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 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

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."

Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.



Did anybody watch Boston Legal the other night? A high-schooler was suing
his school's principal for putting special "news filters" on the TV's. The
only news station that the principal chose to filter out was "the one that
calls itself fair and balanced". The judge found in favor of the kid, and
forced the principal to remove the filters.

The funny parts were the arguments made by James Spader:

"But you didn't find it a problem that a certain network published forged
national guard documents"?

He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing
more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and
should be protected by the First Amendment.