Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush

[Batman]

Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday.

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.

The study looked at 16 newspapers of varying size across the country, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable programs and nine Web sites through the course of 2004.

BIG - HUGE - SHOCKING - SURPRISE!

 

[Pacridge]

Big surprise. Do dumb stuff- press reports it as dumb. Yep! big surprise there.

 

[Batman]

Big surprise. Do dumb stuff- press reports it as dumb. Yep! big surprise there.

Can always rely on your :spin:

 

[anomaly]

I wonder how many of those news sources you mentioned are from Fox news? They played and played again that swift boat story. And does this count the incredible influence from the Catholic Church to vote Republican? That influence is huge, considering about 30-40% of Americans are Catholic.

 

[Hoot]

Unfavorable news stories?

Gee...maybe they were just printing the truth?

 

[Batman]

I wonder how many of those news sources you mentioned are from Fox news?

The study looked at 16 newspapers of varying size across the country, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable programs and nine Web sites through the course of 2004.

FOX has that big of a monopoly?

And does this count the incredible influence from the Catholic Church to vote Republican? That influence is huge, considering about 30-40% of Americans are Catholic.

Not quite that huge.
24.5 - 26 percent.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_deno.htm
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/99/990122.catholic.shtml

 

[Squawker]

FOX has that big of a monopoly?

This Fox fixation is quite interesting, isn't it Batman? It seems that a lot of posts here, end up by bringing Fox into it like they are some big bad boogie man, who have so much power. The study isn't a big surprise to me. Dan Rather had to go ask the Viet-Cong about Kerry's honesty, instead of the people who actually served with him. Then he used forged documents to try to discredit President Bush's National Guard Service.

 

[Pacridge]

This Fox fixation is quite interesting, isn't it Batman? It seems that a lot of posts here, end up by bringing Fox into it like they are some big bad boogie man, who have so much power. The study isn't a big surprise to me. Dan Rather had to go ask the Viet-Cong about Kerry's honesty, instead of the people who actually served with him. Then he used forged documents to try to discredit President Bush's National Guard Service.

They did ask people who served with him. One of those guys, Jim Rassmann, lives down the street from me and to the man everyone who actually served with Kerry supported the man. I have yet to hear one guy who actual served time on Kerry's boat come out against him. It's always- "I knew a guy who told me..."

 

[Squawker]

have yet to hear one guy who actual served time on Kerry's boat come out against him.

That's because the ones on the boat, didn't see what the other men saw. The evidense against Kerry was overwhelming, yet the left wing media refused to air it, or even interview the Swift Boat Vets.

 

[anomaly]

FOX has that big of a monopoly?


Not quite that huge.
24.5 - 26 percent.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_deno.htm
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/99/990122.catholic.shtml

Well, I think you misread something. I was asking if any of those sources were Fox News, not saying they all were. Also, as regards to the Catholic Church, even if those numbers are correct, that is a huge influence over politics.

 

[Pacridge]

That's because the ones on the boat, didn't see what the other men saw. The evidense against Kerry was overwhelming, yet the left wing media refused to air it, or even interview the Swift Boat Vets.

Sure that make perfect sense. Guys serving side by side couldn't see what was going on right next to them. But guy's on boats up or down river could. Or in the case of many speaking so vocally against Kerry- weren't even in the same jungle at the same time.

And the Swift Boat guys were on my news channels 24/7 for about 3 to 4 weeks solid. I must of slipped a cog that month (late July- early August 2004) and watched nothing but right wing nut job news shows. In fact I saw their main man O'Neil talking on one show in Sept. what a great blitz it turned out to be. That they didn't even need to pay to air their Ads in many states because TV news shows were airing it for them for free. Da*n liberal media.

 

[26 X World Champs]

BIG - HUGE - SHOCKING - SURPRISE!

I guess if you start a war and kill tens of thousands of people the odds of poor new-stories increase? How shocking is that? I guess running up trillions of dollars in tax cuts that benefit almost no one might cause some resentment? It seems that trading a trillion dollar surplus for gigantic deficits may, just may, cause negative press?

The real question is not Bush v. Kerry. How about a history of Incumbent v. Challenger using the same measuring sticks? Is there a difference? I wonder what Nixon's positive press was v. McGovern, or Clinton v. Bob Dole?

The Republicans are such sore winners, you would think that they feel like they lost with all of this 'woe is me, poor George' whining....

 

[26 X World Champs]

That's because the ones on the boat, didn't see what the other men saw. The evidense against Kerry was overwhelming, yet the left wing media refused to air it, or even interview the Swift Boat Vets.

Right, and there were WMDs found in Iraq after we invaded, and Saddam was building Nukes! If Kerry was as you claimed, why then is he a decorated hero?

You're PREJUDICE against anything anti-Bush/anti-Republican has blinded your ability to accept truths that bother you. Here's a fact for you, hating the truth, denying the truth, trying to discredit the truth does NOT change the truth.

One more thought? Kerry came out against the Vietnam war, which by all accounts was a war we lost, and more than 50,000 lives were WASTED in Vietnam. Vietnam SUCKED. Anyone who had the balls to stand up against it IS a hero. There is no defending the Vietnam War. It was the biggest mistake this country has ever made. The brave soldiers who were used as political tools for all the wrong reasons should be the angriest of all since they were the ones who were screwed and killed.

 

[Batman]

Well, I think you misread something. I was asking if any of those sources were Fox News, not saying they all were.

If one or more of those sources were FOX NEWS, the outcome of the study was still the same - more positive stories about Kerry.
So your beef is...?

 

[Batman]

I guess if you start a war and kill tens of thousands of people the odds of poor new-stories increase? How shocking is that?

:boohoo: You're breaking my heart. The study was about ELECTION COVERAGE - the point of view in which the candidates were covered. If the study was called Bush started a war and killed tens of thousands of people, then your theory would make more sense.