Debate Over: Even Uber-Liberal Harvard Finds Media Biased to favor Liberal Dems

TheDanold

TheDanold

Unimatrix
So much for the kookoo views of Desh, ib1, BAC and other far lefties who think the "corporate" media is biased for the right.

"Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. "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."
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124
 
Uber liberal Harvard, where Bush and many like him went to college ? Home of the skull and bones ? Ivy league and all that ?
 
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."
//

Umm that could be because Republicans suck ?
Truth about the Republicans hurts and reporting is not liberal.
 
uscitizen said:
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."
//

Umm that could be because Republicans suck ?
Truth about the Republicans hurts and reporting is not liberal.
Click to expand...
If someone in the media decided to report negatively on Republicans because THEY thought they sucked then that would be bias.
There is no truth or falsehoods on opinions, which thinking someone sucks or doesn't clearly falls under.
 
Danold,

I must give credit where credit is due, and by golly you my friend deserve a lot of credit for still playing the violin while the Titanic is sinking beneath your feet. Most of your conservative shipmates have already abandoned ship.

You dig intensely for any smidgen of evidence to prove that your side of the political fence ain't crazy .. that it wasn't your side of the political fence that is responsible for the disastrous course America has been set on .. that it isn't your side of the political divide that is responsible for the worst military and strategic disaster in American history.

It doesn't take studies or polls to recognize that there is no liberal bias in the media, most especially in news reporting. If there was this nation would have never invaded Iraq.

Why is the vast majority of America NOW against the war .. NOW? It's because they got better information to base an informed decision on and that information did not come from MSM.
 
If anything, what I see in the media over the years is more of a "backlash" slant.

In 2000, Gore got positively hammered by the media; every mistake was blown up to the Nth degree, and they often seemed to take their cues directly from Bush's campaign. It was impossible to watch. At that time, Bush was the "new" thing, and there was Clinton fatigue.

Same in '04, where Kerry was killed & the media was "swiftvet central" for the last few months of the campaign. The backlash there came from Rathergate; it was an overcompensation, lest anyone be targeted as "liberally biased."

And, as has been noted, the media may as well have been members of Cheney's extended family in the lead-up to the Iraq War.

Now, I do see more favorable stories for the Democrats, for the most part; this has a lot to do with Bush fatigue & Iraq, much more than any sort of liberal bias.
 
So, judging from the responses, the debate is only really over in Dano's head, where debate on every topic is over, and facts need not apply.
 
TheDanold said:
So much for the kookoo views of Desh, ib1, BAC and other far lefties who think the "corporate" media is biased for the right.

"Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. "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."
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124
Click to expand...

There just isn't much good to say about the Republicans this time around.

I know I used to hate people who did this, but I'm probably going to be voting straight-ticket this election. I can't think of a single Republican I want to vote for, besides possibly insurance commissioner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top