Tuesday, October 26, 2004

That liberal media...

Via Drudge, "New Study Finds Media Favored Kerry in First Two Weeks of October:"

A new study for the non-partisan Project for Excellence in Journalism suggests that in the first two weeks of October, during the period of the presidential debates, George W. Bush received much more unfavorable media coverage than Sen. John Kerry.

[...]

In the final accounting, 59% of stories that were mainly about Bush told a mainly negative story, while 25% of Kerry stories played out that way. One in three stories about Kerry were positive, one in seven for Bush.

While bias could be a factor, there are other possible explanations. Fully 40% of stories logged by the researchers had to do with the debates, where Kerry was generally seen as "winning" or doing very well, especially in debate number one. Another 9% concerned Iraq, with many setbacks during this period for the U.S. that also would drive Bush's negatives up unrelated to the campaign. In fact, nearly one in four stories on Bush were related to Iraq.


I wonder why Kerry was seen as winning the debates... could it be that the media creates the molds the way people percieve the outcome? Obviously. But, I'll grant that, especially in the first debate, Kerry was percieved as the clear winner by about everyone but me, partisan hack that I am.

And, also, Iraq probably is a legitimate reason for more negative stories. It's no secret that things are rough there, it would just be nice to get some historical perspective from the papers. For example, are things really that mismanaged in Iraq compared to other wars? At a D-Day training exercise more than 700 men perished. And the media today harps when "0.00005% of the known existing weapons" have disappeared from an Iraqi cache, but even then, probably before we got there (also check out the pictures at that link for some perspective). And, even then the story was started by a man with an axe to grind.

And plus, there is always good news from Iraq, but good news just doesn't sell for the purveyors of propaganda and pessimism.

But still, 59% negative for Bush, 25% negative for Kerry? Kerry would have been completely and utterly destroyed had we had a fair press. His whole plan for Iraq boils down to "I will do better because I'm John Kerry." He lied about meeting with the security council, which is very significant when his whole campaign is based around his supposed diplomatic charm He has accused Bush of mishandling Tora Bora when he (Kerry) supported Bush at the time. He has predicated his whole campaign on his ability to woo allies, when France and Germany have already explicity said they won't help out.

I could go on. The point is, is that there are no dearth of stories on Kerry's faults. The problem is, is that the stories might hit the papers once and run on page A-60. This study adds more evidence to the liberal bias of most media--but really, if you still aren't convinced, I bet Jesus himself could descend from the heavens, show you the wounds on his hands, and that still wouldn't be enough.

Oh... wait. Nevermind. I forgot. If there was a liberal bias, we wouldn't know, because then the media wouldn't tell us about it. Obviously.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home