Posted on 10/22/2008 1:06:33 PM PDT by wm_tate
Just 14 percent of the stories about John McCain from the conventions through the final presidential debate were positive in tone, according to a study released today, while nearly 60 percent were negative—the least favorable coverage of any of the 4 candidates on the ticket.
The study, by The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism...took a “cautious and conservative approach,” only judging a story positive or negative if the slant was very clear.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
And he’s up in the polls. Think this may be backfiring?
Most of the public is fed up with bias from “journalists.” Especially those of us who used to be journalists.
So, yes.
-Wm Tate
http://www.atimelikethis.us/
No doubt about it. And they only counted what was outright negative. Forget that the study didn’t look at how many of Bidens gaffes were given a free pass by not reporting it. Or that CNN and AP have done one hit piece after another on Palin.
The media is very bias. More bias than I have seen in my life.
When the Republican screw up, it is top story daily for weeks. When a Democrat screws up, it is one story (just so they can later say, “we did a story on it”) and it is quickly buried or they gloss it over with a counter punch to the Republicans. Never quite the outrage.
I only watch Fox News because they give both sides of every story.
Pretty much has to be negative when there’s nothing positive about your opponent....
One of the things the new Conservatives that Tony Blankley talks about need to do, is totally blow off the "Mainstream Media". We have the Internet, we have talk radio, we have Fox News, we can learn from the Democrats and get some 527's going, whatever is needed.
Another thing we Conservatives need to get through our head, is that the idea of a "non-partisan, straight-down-the-middle media" is a myth only recently invented. Prior to World War II, you had:
-Pro-Patriot/pro-tory newspapers during the Revolution.
-Pro-war/anti-war newspapers during the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War.
-Abolitionist (papers that usually had "Republican" in it)/pro-Slavery papers (usually something that ended in "Democrat") prior to and during the Civil War.
-The Spanish-American War was pretty much started by William Randolf Hearst, who invented yellow journalism.
-So-called "muckrakers" like Sinclair Lewis, who was a reporter at the time, were full-bore Socialists who loathed Capitalism.
It was only with the rise of Fascism and Naziism, and World War II, that you began to see the idea of "down the middle" journalism. Even then, you had Time magazine and the New York Times covering for Joey Stalin, Mousey Tung, and the other Communists who murdered millions.
Buying and selling a "conservative" paper is archaic and would run into the same problems that the other Dinosaur papers have had, and would eventually go out of business. New, innovative technology would be the best way- the good old-fashioned Internet, Texting, IMing, 527's, etc. With the advent of the "Fairness" Doctrine, look for talk radio to go to pay-per-listen...make it easily available, profitable, and fun (the last part shouldn't be so hard....we conservatives are having more fun anyway).
Let's not be begging for NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post to be nice to us. In the long run, we don't need them anyway and, if we're smart and sharp enough, their endorsement should be the kiss of death for any future political candidate.
Upcoming study from the same people:
“Pacific Ocean is big and wet”.
McCain: 14% positive, 60% negative, 26% mixed.
Obama: 36% positive, 29% negative, 35% mixed.
Criteria: "In examining tone, the Project’s authors wrote that they took a 'cautious and conservative approach,' only judging a story positive or negative if the slant was very clear."
For McCain, I'd wager that the "mixed" were more negative than positive, and for Obama the opposite was true.
But the media aren't at all biased....
The news media’s performance in this campaign has been the most blatantly biased in my memory. It’s a total disgrace, and a good reason not to trust the news media on anything.
In an ideal world, wouldn’t the stories be 100 percent mixed for both? Don’t reporters, editors and producers understand that it their job to present facts and all sides of an argument? This really shouldn’t be that difficult.
The article says Obama coverage was mostly mixed. Hah!
It said Biden coverage was fairly negative as well, but there hasn’t been much coverage of his gaffe.
Well, no... If a candidate has done some pretty ugly things, I would expect the coverage to be pretty much negative. Alternatively, you would think that a truly stellar candidate would get good press most of the time.
In this campaign, however, McCain hasn't done anything particularly ugly -- he's running a pretty good campaign, in fact, despite what the MSM reports.
The media have actually dug into what McCain has said and done, and his record and comments are pretty unexceptional. And thus we must conclude that the MSM is looking for things to report on negatively; or they take what he's said and spin it that way.
For Obama, OTOH, it's all smoke and sunshine up the @$$. The media have given him a pass on almost everything he's said, and have not dug into his past at all. I think a lot of the reporters love him in both a religious and even carnal way, and they'll give him a break for their own selfish reasons.
The good News is it is making viewers switch them off.
Pound on them Freepers they can wilt away along with Obama and his cabal!
Drudge
ELECTION REJECTION: NETWORK NEWS SLUMPS; VIEWERSHIP FADES
Wed Oct 22 2008 07:25:40 ET
The Obama-McCain match-up is proving to be a lackluster election ticket for the Big 3 network news programs, according to NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH.
As the shouting from the trail and the frantic spinning from the anchor desks intensify, the audience is voting with their remotes.
All 3 evening news shows experienced audience drops year-to-year for the week of Oct. 13-19, 2008.
CBSNEWS w/ Couric shed a half a million viewers, falling from 6.4 million to 5.9 million; ABCNEWS dropped from 8.1 million to 7.6 million; NBCNEWS slumped from 8.2 million to 7.8 million.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnf.htm
Well, when you’re running against That One, how can it not be?
Nix my previous post. Read the Title wrong. Thought it was about ads. *slinks away*
I’m sure someone like Dan Rather would say, “Well, it’s not our fault that only negative things can be said about Republicans. If they give us something positive to say, we will.”
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.