OT--For those who think Fox News is biased...
 

Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush


Mar 14, 10:01 AM (ET)


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.

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.



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

Three to one more negative against a Republican? Hell, that's probably an
improvement from prior years.

NOYB wrote:

Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush


Mar 14, 10:01 AM (ET)


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.

I find that rather hard to believe, when Bush's smear campaigns against
Kerry were reported as straight news and Kerry's explanations reported
as "campaign publicity." How much footage of Bush's dismal performances
in the debates was carried on news channels?

Here is a case of the right wing screaming about "liberal bias" because
the public media is not 100% neo-con controlled.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .

Here is a case of the right wing screaming about "liberal bias"


The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism is right wing?

I guess demonizing the source is the only tactic available when the facts
don't support your argument, eh Doug?

Here is a case of the right wing screaming about "liberal bias"



NOYB wrote:
The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism is right wing?


I'd have to know where the grant came from for this particular little
nugget before saying either way. But their conclusion is so obviously
bogus that it's hardly "unbiased." The manner in which their premise is
stated is itself biased... but go ahead, pretend it's legit if it makes
you feel better.

I guess demonizing the source is the only tactic available when the facts
don't support your argument, eh Doug?


You just think so because you're looking at the world through demon
colored glasses.

BTW where are all your facts & figures on Bush's educational programs?
Environmental studies? Health care initiatives? Jobs growth? Border
security? Port & airline security too, and throw in foreign policy
successes...

If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not
much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and
the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to
a single thing in four long years that Bush has done right.

But hey, that's just so negative, y'know?

DSK

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:15:07 -0500, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:

Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush


Mar 14, 10:01 AM (ET)


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.

I find that rather hard to believe, when Bush's smear campaigns against
Kerry were reported as straight news and Kerry's explanations reported
as "campaign publicity." How much footage of Bush's dismal performances
in the debates was carried on news channels?

Here is a case of the right wing screaming about "liberal bias" because
the public media is not 100% neo-con controlled.

DSK

How much play did Bush's National Guard record get in the "straight news" versus
the river boat "heroics" of John Kerry as presented by the Swift Boat Veterans?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:36:12 -0500, DSK wrote:

Here is a case of the right wing screaming about "liberal bias"



NOYB wrote:
The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism is right wing?


I'd have to know where the grant came from for this particular little
nugget before saying either way. But their conclusion is so obviously
bogus that it's hardly "unbiased." The manner in which their premise is
stated is itself biased... but go ahead, pretend it's legit if it makes
you feel better.

I guess demonizing the source is the only tactic available when the facts
don't support your argument, eh Doug?


You just think so because you're looking at the world through demon
colored glasses.

BTW where are all your facts & figures on Bush's educational programs?
Environmental studies? Health care initiatives? Jobs growth? Border
security? Port & airline security too, and throw in foreign policy
successes...

If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not
much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and
the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to
a single thing in four long years that Bush has done right.

But hey, that's just so negative, y'know?

DSK

Truth's a bitch, isn't it Doug?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Here is a case of the right wing screaming about "liberal bias"



NOYB wrote:
The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism is right wing?


I'd have to know where the grant came from for this particular little
nugget before saying either way. But their conclusion is so obviously
bogus that it's hardly "unbiased." The manner in which their premise is
stated is itself biased... but go ahead, pretend it's legit if it makes
you feel better.

I guess demonizing the source is the only tactic available when the facts
don't support your argument, eh Doug?


You just think so because you're looking at the world through demon
colored glasses.

BTW where are all your facts & figures on Bush's educational programs?
Environmental studies? Health care initiatives? Jobs growth? Border
security? Port & airline security too, and throw in foreign policy
successes...

If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not
much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and
the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to a
single thing in four long years that Bush has done right.


That's like saying "if you discount the New Deal programs, and our victories
over the Germans and Japanese in WWII, you can't really point to a single
thing in 12 long years that FDR did right."

Give the man credit. His Middle East policies are working.

If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not
much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and
the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to a
single thing in four long years that Bush has done right.



NOYB wrote:
That's like saying "if you discount the New Deal programs, and our victories
over the Germans and Japanese in WWII, you can't really point to a single
thing in 12 long years that FDR did right."


Bull****. FDR did a huge number of things right, from his radio fireside
chats on up to chosing John Nance Garner, then Truman, as his Vice
Presidents.

Give the man credit. His Middle East policies are working.


Whose?

Afghanistand hasn't worked out too badly, but then that one was done by
the pros. Not too big a success story follow-up once it was handed off
to the Bush/Cheney team. Iraq... with the exception of the election,
which is only about year later than originally planned... has been a
disaster. Lebanon *might* work out but then Bush hasn't done a whole lot
there he can take credit for other than standing on the sidelines
smiling. And it hasn't happened yet.

I take your above statement as an admission that there isn't anything
else the Bush/Cheney team can point to as a success.

DSK

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush


Mar 14, 10:01 AM (ET)


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.

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.



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

Three to one more negative against a Republican? Hell, that's probably
an improvement from prior years.





Nice article. An article by an AP television writer reported Fox as more
biased than CNN and CNBC because they reported more positive news than
negative news. Go figure.

========================================

" NEW YORK -- A study of news coverage of the war in Iraq fails to support
a conclusion that events were portrayed either negatively or positively
most of the time.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism

That's the same group (from Columbia University) which reached the
conclusion that the media coverage was harder on Bush!

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
If you take away the Iraq election, which was a good step but so far not
much follow-up, and the *potential* withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and
the undercutting of Hamas & Hezbollah thereby, you can't really point to
a single thing in four long years that Bush has done right.



NOYB wrote:
That's like saying "if you discount the New Deal programs, and our
victories over the Germans and Japanese in WWII, you can't really point
to a single thing in 12 long years that FDR did right."


Bull****. FDR did a huge number of things right, from his radio fireside
chats on up to chosing John Nance Garner, then Truman, as his Vice
Presidents.

Give the man credit. His Middle East policies are working.


Whose?

Afghanistand hasn't worked out too badly, but then that one was done by
the pros. Not too big a success story follow-up once it was handed off to
the Bush/Cheney team.

Hahahaha. That's a funny one!

How many US military personnel were overtly operating in Afghanistan while
Clinton was President? How many sorties did our fighters fly over
Afghanistan while Clinton was president?



Iraq... with the exception of the election, which is only about year later
than originally planned... has been a disaster.

Nothing like downplaying Iraq's first Democratic election ever!


Lebanon *might* work out but then Bush hasn't done a whole lot there he can
take credit for other than standing on the sidelines smiling.

He might be standing on the sidelines smiling...but there's a reason for it.
He has 160,000 troops on Syria's eastern border, and he's demonstrated the
willingness to use them.


And it hasn't happened yet.

I take your above statement as an admission that there isn't anything else
the Bush/Cheney team can point to as a success.

How about 3 million new jobs created in the last 21 months? How about
cushioning the landing of a declining economy when he took office, thus
making our last recession one of our mildest and shortest-lasting recessions
in history (despite the 9/11 attack)?
How about the fact that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US
soil for 3 1/2 years despite at least a dozen promises from bin Laden and al
Zawahiri that the next one would be coming any day?
How about the fact that he's done what very few Presidents have ever
achieved: helped his own party *gain* seats at the mid-term and
end-of-first-term elections?