Wednesday, October 22, 2008

What media bias? – Fox News reports: "The Project for Excellence in Journalism's report shows John McCain's media coverage has been 57 percent negative, while Barack Obama's has been 29 percent negative."

Although the report doesn't cite provable bias, the American people smell something ain't quite right.

Update – That old poll was a 5-1 advantage for the Democrat. It's now up to 7-1: "Voters overwhelmingly believe that the media wants Barack Obama to win the presidential election. By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4."

In unrelated news, the New York Times's stock dropped another 10% today to a new 52-week low.


Anonymous said...

Yes, yes, YES. Why does the intrepid internet always have to do the real work that the liberal media won't or can't?

Great Moments in Election-Year Blogging
No matter what happens in this year’s election, the conservative blogosphere deserves to win a collective Pulitzer Prize for its election-year coverage. While the mainstream media has given Americans a very distorted picture of Barack Obama, portraying him as a thoughtful, intelligent, unflappable, decent family man who has the temperament and judgment to be President, the conservative blogosphere has been the only place where you can get the real story. Hampered by quaint, old-fashioned rules of journalism that require citing evidence and reputable sources, the mainstream media has failed to report a number of important stories about Obama and the conservative blogosphere has had to step up and do the media’s job for them. As a public service I have collected some of the most important of these stories in one place. Pulitzer Prize judges, take note!

Some of the stories below are shocking and even hard to believe, but they weren’t published on crazy, fringe websites. They appeared on some of the most distinguished and well-respected sites on the Internet. The bloggers and online journalists who published them have staked their reputations and their sacred honor on the veracity of these reports. To doubt the truth of their findings, you would have to believe that an entire segment of the blogosphere has suddenly been gripped by hysteria and gone collectively insane, which is a pretty unlikely scenario.

The exceedingly hyperlinked post continues at:

Jeers! said...

The implication that the Times' stock price is down because its biased reporting is coming home to roost is really dumb.

It's all about the sinking economy killing advertising dollars. Pretty much all media companies are suffering the fallout, print outlets most of all. Once-mighty TV Guide was just sold this week for one dollar... those liberal moonbat partisans!

Audit Bureau of Circulations said...

The Times' circulation was down 3.5% from Sept. 2007 to Sept. 2008. So that means readers are rejecting the Times' brand of journalism, right?

Same period: Washington Post, down 2%. L.A. Times, down 5%. Chicago Tribune, down 7.7%. San Francisco Chronicle, down 7%. Rocky Mountain News, down 6.6%. Wall Street Journal and USA Today, down less than 1%. Baltimore Sun, down 6%. San Jose Mercury News, down 1.9%. Boston Globe, down 10%. Philadelphia Enquirer, down 11%. Philadelphia Daily News, down 13.2%. Arizona Republic, down 5.5%. Detroit Free Press, down 6.8%. Detroit News, down 10%. Miamai Herald, down 11.8%. Orlando Sentinel, down 3.3%. Denver Post, down 6.5%.

Anonymous said...

I wish people would have read the whole article, I know it was long but worth the read.

Bush had almost the same identical numbers as Obama in 2000 and 2004.
When it was perceived he was winning the elections.

Can you honestly say that McCain?Palin have run a great campaign?
Most of the negative stuff has come from their own speeches and their own actions.