Harvard says what most knew but the left denies; Media favors Dems and condemns Republicans

You know this will not matter to the extreme left, they will still say that the media supports the right and the republicans more than the democrats. Even though you see that the Democrats will always get better press coverage, they will not admit to it.

I always thought the media favored the "truth" and if that makes Republicans look bad it is not the media's fault.

Well, duh. Harvard just confirmed what we all already knew. The media is liberal. The liberal media prefers the Dems...and they find ways to cover them and ignore the Republicans, unless it's something negative.

It has nothing to do with the truth Karl, It is media bias. You have claimed that you were objective when you were a reporter you would not fit in now. Even you cant deny the bias, can you?

It's just because the republiCONS have nothing to say , except tax cuts , more war , no gay marriage , god in government , and no flag burning.

All of it "old" news.

How is that differnet form the dems. Surrender, run-away, socialism, and cheering against America?

That was a very poorly-written and biased editorial by Investors Business Daily. And, the conclusions that they reached are misleading.

The survey was done during a period when Barack Obama was being fawned over, and during a period when John McCain was getting hammered by Republicans regarding Iraq and immigration. If you take those two key story lines out of the January thru May study, you find that the coverage was virtually equal in positive-negative-neutral between D's and R's. (Not only that, but you'd see that the plurality of stories were deemed to be NEUTRAL.) You'd also find that coverage of frontrunners Clinton and Giuliani was deeemed VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL.

Not that I'd expect my friends on the right to dig deeper when the surface story appears to fit your agenda. But, it is pretty easy to do. I Googled the name of the entity that lead the study, clicked on an ABC article, and lo and behold, that outlet linked to the study (IBD did not.) Here's the link to the executive summary: http://journalism.org/node/8187

Here's an example of poorly-written material in the IBD editorial:
The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition." There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program's disparaging reports.
***
"more than a third as often"? "one-fifth of the program's disparaging reports"? Does IBD proofread their gobbledy-gook? Both of those inaccurately cut against the point that they were trying to (misleadingly) make.

"You'd also find that coverage of frontrunners Clinton and Giuliani was deeemed VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL."

Last I heard those two were not the only ones in the race. The only way to tell the difference between those two loosers is the party they represent.

Col-

You are right on. They agree with each other on EVERYTHING

Goll' Dang IT!!

Looks like "the chive" and paul w. already said all I had to say.

Colonel: I wasn't trying to imply anything about those two being the only two in the race, or anything about their positions. I was simply pointing out that the media's coverage of those two - the frontrunners in their respective parties - was virtually identical. Maybe that's not surprising in that frontrunners tend to get more attention and (generally) more negative attention. But, it is noteworthy that they were treated the same by the media because it helps to disprove the spin that IBD, Rush and Co. are trying to put on this.

But, since you brought it up, two points: maybe that Clinton and Giuliani are each closer to the center of the right/left political spectrum than their respective primary opponents tells us something about where most Americans think we should be. And, by the way, they differ on many, many things - as I am sure we will see if they face each other in the general.

(Sorry I beat you to the punch, Bill's Spirit; I doubt that'll happen again. ;-)

It's a glorious day when libs renounce an impartial study done by one of there own prestigous instutions. Next in common since news-Harvard is planing on releasing a report that has discovered water is wet. who knew??

You'd also find that coverage of frontrunners Clinton and Giuliani was deemed VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL-----weird when a republican who has seemingly no conservative positions says the same thing as the media's beloved flip-flop princess, said republican receives the same coverage.

favorable Democratic coverage because the press sees the writing on the wall and that's where the exciting race is: Black Guy vs. Strong Woman.... ignoring entirely the Same Old Fat Douchebag White Dudes. Please tell us how you reaaly feel. Evidently the most important issue we need to be focusing on is not having a white male president.
It seems to me that instead of highlighting the fight of 'the never has vs. the never has vs. the always has' we could instead try and figuire who is actually the best candidate for the job reguardless of their sex and skin. But hey thats just the opinion of a so-called racist, sexist, fundamentlist what do I know?

MDP you know I love you personally but what a bunch of crap. There is no accurate way to study this subject. Just more hype to keep the left and the right at each others throats.

Another bullshit conclusion to a focused study.

Neither the article in the Investor Business Daily nor Mildly Dull Pushover, note that this study focused on less than six months of coverage of the current Presidential campaigns.

This study does not support the old right wing myths about media bias, it shows the levels of interest in campaigns.

If you want to look at "bias", consult the studies in which the media use Bush terms to discuss current events. Until the elections in 06, the Republican noise machine succeeded in substituting "War Against Terror" for "War in Iraq" on a massive scale.

And, the White House dominated all the news media in discussion of the war.

In '04 and '06, most media gave a majority of favorable stories and placements to Republicans. The same kinds of studies that Mud-Dwelling Plutocrat now heralds demonstrated similar advantages for Republiocans in those periods.

One concludes that the media interest follows it's own strange rules of what is interesting and newsworthy -not a political party line.

The exception is Faux News.

No media organization of comparable size is dominated by one party as Fox News operates as a blatant propaganda arm of the Republican Party.

CNN

Todd, thank you for demonstrating your ability to either mis-read or to just blindly spin. Noone on this thread "renounce(d)" the study. We DID discuss news coverage in general. We DID criticize the inaccurate portrayals of the study in right-wing media and pointed out specific examples of how that coverage mischaracterized the study. We DID provide a link to the study.

MDP: CNN does not meet Peter's statement. And, it is interesting that you could not provide any substantive defenses of the IDB EDITORIAL you posted, in light of the thoughtful responses from Peter and The Chive.

Your welcome Paul, but next time wait till I actually do it before you throw me a compliment, It's kind of embarrasing receiving unearned praise, but thanks for the thought.

I love consistency.

no bias in the media of course but Fox is a propaganda device...interesting to see that universal

Charles? Charles? Are you OK?

Hello, ModernDay Publius. Not to take your article on a tangent, but I'm wondering...Do you think that reporters and organizations should be fully transparent about bias, going so far as to outline who they voted for and why?