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.


--
Email sent to is never read.

"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.

NOYB wrote:

I don't agree with that. When the war started, just about everything that
was happening was positive.

Maybe with the possible exception that a war was starting?

War is the last resort for a genuine statesman, not the preferred option.

In article . net,
says...

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?

That must be because you consider engaging in war a positive endeavor.
At least half the country thought it was a mistake.

While we were making good progress, it's still war.

Forest - trees.

Strategy - tactics.

Liberals - conservatives.

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

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?

That must be because you consider engaging in war a positive endeavor.
At least half the country thought it was a mistake.

Wrong. I just posted two days ago the results of a CBS/ NY Times poll on
this exact issue:

63% of Americans believe the US did the right thing in taking military
action against Iraq...and only 31% think we should have stayed out.

31% is a lot less than "at least half". Got any proof of *your* statement?

In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

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?

That must be because you consider engaging in war a positive endeavor.
At least half the country thought it was a mistake.

Wrong. I just posted two days ago the results of a CBS/ NY Times poll on
this exact issue:

63% of Americans believe the US did the right thing in taking military
action against Iraq...and only 31% think we should have stayed out.

31% is a lot less than "at least half". Got any proof of *your* statement?


Wrong? Would you care to wake up now?

You're the one who said "When the war started..." That was the context
for the rest of the exchange.

Current polls don't apply to when the war started.

The war started 6 months ago, the poll was this week.

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

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?

That must be because you consider engaging in war a positive endeavor.
At least half the country thought it was a mistake.

Uh-oh. More proof jps is wrong:

AP Poll Finds Majority Back War in Iraq

Friday December 19, 2003 7:01 AM


By WILL LESTER

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans think the war in Iraq was the right decision by
a 2-1 margin and are more inclined to approve of the job done by President
Bush in foreign policy and terrorism following the capture of Saddam
Hussein, an Associated Press poll found.

In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

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?

That must be because you consider engaging in war a positive endeavor.
At least half the country thought it was a mistake.

Uh-oh. More proof jps is wrong:

AP Poll Finds Majority Back War in Iraq

Friday December 19, 2003 7:01 AM


By WILL LESTER

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans think the war in Iraq was the right decision by
a 2-1 margin and are more inclined to approve of the job done by President
Bush in foreign policy and terrorism following the capture of Saddam
Hussein, an Associated Press poll found.

Duh Doc, this is current news and you were talking about "when the war
started..."

Today is different from six months ago and six months from now people
will again have a different take on the war...

It's like you got to the crime scene six months later and tried to take
a photo of evidence that's been swept away months earlier.

Not logical doc.

"jps" wrote in message
...

Today is different from six months ago

Six months ago, 43% felt Bush was too eager to go to war with Iraq...well
less than "more than half" as you claimed. Anyway you spin it, your
statement is a complete fabrication.



The Harris Poll® #18, March 26, 2003

Slight Majority of Americans Support Bush Decisions on War With Iraq
Large majorities still believe that Iraq has or is making weapons of mass
destruction
Significant numbers feel president was too eager to go to war

_____________________________________

by David Krane and Nancy Wong

As the nation, which overwhelmingly believes that Iraq has weapons of mass
destruction (81%), moves into its second week of war with Iraq, the latest
Harris Poll finds that just over half of Americans (56%) express support for
President Bush's handling of issues in Iraq over the last few months. Equal
percentages (56%) feel that he's done a positive job in lining up allies who
would support the war.

While comparable numbers (54%) say that Bush was "right" to attack Iraq now,
nearly a third of Americans (31%) feel that Bush should have given Iraq and
United Nations weapons inspectors more time and, a full 43% think the
president was too eager to go to war.