You. Don't. Say.
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Media Bias | Miscellanea — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy -- hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy -- found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.
Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."
The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.
Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. "Obama's front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton's was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative."
In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.
The study also discovered that newspaper stories "tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the 'game,' compared with 63% overall."
Television has a similar problem. Only 10% of TV stories were focused on issues, and here, too, Democrats get the better of it.
The story indicates as well that contrary to popular belief, MSNBC is friendlier to Republicans than is Fox. I guess this means that within short order, there will be calls from the netroots for the Democratic Presidential candidates to boycott MSNBC debates.
« Gray Lady strikes out with McCain? — Comments (4)
You. Don't. Say. 4 Comments (0 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I know it won't happen, as Rush reminds us every day. But the fact that conservatism is actually still viable and in some ways and some places going strong is testament to the basic conservatism of this country. The Drive-Bys throw everything they have at conservatism constantly and yet the Dems are struggling.
In spite of the fact that liberalism is the easy and mindless way of the ignorant, easily fooled, and mind-controlled, conservatism is the true natural order of things that flows naturally from human nature, our understanding of human existence and the facts of the real world. Liberalism is a carefully constructed and maintained artifice that completely flies in the face of reality; otherwise they would never have to work so hard to try to snow all of us all the time.
Fortunately it's getting harder and harder for them (the so-called liberal elites) to convince us (the mindless masses too stupid to know what's good for us).
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Slightly OT and sorry if this was covered long ago. "The Matrix" (mainly the 1st one) is one of my favorite movies and I just had to refresh my memory on which pill did what. Did anyone else notice the Blue pill maintains the artificial construct and the Red pill reveals true reality? Blue vs. Red. I don't know if the creator accidentally stumbled upon it but in our world here, blue IS the artificial construct and red IS the real world.
I'll tie this together: the media is devoted to maintaining the blue pill construct. The new media and conservatism in general are devoted to administering the red pill to everyone brave and curious enough to take it and see the world as it really is.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Since the Matrix was released in 1999 and filmed 1997 - 1998 and the entire red state, blue state election map did not take hold until the 2000 elections, you'd be grossly wrong.
In fact prior to 2000 television stations did not coordinate their reds and blues:
"Early on, the most common—though again, not universal—color scheme was to use red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. This was the color scheme employed by NBC—David Brinkley famously referred to the 1984 map showing Reagan's 49-state landslide as a "sea of blue", but this color scheme was also employed by most newsmagazines."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
So by your logic, the directors most likely remembered the Republican blue correlation (pre-2000) and Republicans actually represent the "artificial construct"
Despite this survey and others over the years they know the media is letting Bush slide and Republicans in general. They know that such surveys are funded by Richard Mellon Scarife or Rupert Murdoch, as well as other Republican billionaires.
You put the evidence under their snotty noses and it vaporizes in their mangled minds instantly. Even the NY Times is described as conservative by these politically obsessed robots.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville