Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says. Fifty-seven percent of the print and broadcast stories about the Republican nominee were decidedly negative, the Project for Excellence in Journalism says in a report out today, while 14 percent were positive. The McCain campaign has repeatedly complained that the mainstream media are biased toward the senator from Illinois. Obama's coverage was more balanced during the six-week period from Sept. 8 through last Thursday, with 36 percent of the stories clearly positive, 35 percent neutral or mixed and 29 percent negative.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
"While some will seize on these findings as evidence that the media are pro-Obama, the study says they actually contain "a strong suggestion that winning in politics begets winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls"
When you're spending $150,000 on your pitbull, what do you expect the reaction to be?
lobsters, champagne, and iranian caviar, for an afternoon snack, at the Waldorf-Astoria?
i didn't see an equivalent reaction to THAT....
and at least palin dresses respectably, not as a street trollop
Hash, you are confusing me. Are you a consevative now? Good point, by the way.
I think if Obama becomes president, we will be seeing libs dressing like little "radicals" with Marxist-like hats. Too bad, that the idiot-libs have to sacrifice my children's future to elect their "Jimmy Carter."
Much like we saw all those cowboy hats and chaps come into vogue when Bush seized office. Or did that start after that cowboy love story flick?
The liberals in the media want Obama to win. This is news? This is not the problem -- they wanted Kerry and Gore to win too.
McCain screwed himself.
One, there isn't going to be positive coverage since McCain isn't offering a positive vision, or any vision for that matter.
Secondly, no one is doing the doing the attacking for McCain. There is no negative narrative about Obama. Activists don't want to finance swiftboat style ads because they know McCain will repudiate them. Now McCain and Palin are doing their own dirty work at the last minute, and it looks desperate and mean. If McCain wanted to make Wright and Ayers an issue, he should have given us the green light from day one.
oh, Lord, football mom
NO, i am NOT a conservative, i am an AMERICAN, and barky is simply too dangerous and too comfy with radical elements, too socially and racially divisive, too fiscally unwise
if his brain ever had an original thought, it would have to leave the neighborhood, lest it die of its own common loneliness
i respect mccain's continued contributions and sacrifice to this nation, and i believe sarah palin is this election's only quality choice, because she understands taking responsibility and remaining accountable is at the core of personal integrity
i believe both conservatism and liberalism are dying paradigms of a past age, it is simply that conservatism is dying more quickly
both mccain and palin are clever enough and teachable, to transcend these profound value shifts, and lead effectively for the duration
obongo is an empty suit, and biden is too booze-addled and ego-driven to even appear coherent
i consider myself an "independent" for mccain/palin at this stage, while still maintaining my foundational political principles
country first
call me crazy, but i'm guessing oj has been receiving more negative press than, say, michael phelps. fair coverage does not necessarily mean equal positive and negative coverage.
I'm glad we are saying McCain is as bad as someone who kills his wife and robs guys in hotel rooms while Obama is as good as someone who won more gold metals in the olympics than anyone ever...
The thing is that is just how the media thinks...and that will get into their coverage no matter how hard they try for it not too...
never said anything of the sort, implied or otherwise. never made any such comparison. i only said that you don't have to be "even" to be fair.
it's not a question of who's worse, at this point
ALL of the coverage is awful, and a significant amount of would be comical, if it weren't for the fact the considerable numbers of us believe what we hear, without scrutinizing it and questioning them first
Is Fox News mainstream? Just curious.
yes, in my opinion, they are
but the term itself is used and abused by bloggers, radio hosts...anyone who exploits the public's frustration with media distortions in order to build up their own "outsider" credibility
i heard a syndicated right-wing talk show host today refer to some newspaper as "mainstream media", as if he himself were not a part of it, and i think that lack of self-awareness is getting tiring
That's precisely my point too. I've seen the 'mainstream' media bashing on Fox News.....leaving me wonder...who are they? LOL
It's kinda gettin old...
it's old, because the term no longer applies to the situation it refers to...
we, who blog and comment, could be considered the "mainstream media", when you take into account the numbers of americans who rely solely on the internet for news, and don't always choose sources wisely
Post a Comment