The media has always been trying to make the Clintons look good.
The real axis of Evil - the MSM and Clintons.
Posted on 12/28/2007 10:37:29 PM PST by FocusNexus
The study is based on 481 election stories that aired on the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, NBC and "Special Report." The findings reveal that on-air evaluations of Clinton were negative nearly 60 percent of the time, while evaluations of Obama were positive 61 percent of the time.
Among Republicans, Huckabee fared the best, while Rudy Giuliani and John McCain were given negative on-air evaluations more than 60 percent of the time.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If the Dems could have anything, they would wish for Huckabee as the Republican nominee.
Yep, the liberal media hate strong men.
I just found this more detailed article after I posted the one from FoxNews:
Monitoring the Media
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2007/12/monitoring_the_media.html
And here is the pdf file link:
http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf
“Huckabee Leads GOP: Among Republicans, Mike Huckabee fared best with evenly balanced
coverage - 50% positive and 50% negative evaluations by reporters and sources. Fred Thompson came
next with 44% positive comments, followed by Mitt Romney with 40% positive, Rudy Giuliani with
39% positive, and John McCain with 33% positive.”
Who’s Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties
than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were
split almost evenly - 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates - 49%
positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.
On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53%
negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative - 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For
both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs.
59% negative.”
Also, I saw all kinds of stories by reporters complaining how inaccessible Hillary is to the press and how her staff treats newspeople shoddily (which is better than I’d treat them). This is bound to shape the way they write about Hillary.
I think you would have to factor in how long the candidate has been in the race (or has been considered a factor in the race). It would be interesting to see the underlying details, e.g., who has received the most negative attention since September (when Thompson declared), or October/November (when Huck surged).
I don’t think Fred has gotten much good coverage, especially on Fox, until the last few days.
The opposite of love isn’t hate; it’s indifference. The MSM ignore Duncan Hunter completely and Thompson as much as they can.
“The surprise to me this year is the way the New York Times has treated Hillary Clinton.”
That is when it began to dawn on them that Hillary may not be the most electable candidate, and that the “Inevitablity” line was just propoganda...
The September Dem Debate changed EVERYTHING for many Dem-supporting liberals, when no leading Dem would commit on camera to a withdrawal date for Iraq...
Meanwhile, Pelosi kills the liberal orgasmic dream of Impeachment, while sending out another surrender fund-raising Email at the same time.
Sooner or later, even the liberal mind can figure out when they have been played as useful idiots...
The Democrats (the politicians and liberal elite) want Al Gore, and it will take a brokered convention to get him. The media allies of the DNC (the networks and big-city newspapers) are going to do whatever it takes to help their party find an electable Democrat candidate, and they are in full swing. We need Hillary to recover, although it may be too late. GO, friggin Hillary.
I ask, "Why isn't the most conservative candidate getting any coverage?
I believe that they're hoping the asleep public won't notice Duncan Hunter or Alan Keyes.
The media usually ignores low polling candidates.
You got it right. First they will topple Hillary followed by Barack. The Breck Girl will be nominated.
The MSM loves Huckabee though?
The media has always been trying to make the Clintons look good.
The real axis of Evil - the MSM and Clintons.
“If the Dems could have anything, they would wish for Huckabee as the Republican nominee.”
I think that’s true. I have also noticed the media - including FOX - recently turning adoring eyes toward John McCain. If Huckabee goes away, their next loved candidate would be John McCain, an easy pick-off for Hillary. (The media’s hatred of Romney is rather obvious and is just another reason why IMHO Romney rocks.)
It is the one whose name is whispered off camera lest he gain traction.
Every opportunity they have they ignore Hunter.
If they make them a nonperson, that is a guarantee they can continue to ignore them.
Good one. How’s Harold?
Sorry about that last part I was channeling someone from DU.
Oh, wait...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.