namelesstavern.net

Mar 14, 2005 — By Claudia Parsons

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday.

The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.

Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The study looked at 16 newspapers of varying size across the country, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable programs and nine Web sites through the course of 2004.

Examining the public perception that coverage of the war in Iraq was decidedly negative, it found evidence did not support that conclusion. The majority of stories had no decided tone, 25 percent were negative and 20 percent were positive, it said.

The three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative.

Looking at public perceptions of the media, the report showed that more people thought the media was unfair to both Kerry and Bush than to the candidates four years earlier, but fewer people thought news organizations had too much influence on the outcome of the election.

"It may be that the expectations of the press have sunk enough that they will not sink much further. People are not dismayed by disappointments in the press. They expect them," the authors of the report said.

The study noted a huge rise in audiences for Internet news, particularly for bloggers whose readers jumped by 58 percent in six months to 32 million people.

"For all that the number of outlets has grown, the number of people engaged in collecting original information has not," the report said, noting that much of the investment was directed at repackaging and presenting information rather than gathering news.

Copyright 2005 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Martrae wrote:"It may be that the expectations of the press have sunk enough that they will not sink much further. People are not dismayed by disappointments in the press. They expect them," the authors of the report said.

The study noted a huge rise in audiences for Internet news, particularly for bloggers whose readers jumped by 58 percent in six months to 32 million people.
.

Everyone who doesn't have their head in the sand knows the media is biased.

Bloggers are even more biased, so if anything that should be more of a cause for concern.
News programs, even the ardent hardcore liberal left ones make a fascimile of presenting both sides. Bloggers do not.

Its a shame that everything is so polarized, and by all appearances moving even further away from civil discourse. This more than ever accentuates the need for additional political parties in leadership positions.

The media is biased, but --- it does kind of make sense that there would be more negative stories about the guy who is already in office. You have 4 years of evidence.

True Yamori, I wonder if incumbents in general get more negative publicity since you have four years of stuff to criticize.

Anyhow, this result does come as a surprise to me. Living in Utah during the elections, I constantly saw a very negative treatment of Kerry and a very positive treatment of Bush on the local news and in the newspapers. Except when I found my way to CNN.

Aye, but you have to consider that Bush has only been in politics for a relatively short time. Kerry has been on Capitol Hill and in the limelight for decades.

You'd think there'd be more 'evidence' on Kerry's part, in that case.

If this report was performed to somehow try to quantitatively show that the media is more sympathetic to liberal candidates, I think it's a foregone conclusion. Anyone who does NOT realize this is an ostrich.

Cue Zanchief

george bush wouldnt be in office if the media was as 'liberal' as some conservatives like to claim it is.

Ugzugz wrote:If this report was performed to somehow try to quantitatively show that the media is more sympathetic to liberal candidates, I think it's a foregone conclusion. Anyone who does NOT realize this is an ostrich.

I didn't see a Swift Boat Veterans equivalent getting mainstream media attention against any of GWs issues.

The members of the media may personally be more sympathetic, but any individual can draw what they want from news.

The only issues I have is when CNN does their coverage of the RNC convention and uses 7 Democrats and 1 Republcian to discuss the issues. Or when Fox uses Newt Gingrich and Ollie North to break down Democratic strategies for their convention. Hello? Mcfly?

Lyion wrote:Bloggers are even more biased.

Since when are blogs considered anything other than the opinions of the people making them? Bloggers aren't journalists (and even journalists are suspect).

Tuggan wrote:george bush wouldnt be in office if the media was as 'liberal' as some conservatives like to claim it is.

wrong.... people are not as stupid and mind numb as they were before.

And the liberal press going nuts about things that don't matter, making up stories forging documents etc screwed themselves. Most people watch Cable news now like "Wow what IF that was true" not " OMG WTF"

And Tuggan read all the studies its somethinglike 85% of the press is liberal. And something about the same % of stories are biased or anti-bush.

Just look, Foxnews is killing everyone now in ratings.

Its funny how you use Bush winning as the press isn't liberal. Reagan won.. and the media was crazy liberal back then as it is today.

Just no one is listening to their stupid shit anymore

Diabolik wrote:

Lyion wrote:Bloggers are even more biased.

Since when are blogs considered anything other than the opinions of the people making them? .

When they garner mainstream media attention and coverage. Which they do.

The problem with US politics (and getting to be that way in canada rapidly) is campaigns are "Vote for me, cause the other guy did these 571329502 dumbass things"

instead of "Vote for me, cause i'm the best man/woman for the job because i stand for XXXXX"



it's gotten to be a pissing contest of vote for the lesser evil

agreed tikker. very few canidates in any area of government is more.. THIS PERSON DID THIS WRONG SO VOTE FOR ME... its stupid but how it is

Most people are more interested in "bad things" than they are good. Everyone claims to be interested in policy and ethical behavior but just can't seem to ignore the dark side. Look at Clinton, you could ask 100 people (all democrates even) what they think about when you say Bill Clinton and most will anwser "sex in the oval office." Kinda sad but that is how our brains work nowadays.

We love dirty laundry!

Malluas wrote:
wrong.... people are not as stupid and mind numb as they were before.

Well, we are talking about the average American here.

Martrae wrote:Cue Zanchief

Hi guys, what are you talking about here?

Fine I'll say it. The media is not liberal biased.

Reporters, Anchormen and journalists may ALL be liberals. Crazy ones, who think gay people aren't an abomination and think poor people get too much shit.

But they still report the news as objectively as possible considering the polarized country you have.

Fox News on the other hand doesn't even try to be objective. They just feed off all you crazy conspiracy theorists who have drawn the political median so far right that objectivity has lost all meaning.

Lyion wrote:I didn't see a Swift Boat Veterans equivalent getting mainstream media attention against any of GWs issues.

What was MoveOn.Org then? Same thing as SwiftVet's just a less effective message. And MSM preached their drivel regularly, hell daily. Check the CNN transcripts, I bet some of MoveOn's activists have been quoted this week even.

Lyion wrote:The members of the media may personally be more sympathetic, but any individual can draw what they want from news.

The only issues I have is when CNN does their coverage of the RNC convention and uses 7 Democrats and 1 Republcian to discuss the issues. Or when Fox uses Newt Gingrich and Ollie North to break down Democratic strategies for their convention. Hello? Mcfly?

It is obviously slanted. Always has been. Look at the vapid attempt by Rather and Mapes to throw-down Bush with the Fake Air National Guard memos. Or just a few days before the elections, the missing weapons from the Ammo dump, the 300 tons of missing weapons that were supposedly hauled out one night, by 40 trucks, right in front of our blind soldiers. Of course, once the Blogs proved that the Memo's were fake or that the weapons were not there during the time period they said they were did the MSM let up, sorta.

I think the best thing is to just take what any media outlet says with a grain of salt from now on, until you can develop a level of trust. How and when you can do that, is for you to decide.

Lyion wrote:

Diabolik wrote:

Lyion wrote:Bloggers are even more biased.

Since when are blogs considered anything other than the opinions of the people making them? .

When they garner mainstream media attention and coverage. Which they do.

Please explain... are you saying that the blog ceases to be opinion-based or that the media starts to become opinion-based?

I may have just answered my own question, but please explain anyway.

Blogs are becoming media pushing mechanisms, and media outlets are more and more becoming Blog like and affiliated.

Yup, you pretty much answered your own question.

I think people are turning to blogs as an alternative to mainstream "TV" news because of the idiotic sensationalized crap that is now aired and called "news" by big networks.

I should have my own news channel and tell shit how it is... fuk'in right I do!