Now a slam dunk fact, the media has a liberal bias - LINK

[redrumloa]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200810 ... tico/14982

We were all set to dismiss Harris’ mother as a crank. Same for VandeHei’s: a conservative dismayed by what she sees as kid-glove treatment of Barack Obama. Then along came a study — funded by the prestigious Pew Research Center, no less — suggesting at first blush, at least, that they may be on to something.

Well duh :roll:

The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.

What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).

You call that balanced?

OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.

Yup, double duh :roll:

The article then goes on long winded trying to explain why it is ok to be biased.

Then there is Rolling Stone:

:roll:

 

[faethor]

Looking at Obama or McCain stories only is myoptic in figuring out if the news is liberal or conservative. There are more issues then 2 candidates.

If we look at campaigns Obama is getting more out turn from the population. The conclusion of media liberal bias is inaccurate. Instead the media is here to sell their wares and make profit on the news. More positive stories of the candidate where the people are more excited about and show this by attendence is tracking populism. The news is tracking the popular to make the profits. Describing the news as populist profiteers is more accurate, IMO, than Pew's conclusion.

Another failure of Pew is they didn't look at is what is the media is not reporting. Obama's bad is out there in the media Ayers, and his preacher for example. Palin's preacher and her wacky 6,000 year old earth has next to no coverage. McCain's own association with terrist Liddy is non-existent in mainstream media. Stories on the Keating Scandal have minor airtime. There's no analysis of the family values issues this helps hids McCain's mistress and divorce. It seems to me the media is good at covering the negatives in Obama's personal life but are quite mum about McCain's personal life negatives.

Magazine covers are of interest. But certainly McCain and Palin have had quite a few themselves. Time, Newsweek, and Esquire are mags I can think of off the top of my head that had pro-McCain articles and McCain was on the cover.

 

[Glaucus]

The media tend to follow trends, and since Obama is currently leading the popularity contest (and purchasing way more ad space from the media), more attention is given to him. Much like how Nader is being completely ignored because no one really cares.