Study: Press More Negative on Bush Than Kerry

[Utah]

A new study by the Columbia School of Journalism shows that the press was much harder on Bush than Kerry. This kinda refutes Kerry's recent complaining.

The one thing you dont really know is whether that coverage is deserved - i.e., did Bush deserve the harsher review? However, it does refute anyone who claims that the press was even handed during the election.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...edia_report_dc

[jaxmike]

I mean, what more can I say but this, no [censored]? This suprises me exactly none.

[cardcounter0]

This study is flawed.

Considering that Bush managed to stumble from one mess to another, the press should have been 100% more harsh than it was.

Contrast to Kerry, who spent much of the election wind surfing. Kind of hard to be negative when you don't actually do anything.

So the fact that there was actually negative news about Kerry, and they actually found something, anything, to say positive about Bush, shows just how biased towards the right the media is.

[cardcounter0]

Yep, me neither. The fact that the media hasn't come out and demanded Bush and Cheney be hung by the neck in a public square for treason, shows how biased they are.

"Drunk, Lying, Draft Dodging, Coke Head gets his Reward" the headlines should read under his gallows picture.

Now that would be "Fair and Balanced".

[nicky g]

Looks like an incumbency effect to me. Bush was in office during the campaign and had a higher profile and therefore had more targets to aim at, especially given the high profile divisiveness of the Iraq war (you could criticise Kerry's views on the war, but not his handling of it).

This seems to be supported by the fact that when the same people ran a similar survey for the 2000 campaign, they found a decided tilt towards Bush:

The Last Lap

For example:

"In the culminating weeks of the 2000 presidential race, the press coverage was strikingly negative, and Vice President Al Gore has gotten the worst of it, according to a new study released today by the Committee of Concerned Journalists... George W. Bush was twice as likely as Gore to get coverage that was positive in tone. "

[jaxmike]

Wow, and I thought Dead was an idiot.

[jaxmike]

"This study is flawed"

Don't like the truth eh?

[sirio11]

"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"

mmmmmmm, this is about the number of negative stories, not actually TV time running these negative stories, I would like to see a study about TV time, because I'm pretty sure the media use a lot on the swift veterans one.

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?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
because I'm pretty sure the media use a lot on the swift veterans one.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only channel that I remember giving any time to those people was Fox. The other stations basically spent their whole time bashing the swift boat group, without really having them on. Remember, when Fox had them on, they also had those who opposed them on as well.

[cardcounter0]

No, I mean 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.