Even Harvard Finds the Media Biased

And it seems to be having the desired effect and is motivated by reasons I have given in another place.

0 Replies

Could it be because there is nothing positive to report about the republican party and the zero's bidding to be their candidate for president
Could anything positive be said about G.Bush and his administration?

0 Replies

Thinking...... Confused

Nope

0 Replies

I can think of a few good things, the responses to the question from the A2K crowd being one...

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I can think of a few good things, the responses to the question from the A2K crowd being one...

Is that all you can think of? Surely you must have more than that in your arsenal.

0 Replies

The there is the assertion that "the media is biased" is quite different from finding that the "media is biased toward presidential candidates". It has been noted elsewhere in these fora that the Dems, namely Obama and Clinton, are offering some sort of platforms, some new ideas, some new ways of doing things.

The republicans on the other hand have done nothing new, and are offering a country desperate for change, nothing new.

It's not surprising to see the dems getting a "positive tone" in the media (whatever that means, and whatever criteria they use to qualify or quantify that), especially when you consider how many republicans have been trying to distance themselves from the current administration.

The media hasn't been all that kind to Britney Spears, but that doesn't mean they are biased toward Christina Agulerra because they say nice things about her....when you are worthy of good press, you normally get it. When you're not, they'll eat you up.

Face it...it's a very tough time to be a republican.

0 Replies

The country isn't desperate for change. Only gloom and doom progressives are desperate for change. What it needs is direction, and not misdirection from the media.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

The media hasn't been all that kind to Britney Spears, but that doesn't mean they are biased toward Christina Agulerra because they say nice things about her....when you are worthy of good press, you normally get it. When you're not, they'll eat you up.

Well-put.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

The country isn't desperate for change. Only gloom and doom progressives are desperate for change. What it needs is direction, and not misdirection from the media.

Ya. Wut vee need izt a leader!! A leader vidout limits un hiz powerz!!

Any questions?

Joe(NO questions!! NO!!!)Nation

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

The country isn't desperate for change. Only gloom and doom progressives are desperate for change. What it needs is direction, and not misdirection from the media.

How is the media misdirecting anyone when they report on the front runners of the presidential race?

Besides, were you protesting all the press Bush was receiving in the wake of the 2000 election? How about all the press he and Guiliani received following 9/11? Were you screaming "bias" when those republicans were on every front page, every news station and every magazine cover?

I seriously doubt it.

0 Replies

They were leaders, not wannabes.

0 Replies

As long as the media cheerleads the USA's progress towards authoritarianism, you will not hear or see any complaints from the right, but should it be mentioned that this unitary president they seek would not fit with the US Constitution as it is presently written, the howls of bias begin.

Joe(really sad state of affairs for a free country)Nation

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

They were leaders, not wannabes.

Kindly define, in your own words, what a leader is.

0 Replies

Just read the report and weep c1. Stop baiting the thread.

0 Replies

You changed the topic from bias in the media to leadership, not me.

0 Replies

So, more to the point cj, is the general charge of "media bias" and "media bias toward presidential candidates" the same thing?

I think not.

The former is a sweeping charge that, by and large, the entire media (papers, television, internet, magazines etc) is left leaning, the latter is one that suggests that the general media is giving coverage to left leaning candidates. That the coverage results in some positive commentary on the leftist candidates is more a testimony of the candidates, their platforms and their relevence in contemporary American politics than it is the control the left has over the media.

If, for example, the republican candidates had anything worth saying, any platforms worth mentioning, or any direction that interested the average American, perhaps they too would receive some glowing press. It does not follow, then, that the entire "media has a leftist bias".

0 Replies

Re: Even Harvard Finds the Media Biased

cjhsa wrote:

found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Emphasis mine.

Unwittingly, cjhsa has shown us an example of why we can't, indeed, trust some media - like the Investors Business Daily. Because this is simply factually wrong. As cjhsa could have known too, if he had taken a look at the actual report rather than just a conservative medium's take on it.

The report shows that the media have published more negative than positive stories about McCain and Giuliani - AND about Hillary Clinton and Edwards.

The balance is more unfavourable for Hillary, in fact, than it is for Giuliani. Not to mention Romney, who unlike two of the three Democrats actually received a favourable balance in coverage.

So why do the added totals show a positive balance for the Democratic candidates overall? Kevin Drum says it best:

Quote:

Two words: Barack Obama. [..] the press isn't in love with Democrats, it's in love with Barack Obama.

He provides a chart to show it, and looked at the raw numbers to reach a conclusion directly opposite to IBD's:

Quote:

The chart on the right shows the results for each of the six leading candidates, and Obama's coverage is almost stratospherically laudatory. So I grabbed the raw data and removed Obama from the analysis entirely to see what would happen. Answer: the positive vs. negative coverage was virtually identical for Democrats and Republicans.

Here's the chart:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blogphotos/Blog_PEJ_Press_Tone.gif

I think the media should indeed be ashamed for reporting with such a massive bias - but the bias is not towards "the Democrats", but towards one specific candidate, over and against the other Democratic frontrunners.

The fact that despire this apparent torrent of positive coverage, Obama is still polling in the low twenties is really quite damning for him - but perhaps a good sign for an independent civic mind.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
The country isn't desperate for change. Only gloom and doom progressives are desperate for change. What it needs is direction, and not misdirection from the media.

Ya. Wut vee need izt a leader!! A leader vidout limits un hiz powerz!!

Any questions?

Joe(NO questions!! NO!!!)Nation

Wut vee need izt a GIRL in the WhiteHouse...

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Wut vee need izt a GIRL in the WhiteHouse...

There was a GIRL in the previous WH but then everyone complained about what she did for the President.

0 Replies

Even Harvard Finds the Media Biased

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know