The Media Research Center points to media coverage of John McCain and Barack Obama and...hold on...better sit down...coverage of Obama has been more positive and coverage of McCain has been more negative.
A Pew report which came out Oct 29 compared Fox News and MSNBC, finding that on MSNBC McCain received about 7x as much negative coverage as positive, while Obama received 4x as much positive than negative. The picture at Fox News, while not equal, was far more balanced.
A Pew report on Oct. 22 found overall coverage of McCain was more than 4x more negative than positive (57% negative, 14% positive). The numbers were more even for Obama, with positive coverage still coming out ahead at 36% positive versus 29% negative.
The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University also found a strong bias in the "mainstream" media. They found 65% positive coverage for Obama versus 36% for McCain
I wonder if McCain has finally awaken to what we've been trying to tell him for years: while veering Left on some issues with get you momentary love from the "mainstream" media, it is fleeting, and as soon as they face a choice between you and someone more liberal, you're the proverbial hot potato, pal.
It must be nice for the Democrats to have a massive propaganda operation to polish your message, filter out the criticism, and put a microscope on the other guy's flaws.
Too bad (for the country) their ideas aren't forced to compete on a level field in the public arena. Without the hype and manipulation, I'm convinced the American people would reject their un-American ideas nearly every time.
With propaganda offices like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, et al, it's a wonder conservatives ever achieve anything.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
The Color of Bias: The 'Mainstream' Media in 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Were it not for the media, would Obama not have won?
Can we become citizen activists and journalists to change the mainstream media? Hold them accountable by getting them on camera talking about their biases?!?! Become part of the ODM wiki and see for yourself.
In your excitement to blame the media for the country's problems, and to adapt a kindergartener's idea of fairness, you've ignored the possibility that perhaps Obama was simply a better candidate.
Considered...and long ago abandoned.
Sorry, but I just can't make the following characteristics fit within any reasonable definition of "better candidate":
- No executive experience
- Associates with an admitted terrorist
- Associates with an admitted Marxist
- Associates with an avowed enemy of the United States
- Surrounded by people who loathe the United States
- Has stated his disdain for our Constitution and the limited-government framework set up for our country
- Praises members of terrorist organizations and associates with them
- Openly spouses Marxist ideas of wealth redistribution
- Vehemently defended infanticide
- A charity cheapskate (wants government to dispense YOUR money as charity, but doesn't give his own money to charity)
- Opposes Second Amendment rights
- Naive about dealing with America's enemies
- Defeatist on the War on Terrorism and finishing the job in Iraq
- Most pro-abortion member of congress
- Supports euthanasia
- Has a myopic energy plan
- Is perfectly happy to bankrupt the coal industry and over 50% of our electricity production
- Attended a racist, anti-American church for 20 years
- Seems distrustful of "white folks"--a significant portion of Americans
- Has sworn to gut our national defense
- Has sworn to assault the family and the moral fabric of our country by advancing the homosexual agenda
You know, any way I slice it, Barack Obama<>Good Choice for America
Post a Comment