DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   Press found to be more Pro-Kerry than any other candidate since '80 (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/393900-press-found-more-pro-kerry-than-any-other-candidate-since-80-a.html)

Bushdog 11-02-04 01:14 PM

Press forund to be more Pro-Kerry than any other candidate since '80
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2452-4025r.htm

Interesting.


Sen. John Kerry has gotten the white-glove treatment from the press, garnering more praise from journalists than any other presidential candidate in the last quarter-century, according to a new analysis of almost 500 news stories released today by the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
"It's not just that John Kerry has gotten better press than President Bush before this election, he's gotten better press than anyone else since 1980. That's significant," said Bob Lichter, director of the D.C.-based nonpartisan research group.
"Kerry also got better press than anyone else in the days before the primaries as well," Mr. Lichter added.
In October alone, Mr. Kerry had a "record-breaking 77 percent positive press evaluations," compared with 34 percent positive for Mr. Bush, the study states.
Unprecedented, untrammeled accolades for Mr. Kerry were more than debate-related bounce, however. Since Labor Day, he also had a total of 58 percent positive stories, with just 36 percent for Mr. Bush.
Journalists seem particularly transfixed by the Democratic challenger this year: In the 2000 election, Mr. Bush and challenger Al Gore got equally lousy press, with each receiving evaluations that were about 2-to-1 negative.
But Mr. Bush didn't get the absolute worst press on record. With only 9 percent positive stories in 1984, President Reagan got the most negative treatment by news outlets on record, the study says.
Until this year, the record-holder for journalistic praise went to Walter Mondale, who accrued 56 percent positive press evaluations, also in 1984.
"Democrats get the breaks," the study states. "In the past seven elections since 1980, the Democratic candidate has gotten significantly better press in four of those elections."
Republicans fared better in the press than Democrats in only one race -- George H.W. Bush over Michael Dukakis in 1988. The two parties shared an equal amount of press condemnation in two elections -- Bush vs. Gore in 2000 and Jimmy Carter vs. Mr. Reagan in 1980.
The study examined 491 press evaluations of the two candidates in print and broadcast reports that appeared between Oct. 1 and Oct. 22. The group compared them with news stories in comparable time periods since 1980, gleaned from their own records and those maintained by George Washington University.
Others have similar findings. A separate study of more than 800 news stories released by the District-based Project for Excellence in Journalism last week found that Mr. Bush has been "battered" by the press this October, with 59 percent of his evaluations "clearly negative in nature."
Contact Jennifer Harper at [email protected] or 202/636-3085.
And Bush got battered.

Now, I can understand the criticisms of GWB, given Iraq and the economy, but why all the love for Kerry?

Bushdog 11-02-04 01:17 PM

Oh, and I wouldn't mind if a mod could fix my spelling error in the title.

Son-volt 11-02-04 01:23 PM

It's been awhile since I read it, but if I recall correctly Eric Alterman's book "What Liberal Media" made a pretty good case for their being a lot more positive Bush stores in the maninstream media than there were positive Gore stories last time around. Granted Alterman is a liberal, but he's no more to the left than the Times are to the right.

SunMonkey 11-02-04 01:25 PM

Not surprising to me at all.

DivxGuy 11-02-04 01:26 PM


Now, I can understand the criticisms of GWB, given Iraq and the economy, but why all the love for Kerry?
Anyone but Bush?

Geofferson 11-02-04 01:29 PM

2 words: Dan Rather

dick_grayson 11-02-04 01:31 PM

according to who, the washington times? :rolleyes:

General Zod 11-02-04 01:31 PM

This can't be true. I've been told on here over and over again that if anything the press was Pro-Bush! Someone lied to me :mad:

Son-volt 11-02-04 01:32 PM


Originally posted by SunMonkey
Not surprising to me at all.
Aren't there some logical explanations for this, at least to a degree? For example, look at Bill Clinton. Love him or hate him, his tenure was marked mostly positive news (I'm being very, very general here as the world had plenty of problems ten years ago). Huge economic boom, lack of any percieved security threat, buget surplus, etc. The biggest story was an intern giving a bj.

Now take Bush. The last four years we've had economic problems, terrorist attacks, large deficits and major military action. Those stories are going to be negative.

I'm not saying Bush is horrible and Clinton was great. I'm just saying that during their tenure, the main events of record in the country for Bush were events that tended to have negative angles, and the Clinton tenure had more positives.

Mad Dawg 11-02-04 01:32 PM


Originally posted by dick_grayson
according to who, the washington times? :rolleyes:
:confused:


according to a new analysis of almost 500 news stories released today by the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

dick_grayson 11-02-04 01:34 PM


Originally posted by Mad Dawg
:confused:

.....as reported by the washington times! I just don't believe anything they print. that's all I'm saying. I'd bet the story to be true, but I am too skeptical of the Times. Plus, doesn't it have to do something with Bush and his not too popular way of running the country?

Son-volt 11-02-04 01:36 PM


Originally posted by Geofferson
2 words: Dan Rather
Dan Rather is a cop out. Tossing his name out whenever liberal bias comes up as being representitive is just as much a cheat as people on the left using Strom Thurmond as being representitive of the right's feelings on race. Dan Rather is a tool and an embarassment as far as I'm concerned, and most liberals probably beel the same way. He does damage everytime he speaks. But he represents the group as much as Thurmond does.

bfrank 11-02-04 01:37 PM

it could be more anti Bush then pro Kerry.

Thats what it is for me :D

Red Dog 11-02-04 01:40 PM

I think another reason why the press got behind Kerry is because they needed to in order to ensure a close election. The closer the election, the bigger the ratings for news.

General Zod 11-02-04 01:40 PM


Originally posted by Geofferson
2 words: Dan Rather
Exactly, and every other major network news anchor on CBS, NBC, and ABC. Rather just got caught, but the rest are just as guilty.

Bushdog 11-02-04 01:41 PM


Originally posted by Red Dog
I think another reason why the press got behind Kerry is because they needed to in order to ensure a close election. The closer the election, the bigger the ratings for news.
This is my belief, frankly.

The press cares about $$$.

Mad Dawg 11-02-04 01:42 PM


Originally posted by Red Dog
I think another reason why the press got behind Kerry is because they needed to in order to ensure a close election. The closer the election, the bigger the ratings for news.
That's true. Look at the point that Reagan received worse coverage in '84. Hell, with as huge of a landslide as that was, I'm sure there was desperation among the media to make that one a race.

Son-volt 11-02-04 01:43 PM


Originally posted by General Zod
Exactly, and every other major network news anchor on CBS, NBC, and ABC. Rather just got caught, but the rest are just as guilty.
Sorry, but I just don't see it (aside from Rather's obvious idiotic bias). From what I can tell, most right wingers see anyone that falls just to the left of Anne Coulter as a commie pinko liberal.

dick_grayson 11-02-04 01:43 PM


Originally posted by General Zod
Exactly, and every other major network news anchor on CBS, NBC, and ABC. Rather just got caught, but the rest are just as guilty.
Have you seen that clip of him when he was young and got into that scuffle at a debate? That was such good stuff. He was a whiner then and is still now.

classicman2 11-02-04 01:44 PM

2 reasons media supported Kerry:

1. That stated by Red Dog

2. They are more philosophically attuned to Kerry than they are Bush.

Red Dog 11-02-04 01:45 PM

I wonder if the news networks have 2 sets of ad-rates for November 2004. One if there is a repeat of 2000 and one if there isn't.

Chew 11-02-04 01:52 PM


Originally posted by Geofferson
2 words: Dan Rather
Three more words: Mark Halperin memo

weargle 11-02-04 02:10 PM


Originally posted by dick_grayson
.....as reported by the washington times! I just don't believe anything they print. that's all I'm saying. I'd bet the story to be true, but I am too skeptical of the Times. Plus, doesn't it have to do something with Bush and his not too popular way of running the country?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct31.html


Against this backdrop, the groups Media Tenor and the Center for Media and Public Affairs found Kerry getting the best television coverage of any presidential candidate since the latter group began such studies in 1988. From Oct. 1 to 22, the network evening newscasts carried stories with just 23 percent negative evaluations of Kerry, compared with 64 percent negative evaluations of Bush. Kerry had a slimmer lead in September, with 49 percent negative coverage to the president's 66 percent. Fox's "Special Report" was three times more anti-Kerry and yet more balanced, with comments about both candidates this month 68 percent negative.

Reporters' liberal leanings might account for some of this, along with the rave reviews for Kerry's debate performances, but it also seems likely that coverage of news developments in Iraq and elsewhere were seen as hurting Bush. One "negative" comment cited by the study came from CBS's Rather: "It's the first net job loss on a president's watch since Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression of the 1930s." But that also happens to be factually accurate.
Better now?????? Since it's been published in the Washington Post too, it must now be Gospel.

weargle 11-02-04 02:11 PM

http://www.cmpa.com/documents/04.10.29.Kerry.Final.pdf

dick_grayson 11-02-04 02:11 PM


Originally posted by weargle
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct31.html



Better now?????? Since it's been published in the Washington Post too, it must now be Gospel.

relax, I just don't like to believe everything I read. cool out! everyone just cool out!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 AM.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.