Study: Press More Negative on Bush Than Kerry

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
We had a drunk coke head lying thief corporate puppet pawn criminal insider trader in office...

[/ QUOTE ]

You are an idiot.

[ QUOTE ]
..., running against a guy who spent most of his time on vacation wind surfing, when he wasn't saying "no comment" to the smear campaign against him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. Kerry did plenty of campaigning and clarified his position repeatedly, usually to the exact opposite of his previous position.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the negative bias against Bush was so small, just proves how biased they were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you honestly stupid enough to be asserting that the media is biased FOR Bush?

[cardcounter0]

Only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S.

General Electric's NBC is a close sixth. (now there is a commie pinko organization!)

1 in 4 access the internet thru AOL/Time-Warner. A large shareholder of AOL/Time-Warner stock was Colin Powell. Good thing his son was head of the FCC that allowed all these consolidations to take place. These companies own, seperately and jointly, the networks, the cable providers, and the movie studios.

Both the New York Times and The Washington Post both now admit they backed off on stories that Saddam did not have nukes before the war. The two most "liberal" rags in the country allowed Bush to lie unchallenged.

Clear Channel Communications (owns billboards, also) has radio stations in every major market across America. Think they suddenly became Bush bashers after getting tired of slamming the Dixie Chicks?

Get a grip. Show me where the media is anything but biased for Bush.

[Utah]

"My point is if the press run 3 negatives stories about candidate A, 5 minutes each a day. And the same press run 1 negative story about candidate B 45 minutes a day. The press was harder on Candidate A?"

Interesting point. However, you are assuming the length of the story matters. Maybe that is true and maybe it isnt. However, it would be interesting to see the data.

[BCPVP]

Cardcounter, would that be the same NYT that "broke" the story on the Al Qaqaa explosives just days before the election and then did nothing with the story afterwords?

Would that be the same CBS that used false documents in order to run a hit piece on Bush's Guard service?

What about that memo from ABC that said they should be harder on Bush than Kerry?

Gimmie a break. The fact that you're so far to the left doesn't mean the absence of your false accusations in the media is proof of rightwing bias. It just means it's not leftist enough for you.

And I'd love to see your proof for why this study was flawed.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
This study is flawed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly my thoughts.
This is bad science. Well, maybe not the study, but the story about it lacks critical info.

You can't count how many times Bush or Kerry received negative treatment without then comparing it to:
1. how many times they deserved the negative treatment
2. how many times they rececived positive or neutral treatment when they deserved negative treatment
3. the depth and breadth of the negative treatment (above or below the fold, front page or burried in section C, widespread readership or local paper...)

Check out FactCheck.org and Fair.org for more info about accurate media coverage re. politics.

[Chris Alger]

The study doesn't refute anything Kerry said because his attack wasn't on the MSM (which he lauded) but on the currency of rightist fantasies, probably by the likes pf Limbaugh and O'Reilly (both of whom lied about bin Laden endorsing Kerry). The study didn't address these sources at all.

As for the substance of the left-wing attack on the media, the study didn't address that either. Indeed, the assumptions of the study appear to fall within the usual critique: the two party leaders represent a reasonable spectrum of opinion, that the media should be judged on "positive" versus "negative" effects on candidates, rather than on informing voters of key facts, that the nature of content can be quantified by numbers of stories rather than the persistence of central mythologies, and so on. Where, for example, did this study of "bias" address the effect of "Terror Alert: Elevated" on the continuous Fox News banners? How can one quantify the effect of White House officials and Democrats both referring to a "war on terror" in the context of Iraq? If both parties say it, viewers conclude that it must represent a valid assumption even if they strenuously disagree about how to fight it.

A reasonable approach would be to define reality on some defensible fashion and then examine whether the media succeeded in conveying it. In this respect the MSM spectacularly failed. Better evidence: <ul type="square">"At the end of last year, a huge study done by the University of Maryland's PIPA, the Program on International Policy Attitudes, found that most of those who got their news from the commercial TV networks held at least 1 of 3 fundamental "misperceptions" about the war in Iraq (and some held 2 or 3 of them):

-- that Iraq had been directly linked to 9/11

-- that WMDs had been found in Iraq

-- that world opinion supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Viewers of Fox News, where I worked for years, were the most misled. But strong majorities of CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN viewers were also confused on at least one of these points. Among those informed on all 3 questions, only 23 percent supported Bush's war."[/list]Jeff Cohen, Common Dreams

[cardcounter0]

The Study is flawed. Why would there be a positive Bush bias or an Equal amount of positive/negative stories on each candidate?

"would that be the same NYT that "broke" the story on the Al Qaqaa explosives just days before the election and then did nothing with the story afterwords?"

The explosives were missing ... and the fact that they "did nothing" with the story afterwards is evidence of what? How much they hate Bush?

"Would that be the same CBS that used false documents in order to run a hit piece on Bush's Guard service?"

That "hit piece" was factual. Those false documents were really stupid, but you can't find anyone to say that they didn't speak the truth even if they weren't real. Are you saying that Bush didn't get special treatment in the Guard, or that strings weren't pulled to get him there?

"What about that memo from ABC that said they should be harder on Bush than Kerry?"

Yes, the Disney Media Empire are notorious liberals. Mickey Mouse is a commie. Hahahaha. The entire media network -vs- a memo?


ONE MORE TIME --- SLOWLY... READ IT AGAIN.

THE STUDY IS FLAWED.
Why should there be an equal number of positive and negative stories on each?

Isn't this the same kind of thinking that creates those sports leagues where everybody is a winner, and everybody gets to play, and they don't even keep score?

This is the Election for the President, not the Special Olympics. We had a drunk coke head lying thief corporate puppet pawn criminal insider trader in office, running against a guy who spent most of his time on vacation wind surfing, when he wasn't saying "no comment" to the smear campaign against him.

How could the news stories possibly be balanced and equal?
The fact that the negative bias against Bush was so small, just proves how biased they were.

[Kaz The Original]

One's an idiot, the other's a bore. That is all.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The Study is flawed. Why would there be a positive Bush bias or an Equal amount of positive/negative stories on each candidate?[/quot]
FACT: The quanitity of stories in the media sampled showed a higher percentage of them to be negative towards Bush than Kerry.
You, cardcounter0, as well as others, have jumped to the conclusion that this study has concluded that the media has a rightwing bias. I'm going to have to ask you to specifically cite where in the story this conclusion was reached.

[ QUOTE ]
The explosives were missing ... and the fact that they "did nothing" with the story afterwards is evidence of what?

[/ QUOTE ]
Abu Ghraib got over a month of front page coverage on the NYT. One would think this "missing" explosives story would get quite a bit of coverage, especially with the election in a few days. But a Lexis search turns up no articles in the NYT after October 31st. I guess what I'm insinuating, which you either didn't get or ignored, is that the NYT used this article to try and influence the election and because they were unsuccessful, they dropped it, which doesn't say much for the credibility of the original story...

[ QUOTE ]
That "hit piece" was factual. Those false documents were really stupid, but you can't find anyone to say that they didn't speak the truth even if they weren't real. Are you saying that Bush didn't get special treatment in the Guard, or that strings weren't pulled to get him there?

[/ QUOTE ]
If the media is going to run a story like that, I think it's the least we could ask for them to not forge documents to help their story. So if you can find proof that Bush was helped into the Guard, please do, but whipping up your own proof is not acceptable.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the Disney Media Empire are notorious liberals. Mickey Mouse is a commie. Hahahaha. The entire media network -vs- a memo?

[/ QUOTE ]
This has nothing to do with the question. Please answer the question without the strawmans next time.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
What about that memo from ABC that said they should be harder on Bush than Kerry?

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean the Halperin memo? One problem with trying to discuss this issue with right-wing fantacists is that they're too far removed from reality to justify atempting discourse.

Here's the key portion of the memo which you concludes is an instruction from ABC that reporters "should be harder on Bush than Kerry": "We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that." Drudge