|
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. Now, I can understand the criticisms of GWB, given Iraq and the economy, but why all the love for Kerry? |
Oh, and I wouldn't mind if a mod could fix my spelling error in the title.
|
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.
|
Not surprising to me at all.
|
Now, I can understand the criticisms of GWB, given Iraq and the economy, but why all the love for Kerry? |
2 words: Dan Rather
|
according to who, the washington times? :rolleyes:
|
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:
|
Originally posted by SunMonkey Not surprising to me at all. 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. |
Originally posted by dick_grayson according to who, the washington times? :rolleyes: according to a new analysis of almost 500 news stories released today by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. |
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? |
Originally posted by Geofferson 2 words: Dan Rather |
it could be more anti Bush then pro Kerry.
Thats what it is for me :D |
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.
|
Originally posted by Geofferson 2 words: Dan Rather |
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. The press cares about $$$. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
2 reasons media supported Kerry:
1. That stated by Red Dog 2. They are more philosophically attuned to Kerry than they are Bush. |
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.
|
Originally posted by Geofferson 2 words: Dan Rather |
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? 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. |
|
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. |
where is that quote from the editor of Newsweek
|
Obviously forged memos come out about supposed problems with Bush's National Guard record. It's jumped on by everybody until it's proven patently false, then only the originating network refuses to see the light.
A book written by 280 Swift Boat vets, numerous ones which served with and alongside Kerry with supposed problems with Kerry's war medals and anti-war activism. The only network that even interviews any of the members is Fox News. Now, tell me there is no bias. |
Originally posted by darkflounder Now, tell me there is no bias. |
Originally posted by Son-volt There's tons of blatant bias all over the place. Just look at Fox News :) |
Originally posted by classicman2 Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and most most of the major newspapers However, where I do see tons of media bias in in terms of self-promotion. When Fox has the World Series, their news spends more time covering the World Series as an important piece of news. When "The Apprentice" is doing well, NBC spends more time talking about "the newest reality sensation!" in a bit on their news show. 48 hours softballs stories that may tick off sponsors. CBS buries the Reagan movie even though it was kinder to the Gipper than Primary Colors was to Bubba, etc. |
Originally posted by Bushdog Oh, and I wouldn't mind if a mod could fix my spelling error in the title. - David Stein |
"Bias" is one of those terms that people just throw around in an attempt to simply invalidate an argument. As if "bias"="wrong". Perhaps the reason that Kerry has received better press is because there are better things to say about him.
Objectivity does not mean that one side cannot be favored over the other. As far as I've seen, none of the news coverage has been showing blind favoritism, including Fox News (the pure news, not the opinion shows). Let's say for argument's sake that the "truth" is that Kerry IS in fact, the better candidate. Then, if the media has better articles about him, then they are in fact, being accurate and unbiased. A lot of people here seem to like to use the argument that because a media outlet has an argument that shows one of the candidates in a favorable light, it's proof that they are biased. Ergo, they are wrong. |
Originally posted by hahn "Bias" is one of those terms that people just throw around in an attempt to simply invalidate an argument. As if "bias"="wrong". Perhaps the reason that Kerry has received better press is because there are better things to say about him. Objectivity does not mean that one side cannot be favored over the other. As far as I've seen, none of the news coverage has been showing blind favoritism, including Fox News (the pure news, not the opinion shows). Let's say for argument's sake that the "truth" is that Kerry IS in fact, the better candidate. Then, if the media has better articles about him, then they are in fact, being accurate and unbiased. A lot of people here seem to like to use the argument that because a media outlet has an argument that shows one of the candidates in a favorable light, it's proof that they are biased. Ergo, they are wrong. I often wonder why this is so hard to understand. |
so yall are arguing Kerry is the best person to run for President since '80?
|
Hahn, is, of course, right. My general point was that the negativity they speak of re: Bush is understandable, but the positivity re: Kerry is hard to understand. As a lifelong Democrat I find him inoffensive but hardly an inspiring story or a man of vision.
|
Originally posted by dick_grayson relax, I just don't like to believe everything I read. cool out! everyone just cool out! |
Originally posted by hahn "Bias" is one of those terms that people just throw around in an attempt to simply invalidate an argument. As if "bias"="wrong". Perhaps the reason that Kerry has received better press is because there are better things to say about him. |
Originally posted by wendersfan This is a fascinating theory, but how does that explain how, until this election, the candidate with the most positive press was Walter Mondale? Political bias does explain it, however. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:42 AM. |
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.