Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush

2 hours, 13 minutes ago Top Stories - Reuters

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 (news - web sites) than Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web

sites), 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 (news - web sites) 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.

Despite the growing importance of the Web, the report said investment was not keeping pace and some

62 percent of Internet professionals reported cutbacks in the newsroom in the last three years, even

more than the 37 percent of print, radio and TV journalists who cited cutbacks in their newsrooms.

"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.

Yet more evidence of the pervasive liberal bias in American media. The humorous note, is that most liberals will still adamantly deny the charge, despite admitting that journalism is considered a "liberal art", hard evidence that the stories by these so-called exemplary journalists were 3 times more likely to bash a Republican president, and occurances like Dan Rather's miopic zeal - and ultimately deserved disgrace - in rushing negative stories (oftentimes subjective), to the public eye. Is there still any question? Anyone who thinks there is would find themselves in excellent company as a big tabacco lawyer.

(P.S. I am leaving on a multi-day mission, and will therefore be unable to answer for a short while. All potential tabacco attorneys, global warming non-believers, and Micheal Moore adherents will have to wait till my return for a response.)

Edit - link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/20050314/ts_nm/media_report_dc

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 935 • Replies: 12

No top replies

It's easy to bash one of the most polarizing, corrupt and ridiculous selected Presidents in modern American history.

0 Replies

vote early, vote often, vote Kucinich.

0 Replies

It's not our fault that the facts are biased against Bush. He did many bad things that needed to be talked about, and very few positive things during his first term. What's the problem?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

It's easy to bash one of the most polarizing, corrupt and ridiculous selected Presidents in modern American history.

* Be specific
Few things are more intellectually irritating (not to mention worthless) than reading some uncautious and poorly thought out claim such as "Liberals never care about truth", or "The conservative mindset precludes empathy"

Cool

0 Replies

You mean intellectually dishonest statements like:

"So maybe the anti-gun "weinies" can explain WHY I need to rid myself of my guns."

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=43962&highlight=

Should I find that statement worthless?

In any event, I would say that this obviously a matter of perception than requiring one to be specific. I've been specific COUNTLESS times on these threads, you just don't agree with the specifics.

Therefore, I think asking for specifics is a little disengenuous in this regard.

But if you insist, then I will be specific.

For starters, how 'bout that "liberal" media saturating their newscasts with Clinton's sexual daliances, the impeachment, and their failed healthcare reforms? That's just to name a few. But the country as a whole was doing considerably better back then.

Such is not the case now. So why can't there actually BE some journalistic integrity in holding this administration accountable, as opposed to the fake news and propoganda that the Bush clan are so adept in pursuing?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_03_13.php#005139

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20050313/ap_on_re_us/sunshine_week_poll

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Schwarzenegger-Video.html?

Just a few examples. But these are ALL reasons for criticizing this administration (IMO), as they seem to be doing whatever it takes to ruin the middle class and destroy the U.S. Constitution through fear and religious zealotry.

Actually, Liberals care ALOT more about the truth, as they are now relegated to mearly answering the myriad of unrelenting lies from the neoconservative movement.

But I won't comment on "conservatives' mindset precluding empathy." I'd hate to intellectually irritate ya...

0 Replies

Oh, I don't find it irritatin' at all, but rather more amusin' - and, in hope and perception that the mindset behind such poppycock is characteristic of at least the leadership and activist factions, if not the rank-and-file, of The Democratic Party in conjunction with and among assorted other opponents of The Current Administration, less than propitious as regards the prospects of said opposition.

BTW, great to see ya again, Lusatian. Are ya back from Afghanistan or just postin' "from the scene" between adventures over there?

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

It's easy to bash one of the most polarizing, corrupt and ridiculous selected Presidents in modern American history.

You and Cycloptichorn are both entitled to your biased opinions on the matter. But it seems that current events in the ME argue against you!

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:
It's easy to bash one of the most polarizing, corrupt and ridiculous selected Presidents in modern American history.

You and Cycloptichorn are both entitled to your biased opinions on the matter. But it seems that current events in the ME argue against you!

Why is it always the neocons who tend to say things like "you are entitled to your opinion," when that is all we are doing on these threads?

And how are the current events in the ME against me? I celebrate any hope that region may experience in reducing the violence against their own people.

Perhaps the difference is that I give WAY more credit to the PEOPLE of these countries, just as Bush, time and again, gives credit to the IRAQI people for their own destiny, despite the fact that they despise Saddam as much as Bush, and that their duplicitous and often misunderstood beliefs fall by the wayside when Americans refer to this war in black and white terms only.

I give more credit to the efforts by Europeans in engage with Iran, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence has practically NOTHING on what is truly going on over there. And seriously; is that another rabbit hole the neoconservatives are willing to go down? We all know our intelligent failures as of late, and Porter Goss seems a little overworked these days. And now, when we probably need the U.N. more than ever, Bush appoints Bolton as our U.N. Representative, who will only bring more divisiveness to the chamber, and continue to promote our emperical unilateral influence on the world.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
Dookiestix wrote:
It's easy to bash one of the most polarizing, corrupt and ridiculous selected Presidents in modern American history.

You and Cycloptichorn are both entitled to your biased opinions on the matter. But it seems that current events in the ME argue against you!

Why is it always the neocons who tend to say things like "you are entitled to your opinion," when that is all we are doing on these threads?

And how are the current events in the ME against me? I celebrate any hope that region may experience in reducing the violence against their own people.

Perhaps the difference is that I give WAY more credit to the PEOPLE of these countries, just as Bush, time and again, gives credit to the IRAQI people for their own destiny, despite the fact that they despise Saddam as much as Bush, and that their duplicitous and often misunderstood beliefs fall by the wayside when Americans refer to this war in black and white terms only.

I give more credit to the efforts by Europeans in engage with Iran, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence has practically NOTHING on what is truly going on over there. And seriously; is that another rabbit hole the neoconservatives are willing to go down? We all know our intelligent failures as of late, and Porter Goss seems a little overworked these days. And now, when we probably need the U.N. more than ever, Bush appoints Bolton as our U.N. Representative, who will only bring more divisiveness to the chamber, and continue to promote our emperical unilateral influence on the world.

Do you really think the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan would have taken place if Bush would not have acted? Do you think there would have been a Syrian pull out if Bush wouldn't have acted?

You know and I know that the ME would still be the same place with people acting the same way if Bush would not have acted the way he did. What did the UN do to promote election in the ME? They did nothing!

0 Replies

Quote:

You know and I know that the ME would still be the same place with people acting the same way if Bush would not have acted the way he did. What did the UN do to promote election in the ME? They did nothing!

And how would YOU know that? Please, be as presumptious and vague as possible in your response...

0 Replies

I don't have to be; we all know that there were no improvements in the ME prior to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The only movement towards elections was in Palestine and that was only half hearted due to only one person being in the ballot, quite like the Iraq elections of Yes/No for Saddam.

Egypt has since agreed to have elections with more then one person on the ballot. Iraq has had elections, Afghanistan has had elections. Palestine has since had elections and Syria has agreed to begin removing it's forces for Lebanon. This is a beginning and I'm sure it will continue as more and more people see the positive effects of real elections in other countries.

I don't believe I have been vague, in fact I think what I mentioned was pretty specific.

0 Replies

Where did you go Dook?

0 Replies

Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know