thought it was a big conspiracy.

I'll bet if Bush didn't mess up so much continually, the news would've been more favorable of Bush.

You don't want them to report the messups though, do you?

[ubiquity0]

I wonder what explains the shift over the past 4 years?

Media shifting from conservative-bias to liberal-bias?

Media intrinsically being critical of the incumbent, no matter which party he represents?

[bryanthompson]

kool-aid chick, to think there aren't any negative things the media could be reporting on is idiotic at best. Participating in treasonous activity during vietnam, selling out his comrads after the war, liberal voting record, numerous flip-flops... there's stuff out there they could be talking about. Instead they focus on Bush being "awol" and have to forge documents or bring up non-stories and only give us the bad news about the war.

Being critical is the media's job... being critical to one side only isn't.

[cowtown]

Originally posted by cool_chick

I'll bet if Bush didn't mess up so much continually, the news would've been more favorable of Bush.

Actually, you're totally wrong about this, and if you took a step back you'd see the big picture. 80% of paper journalists are registered Democrats.

There was the most amazing Ombudsman column in our Sacramento paper last weekend. It's one of those papers that tilts severely left, but then denies that it's biased. Sound familiar?

Anyway, the ombudsman got a raft of letters after the paper (predictably) endorsed Kerry. He did some research, and it turns out that the paper had not endorsed a Republican presidential candidate in 86 years.

Wow.

That's a long time, huh? But maybe if each and every one of those Republicans "didn't mess up so much" as you put it, they would have been endorsed.

And I've got some land to sell you in our Yolo Causeway. Look it up...

As one of the letter-writers put it, "the only qualification Kerry needed to get [the paprer's] endorsement is that he's a Democrat." You can deny it, but media bias is statistically proven, and that bias is to the left.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
kool-aid chick, to think there aren't any negative things the media could be reporting on is idiotic at best. Participating in treasonous activity during vietnam, selling out his comrads after the war, liberal voting record, numerous flip-flops... there's stuff out there they could be talking about. Instead they focus on Bush being "awol" and have to forge documents or bring up non-stories and only give us the bad news about the war.

Being critical is the media's job... being critical to one side only isn't.

Why would they? That's campaign stuff.

They report when Theresa Kerry said "shove it." News.

They report when Kerry does something new.

That's news. News=new information.

And if Kerry wins, they will be reporting what Kerry does while in the white house, just like the do re: Bush now.

[cool_chick]

I sure remember when Clinton was in office, the media then......WOW. Was crazy.

Did you guys forget?

[island911]

media is BIG business. they like the guy who helps sell their product. (stained blue dress?)

Clearly Kerry is the guy who would provide all kinds of fodder. THK, she's a piece of work too.

How fun is Bush? He's not always looking for face-time. He just does his job, and says f-u to the media. Their liberal egos cant take it, so they find ways to roast the guy.

[fintstone]

The media did nothing but apologize for Clinton. If the story had not leaked out....it would have never have been covered by mainstream media...Much as his other infidelity and rape accusations.

[EdT82SC]

Four years ago a similar study found the coverage of Gore was more negative then the coverage of Bush. I think a lot of it has to do with putting the spotlight on the bad things attributed to the guy in office (regardless of if they are responsible for it or not). Why does the media do that? Because bad news drives ratings. It's all about the sensation of the scandal.

So how about some news coverage of some other candidates. I bet Badnarik would give his left nut to get the bad press of both Bush and Kerry combined. At least they get press.

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by fintstone
The media did nothing but apologize for Clinton. If the story had not leaked out....it would have never have been covered by mainstream media...

Are you kidding?!??! Clinton & his adventure had mainstream media worked up to a climax far exceeding his own. A BJ in the Oval Office? They couldn't believe their luck! It was the biggest mainstream media story since OJ!

[island911]

While Clinton apparently was UP for the scandle, he wasn't up for re-election.