"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

From today's Howard Kurtz column in the NY Times:

While Bush was drawing 49 percent positive coverage during the Iraq war
on
the ABC, CBS and NBC nightly news shows, that figure plummeted to 26
percent
positive from May 1 through Oct. 31, says a study of 1,876 broadcast
stories
by the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
The figures include comments by critics, such as former Army secretary
Thomas White, who told ABC in September that the administration's
postwar
efforts were "totally inadequate." They also include what anchors and
correspondents said.

The Iraq coverage was most negative toward Bush on CBS (77 percent) and
least negative on NBC (62 percent), the study says. Taking numerous hits
were the CIA (77 percent negative), the Pentagon (74 percent negative)
and
the Homeland Security Department (68 percent negative).

But such numbers could change dramatically with the arrest of Saddam
Hussein. "Without a doubt," said Matthew T. Felling of the media center,
"the capture of Hussein will turn coverage around" if there are no major
setbacks in Iraq.

------------------------------------------------------------

3/4 of CBS's reporting dealt with "negatives" in Iraq...which means less
than 1/4 dealt with the "positives". Is it because bad news sells
better
than good news? Or is it because of a stark anti-Bush and anti-war bias
in
the media?


It's because the negatives outweigh the positives in numbers and in
import. D'oh.

I don't agree with that. When the war started, just about everything that
was happening was positive. However, CBS *still* managed to find enough bad
things to fill 49% of their reports. Even when the positives far, far
outweighed the negatives, CBS gave each equal time. Why don't they do the
same now?






--
Email sent to is never read.