A study by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism found that coverage of the 2004 election tended to be weighted towards John Kerry:
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.
This shouldn’t be a big surprise considering the ideological bent of 90% of the American media.
And the perpetual victimhood of those poor, mistreated conservatives continues….
It’s not a surprising statistic, given that Bush is about twice as bad as Kerry.
Hmm. Seems to me that instead of clinging to the role of victim, conservatives have done something proactive when faced by adversity, by way of creating their own means of getting their ideas out.
Dem’s, on the other hand, clamor for government programs and censures when they assume the all-to-familiar mantle of “victimhood”.
Mark, recognizing clear evidence of media bias as reported by no less a media luminary as the Columbia School of Journalism hardly qualifies as whining about being a victim. That was pretty weak..
See if you can answer this question. Why would we expect the same amount of good news/bad news about two different people? Especially when only one of them is the leader of the nation?
The truth isn’t balanced.
I can understand the negativity, I mean the press blames the President, regardles of who, for alot of things. Positive stories though, hard to explain that one away. Why would there be more positive storeis about a do-little senator then the President of the United States of America?
Why would there be more positive storeis about a do-little senator then the President of the United States of America?
Because the President did more negative things? Or Kerry did more positive things?
Again, why would we expect an equal number of positive stories? If Mother Theresa gets more positive press than the Unibomber, does that indicate newspaper bias?