The debate is over. A consensus has been reached. On global warming? No, on how Democrats are favored on television, radio and in the newspapers.
That is a good start to the article. Liberals are willing to believe that 100 years of data predicts the entire history of the Earths climate, but they just laugh when study after study, fact after fact proves over and over and over and over that the media is liberally biased. They are biased personally, in the stories they choose to report on, in the words they use, ect...
A few highlights:
"produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."
the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.
"Obama's front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton's was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative."
In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.
CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical.
Posts
22 comments:
truth has a well know liberal bias
Yup, Phil and Hash, the kool-aid carriers of the Left have to confirm that the MSM is biased towards the left. Just remember that when the circulation figures for newspapers show a real hard drop.
Not surprised these two losers had to try to obfuscate the truth.
Do you have link to the actual study? How do they define positive and negative?
It might be useful to take a look at the methodology before falling in love with a statistical study.
click on the title...that is the link to the story...not sure if there is a link to the methodology
Andy,
Even you should be able to google the sources Investors Business Daily used. They are openly listed at the bottom of the box.
PCP,
I'm not the one claiming that this study is the gold mine. If game is going to post a story that touts this study, he should know how the indicators are defined.
the methodology link...what basis for awesome debate...Harvard studies usually "define" things adequately for most anyone...well..
almost anyone.
I'll remember that the next time Harvard comes out with a study you don't like and you dismiss it out of hand because of liberal bias.
Anyway, the study measures the "tone" of the coverage. It does not measure the ACCURACY of the coverage.
I'm sure that if you compare the news coverage of criminals with the coverage of heads of charitable organizations, there will be a large disparity in "tone" as well.
Just because Republicans are getting more negative press doesn't mean the media is biased. If Republicans want better coverage, maybe they should stop advocating torture, stop pushing for more unnecessary and unhelpful wars in the middle east, stop labeling the majority of Americans as 'terrorist lovers' and stop trolling for anonymous gay sex in public restroom, and then reniging on their promises to resign after getting caught and pleading guilty.
Perhaps then the media, and the public at large, wouldn't have such negative attitudes toward them.
And what about your constant idocy in claiming that MSNBC is so liberal when the tone of their coverage has been the most positive to Republiecans?
Realism shows my point...when the entire media is liberal, they see conservatives as evil and report it that way...thank you very, very much Realism
realism--
Certainly you're not saying Comrade Matthews and Comrade Olbermann are Republicans. These guys are among the looniest of the loons.
"CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive."
MSNBC?? Not Fox News?? OK, I rest my case.
"MSNBC?? Not Fox News??"
I feel you. That result is more than a little weird. Perhaps the study was done during the illegal immigration controversy.
This isn't the exact right fit, but here's more liberal shenanagans not reported on by much of the media. I wonder why?
Call this, "Extra Credit for burning the US Flag".
http://bangornews.com/news/t/news.
aspx?articleid=156138&zoneid=500
Seems like the nice people should have done a little more math:
[W]hat caught my eye was the reason Democrats got such favorable coverage. Two words: Barack Obama. The chart on the right shows the results for each of the six leading candidates, and Obama's coverage is almost stratospherically laudatory. So I grabbed the raw data and removed Obama from the analysis entirely to see what would happen. Answer: the positive vs. negative coverage was virtually identical for Democrats and Republicans.
Bottom line: the press isn't in love with Democrats, it's in love with Barack Obama.
When you look at the non-Obama candidates, every single one was net negative, especially Clinton, who had as much negative as Obama did positive.
Jay,
Admit it, currently, or at one time you were the head supervisor in a top (as in the childs toy) factory, weren't you?
Are were you merely the lead engineer?
Oh, blamin, the facts are such ugly things.
Come on Jay,
In your mind is it justifiable bias, or do you simply fail to see it?
I wonder how the stats would look if just prime time news were the sample?
Stop already! Be a man, argue the platitudes that spew forth from the left, or admit the bias.
Just because your philosophy would fail to receive the deciding votes in a neutral environment is no reason to not continue the fantasy, and fight for what you believe
Ahh, Liberalism… You people kill me.
You think you know what you’re doing. You never seem to acknowledge that you’ve been wrong in the past, and might be wrong in the future. Instead, each new group of libs, write off earlier errors of other libs as the result of defective thinking by inferior minds, and then you confidently embark on fresh (or not so fresh) errors of your own.
Your arrogance astounds me! You’re oh-so much smarter than all the libs that failed before you!
Blamin,
What's your problem? You go with the facts or not? You can't go both ways...You seem to be interested in facts only when it favours you!!
Now - you and Game should go and tell your Bill O'Reilly to stop attacking MSNBC!! As the Harvard study shows, MSNBC was most positive towards Republicans!
In your mind is it justifiable bias
Do I think it's justifiable that the media is negative on all the candidates except Barack Obama? Probably not. Seems like they could be doing a much better job presenting all the others in a more positive light instead of being such harpies.
Do I think it's justifiable that they are especially negative about Hillary Clinton, whose negative airtime is double that of Giuliani and McCain, and triple that of Romney? No, that's just completely inexcusable.
Let me summarize American and Jay's comments.
But, but, but, the media is less biased than the impression your post gives.
Good one guys! "We're bad, but not that bad"
American,
The "“most” positive"?
The numbers still fall short of “unbiased”.
Your comments about O’Reilly are irrelevant. Why do you find yourself feeling the need to defend MSNBC? Have you looked at the breakdown of MSNBC’s reporting in prime time versus 3pm or 3am?
Anybody can manipulate the stats! “We’ll just give “equal time” in the dead hours and advance our agenda in the prime hours”.
You should be a little more discerning you’re way to easy!
Post a Comment