[bamaborn]

I think the last two paragraphs pretty much sums up how much credibility this survey should be given.

Link to The Project for Excellence in Journalism:

http://www.journalism.org/default.asp

[MikefromOhio]

Twenty-five percent of the stories were negative and 20 percent were positive, according to the study, released Sunday by the Washington-based think tank.

Just those stats alone don't show that the coverage was bias? A 5% difference in 2,200 stories is still 110, if these numbers are believable.

Having spent a year in Iraq and having watched some TV news both there and back here, this entire study is bull$h!t.

[calex59]

Yeah, right. Like I believe this report. I can see for myself if a report is biased or not. I don't need a survey to tell me that. The same people say the MSM aren't liberal either, but we all know that is a crock.

[John Thornton]

Found this on Google:

"The conservative movement has done a much better job in recent years of getting a wider part of its spectrum on the air," says Tom Rosenstiel, founding director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

[mdittmar]

About PEJ

The Project for Excellence in Journalism is an initiative by journalists to clarify and raise the standards of American journalism.

It's a fox,chicken coop sort of thing.

[billybudd]

This is hi-larious. A bunch of liberals trying to objectively determine whether news srories are biased. "But Bush did lie about WMD, that's not bias, that's just the truth...." The sheer gall is astounding.

[Semper Paratus]

They balanced one year of no coverage of WMDs against one year of Bush lied about WMDs and calls that fair.

[litehaus]

"The Project for Excellence in Journalism is affiliated with the Columbia University School of Journalism. The study was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts."

Co-lumbia, P-Ewe, awh shucks, where is the POYNTER Institute?

[mcenedo]

...unlike the more evenhanded CNN and MSNBC,

'nuff said.

[Reactionary]

2200 stories? I bet tens of thousands were written. Why just 2200?

Let me guess: To provide cover for the liberal news media.

[Spruce]

The negative stories where seen by a larger audience thanks to the "big three". The positive stories had to be searched-for.

[John Thornton]

A more limited look at campaign coverage found that 36 percent of stories on President Bush were negative, compared to 12 percent for Democrat John Kerry. Stories were positive 20 percent of the time for Bush, 30 percent for Kerry, said the project, which examined some 250 stories for tone. "I don't know whether this was because he was the incumbent or because a lot of the coverage of the campaign was filtered through events in Iraq," Rosenstiel said. "It's probably a little of both."

But, wait, if the coverage on Iraq was evenly balanced, how can he point to that coverage to justify such overwhelmingly negative coverage of the President by the MSM?

[feedback doctor]

Most people can listen to or read a report and get a feeling for the tilt of the story. Some have subtle nuances that the reader or hearer is unaware of, but affect the percetion. But if the published/aired stories are even in regards to negative/positive, and many events of a positive nature were unreported, then the bias cannot be measured, tho' it can be very real. All I have heard from those who have been in Iraq indicate that the positive news is being ignored.

[DoughtyOne]

It is possible for the networks to present fact based news, and yet skew the truth? Our media is the living proof, and this research project has adopted the same tactics.

Endless stories about problems in Iraq were true, it's just that by not covering the positive aspects of what was taking place in Iraq, the American public was left with the impression that doom equaled Iraq.

The best evidence of this I can point to was the recently held elections in Iraq. Very few people in this nation thought those elections would come off smoothly, be they liberal or conservative. The media had so skewed reality in Iraq, that it was nearly thought impossible to hold elections.

The truth was, Iraq was a lot more stable than the media led the American public to believe.

Freedom of the press is an important concept. Censorship is unacceptable in a free society. We all agree that governmet censorship is bad, but few address corporate censorship. The corporate run MSM in this nation exercises a censorship that is every bit as destablizing to a free society as government censorship.

2005 MSM in America, has gone so far left that it has very little credibility with anyone posessing an IQ over room temperature. It is appauled that it doesn't have more clout with the American public. It's existance amidst incestuous islands of liberalism have prevented it from having the first clue why.

This Project for Excellence in Journalism study, is proof in part that they are VERY sympathetic to the MSM mindset. THis study, and their attempt to pass it of as reality based, is laughable. No, it's downright sad.

Clueless to the bitter end...

[unlearner]

"Report: Iraq Coverage Wasn't Biased in Either Direction"

Biased either direction from where? The far left?

Neutral journalism is myth. These media elites want us to believe every issue has at least two equally valid positions.

Sometimes bias is reflected merely by what is deemed newsworthy.

The left considers having core beliefs and values to be a form of bias. However, moral relativism is the worst kind of bias. That's the media bias that is the most offensive, particularly when they continuous proclaim their own objectivity.

[nothingnew]

Fox News Channel was twice as likely to be positive than negative, unlike the more evenhanded CNN and MSNBC, the study said.

Well, at least he didn't add the "more even handed" dan blather.....hahahaha!

FMCDH(BITS)

[mewzilla]

NEW YORK (AP) - A study of news coverage of the war in Iraq fails to support a conclusion that events were portrayed either negatively or positively most of the time.

Really? Then how come the MSM never uses the word terrorist?

[hosepipe]

[ The study was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. ]

Pew about says it all.. PE'U...

[Congressman Billybob]

Of you throw everyone, INCLUDING THE BLOGS, into the mix, a tie (no bias either way) can be arrived at. But if you look at the MSM, which attempts to provide "news" to most Americans, this study proves that the MSM is biased left.

When you see a surprising result, it is wise to look into the details and see where the authors of the study may have cooked the books. These authors cooked the books by including articles on the blogs as the equivalent of articles in the New York Times.

In terms of honesty, the blogs may be better. But in terms of communications impact, the Times still has the lead. Finding bias in reports on press bias is straight-forward. Never mind the explanations. Look at the facts and see what's really going on.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "NASCAR Lessons for Democrats"

[68skylark]

The Iraq coverage in the MSM looks negative to me -- they make out our terrorist enemies to be supermen, which each new attack described as "powerful," "deadly," and "sophisticated," similar to the old days when they always referred to the "elite Republican Guard." But terms like "elite" and "sophisticated" never get applied to our own forces, who really deserve that kind of description.

I guess this study is telling me I can't believe my own lying eyes.

[NutCrackerBoy]

It would have been amusing but correct for AP to label The Project for Excellence in Journalism as liberal-leaning.