Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Stringer on March 14, 2005, 02:56:35 PM
-
Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush
By Claudia Parsons | March 14, 2005
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday.
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.
Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
The study looked at 16 newspapers of varying size across the country, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable programs and nine Web sites through the course of 2004.
Examining the public perception that coverage of the war in Iraq was decidedly negative, it found evidence did not support that conclusion. The majority of stories had no decided tone, 25 percent were negative and 20 percent were positive, it said.
The three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative.
Looking at public perceptions of the media, the report showed that more people thought the media was unfair to both Kerry and Bush than to the candidates four years earlier, but fewer people thought news organizations had too much influence on the outcome of the election.
"It may be that the expectations of the press have sunk enough that they will not sink much further. People are not dismayed by disappointments in the press. They expect them," the authors of the report said.
The study noted a huge rise in audiences for Internet news, particularly for bloggers whose readers jumped by 58 percent in six months to 32 million people.
Despite the growing importance of the Web, the report said investment was not keeping pace and some 62 percent of Internet professionals reported cutbacks in the newsroom in the last three years, even more than the 37 percent of print, radio and TV journalists who cited cutbacks in their newsrooms.
"For all that the number of outlets has grown, the number of people engaged in collecting original information has not," the report said, noting that much of the investment was directed at repackaging and presenting information rather than gathering news.
I voted for a write-in candidate, but in the for what its worth column.......
-
I wonder if that's just the general rule and that coverage is typically negative against any incumbent president.
-
That's my thought as well, Sandman.
-
thats not news, well ok , maybe it's news to some people.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I wonder if that's just the general rule and that coverage is typically negative against any incumbent president.
Only if he is Republican.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Only if he is Republican.
I second that Mighty1 :aok Let's not forgot what a victim they tried to make poor old Wilbur Jefferson Clinton look like. Mainstream media had blinders on for him regarding many issues. Dubya can't wipe his *** without being under the electron microscope.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Only if he is Republican.
Actually there may some truth to that. At least for the last couple elections anyway
I remember during the election comming across a study that came to just that conclusion when compairing coverage of the Re election bid of Bush compaired to Clinton.
Dunno if I have the link or not still but I'll see if I can find it.
On the other hand it was a long time ago but I dont seem to remember the press being particularly hard on Regan.
But then again the press seemed to me to like Regan.
-
so what's new?
if this is news to anyone, they are stoned, stupid or both
-
That poor man. Having all that hard questioning to deal with.
My heart bleeds for him.:rolleyes:
-
They might as well have done a study to determine the sky appears the color blue to us lol.
-
Maybe the press is just harder on the guy who makes expensive mistakes and can't speak English too well?
-
blank stare.
-
The same (I believe) study found the "liberal media" more negative on Gore than Bush in 2000. So what about them apples?
Whatever. Cry about it if ya want. I'm going with Funked's answer.
-
So what about them apples?
I like apples. Mmmmmmmmmmm apple pie.
-
Originally posted by Nash
The same (I believe) study found the "liberal media" more negative on Gore than Bush in 2000. So what about them apples?
Whatever. Cry about it if ya want. I'm going with Funked's answer.
Hmmm - A study done by ….. Liberals – No? Maybe Mainstream Media (Liberal Agenda Driven) or how about some neutral group funded by ….. Liberals? Rough on Gore - appearances can be deceiving. As far as Funked's answer goes his words could pertain to many of our leaders past and present. Remember – Al Gore invented this place.
-
Well, do you suppose Jeff Gannon was "harder" on Bush?
-
Originally posted by EN4CER
Hmmm - A study done by ….. Liberals – No? Maybe Mainstream Media (Liberal Agenda Driven) or how about some neutral group funded by ….. Liberals? Rough on Gore - appearances can be deceiving. As far as Funked's answer goes his words could pertain to many of our leaders past and present. Remember – Al Gore invented this place.
Wot?
The same study that found that the media was rougher on Bush (v Kerry), was rougher on Gore (v Bush).
You applaud one finding, and for the other you fire off the snivveling "liberal bias" line.
Come on man.
You either find them trustworthy, in both instances, or you don't.
-
Did you expect an intelligent reply? Silly.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You applaud one finding, and for the other you fire off the snivveling "liberal bias" line.
I don't recognize the study you are referring to at all. I personally feel the mainstream media has been hard on republicans for many years. The mainstream media was vicious on Bush this election right from CBS news down to my favorite slob Mike Moore. Coincidently the subject of mainstream media bias starts popping up all over and about time. All of sudden mainstream media says “OK – we were hard on Bush this election but we’re not biased at all why we were harder on Gore in 2000.” I don't buy it - To me that’s typical liberal spin. Isn’t it nice Nash that you and I can establish a competitive dialogue like this all because Al Gore created this place?
-
This just in... Michael Moore is not mainstream media.
-
Originally posted by EN4CER
I don't recognize the study you are referring to at all. I personally feel the mainstream media has been hard on republicans for many years. The mainstream media was vicious on Bush this election right from CBS news down to my favorite slob Mike Moore. Coincidently the subject of mainstream media bias starts popping up all over and about time. All of sudden mainstream media says “OK – we were hard on Bush this election but we’re not biased at all why we were harder on Gore in 2000.” I don't buy it - To me that’s typical liberal spin. Isn’t it nice Nash that you and I can establish a competitive dialogue like this all because Al Gore created this place?
You know what?
You just jampacked so much retardedness into such a small but furious blur of type that it's... well... it's not really that ideal of a scenario to try and wade through it piece by idiotic piece. "Where to start" becomes a bonafied show stopper.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
This just in... Michael Moore is not mainstream media.
When he tries to push his film into every home in this country I consider him to be mainstream media.
-
Originally posted by EN4CER
When he tries to push his film into every home in this country I consider him to be mainstream media.
I've asked a million times at least... please do not exaggerate.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I've asked a million times at least... please do not exaggerate.
Ok - I left out my home.
-
Originally posted by EN4CER
As far as Funked's answer goes his words could pertain to many of our leaders past and present. Remember – Al Gore invented this place.
Gore sucks balls, but he never made any FUBARs on the order of Chimpler's easter egg hunt in Iraq.
-
Looking at public perceptions of the media, the report showed that more people thought the media was unfair to both Kerry and Bush than to the candidates four years earlier, but fewer people thought news organizations had too much influence on the outcome of the election.
"It may be that the expectations of the press have sunk enough that they will not sink much further. People are not dismayed by disappointments in the press. They expect them," the authors of the report said.
That's the only part of the article worth reading.
-
Good lord.... I thought we left this stuff behind us.
Originally posted by Sandman
I've asked a million times at least... please do not exaggerate.
LOL
-
Originally posted by Mini D
That's the only part of the article worth reading.
Well... if you think so... thats all Im reading, then. :aok