So much for "Left-Wing Media Bias": "Obama's coverage was 28 percent positive, 72 percent negative. For McCain, the split was 43/57."

They are owned by big business! Why does that surprise you? They repoted the swift boat lies 10-1 against Bushs failures. THERE IS NO LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS. Kristol a NeoCon was laughing about it on Fox. He coined the phrase and said he never imagined it would stick that well.

nah I think it has to do with a few things.. obama is popular and relatively unknown.. smackign him down a notch or two is great for ratings.
Mccain gets angry and quits interviews if you press him too hard.. great for a ssound ite, not greta for the news Obama has made himself more availible than the so called straight talk express mccain, who has basically shut out reporters this time(he used to be wide open now you need an appointment) and last and most important this election is worth BILLIONS with a huge B to the networks. both will spend tons of our donations on ad's.. people spend more when races are close

edit.. I mean the POW john mccain gets angry.. please don't skewer me GOPrs

George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs and Frank rich determine that the media doesn't hold a liberal bias.

Wow, profound. I guess that wraps up that discussion. Case closed. Onto the next subject.

A perfect example of the conservative pro McCain bias is this Katie Couric Interview where they not only edited a massive McCain senior moment out of the interview but they actually inserted video of him responding to a different question to make him appear like he wasn't senile.

Then again Katie Couric eagerly asks McCain the same softball question over and over because he keeps failing to sound intelligent.

Fascinating. Is this becoming more common, or just more well-known (swapping out video footage) Not to get too far off-topic, but I recently came across another report of CNN swapping out footage of Gori in Georgia for footage of a village in S. Ossetia, allegedly showing Russian bombing of a village deep within Georgia.

So I'm wondering how common docu--lying has become? Are all video-news clips now suspect?

I read the NYT and WaPo. All this "poor Obama" trashed by the media is nothing more than garbage so they have something to blat about. Since it is not fact, they will blat as if it were. Obama gets the majority of the headlines and they are all favorable. McCain always gets a negative headline and typically the article follows. So if the Times is going to do a story about themselves, at the very least tell the truth. Cowards are a dime a dozen, try to be something more.

pansycritter

What MSM do you watch? Evidently not the ones I and the rest of America watch. Republicans are deaf and blind to anything Teflon John says or does..

Obama gets the majority of the headlines and they are all favorable.

surely you have some research to back that up?

The NYT is just trying to get some creditability back, they are losing readers at a fast pace. They ran this article in hopes it would pull the sheet back over the liberal face and they will continue reading blindly, by the looks of it, it has worked.

Ryan, the Center for Media and Public Affairs did the study addressed in this article: Media Bash Barack, Study Finds Obama Faring Worse On TV News Than McCain. The NYT did not conduct this study, they simply printed it... I'm not sure how this study is in relation to your assessment of NYT.

Conservatives will ignore any truth if it interferes with their expectations of how the world works.

The fact that an arch conservative conducted the study means nothing to them apparently.

Care to elaborate?

Even Rush limbaugh stopped calling them the liberal media, he calls them the driveby media.
and Rush is right.

Stupid entertainment news is cheap and easy and gets ratings.
trying to attack someone popular gets raitings.
freaken out about shark attacks as if they are on the rise gets ratings
they are all looking for the next oj story as well, where we are all glued to the set watchign a white bronco drive the freeway
they really have been lackign in substance for years.

This I agree with. Liberal or not, the media is out for a story/scandal/ratings. They are businesses in cutthroat competition with each other and with declining viewership given the rise of the world-wide web. They trying to make money in that environment. That is the only reason they, or any business, exists. To make a profit.

And that's how we got reality-bleeping-tv. Oh yeah, and things like CNN iReport garbage. That's not journalism either.

Matt,

that is the problem,

news use to be a loss leader and did accurate reporting. now they skew reality to maximize their profits.

That is the only reason they, or any business, exists. To make a profit.

Wrong. Profit is not the only reason for existence.

It is, in fact, that attitude that gives us crappy businesses (i.e. most of the tv media) that serve no purpose other than self. And it's that attitude that excuses these worthless businesses and allows them to exist.

That and government taxpayer bailouts when they should be allowed to go tits up. Any business that gets large enough makes them big enough to feed at the trough of the US Treasury and have legislation passed to relieve them of their tax burden which is then passed on to the working man/woman. After all, somebody has to pay the taxes. Aren't conservative values great?!! Its taken me eight years to finally figure out that conservatism is all about no regulation, no accountability, no responsibility to the employees that built the companies, and greed. Now we all know first hand what the Golden Age was all about.

Lou Dobbs is a scientific research center all on his own, he pulls polling and research data straight out of his arse.

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

Dobbs is and idiot and should not be anywhere near anything that calls itself a news reporting statation. We could use the hot air he emanates to run an entire major city.

According to Dobbs:

I'm an independent populist.

I laughed so hard I thought my eyes would explode.

Be sure to catch Lovable Louie on his worldwide comedy tour... with upcoming appearances in cities like Whitetrashville and Blowhardburg.

Be sure to tip your waitress.

Listening to Lou is like listening to a one-armed bass drum player. He's more bile than substance. If he's such a champion for the working man, as he claims ad nauseum, why is championing the big business candidate?

If he's such a champion for the working man, as he claims ad nauseum, why is championing the big business candidate?

People of his mindset believe that the best way to help the working man is by helping big business. It's a kind of trickle-down prosperity whereby you keep the job-providers happy and by extension the workers are supposed to be happy. A tax break for the employer helps the employees by keeping them employed, or so it goes.

Total phony, planted commentary.

What's disturbing is these guys have learned that they can say absolutely anything and the public will slurp it up with out question.

it's april fools day every day for the gop.

Division,

that might have worked in 1950... to bad for reaganomic dorks the globalized economy happened and now a tax break for employers just means higher profits as they off shore their operations.

The really scary thing is Dobbs and the GOP believe every word they spew. Of course, most of them haven't a shred of decency, morals or ethics.

which is kinda weird since prior to the choice everyone was "ohh, biden would be a great choice, wow, totally awesome for him".

the "drive by media" are about as easy to keep happy as a bi-polar girlfriend/boyfriend.

Bosom, huh?

The truth of the matter is anything that does not agree with the hard right way of thinking is called a Liberal and it is a far piece back to the center then all the way to the left. Witness this the right points out that right wing media blowhards are successful while Liberal media is not. I/E the liberal failures in radio etc therby proving their constant Liberal media bias is a lot of hogwash.

but everyone rushing to suckle from McCain's bosom is just disturbing.

The image certainly is...

**Must think happy thoughts**

Lol and I agree Log. Its there's this obvious hatred for Liberals but every-time I flip a channel it states Liberal media. The media loves Obama. I'm What the hell are they talking about. They bash him all day for the most ridiculous and asinine crap then say oh yeah everyone loves him. I sit there and go what are they high on peyote or something.

No, they are high on far right MONEY!

Barack Obama is getting air-time because he's a new face and hot story, not because MSM likes his politics. Or, we would see mostly positive articles on the man - and we know that isn't the case. MSM is a business, they don't get paid for professing political bias - they get paid for the number of American voters they successful catch with their web of drama.

One more point. Obama's whole little Eruope trip with major anchors following him around is much more evidence of media bais than a study that I have little faith in.

Of course you have little faith in it: it contradicts your deeply held prejudices. Argument from anecdote is a logical fallacy, and that's what you are doing here.

Prof...

Isn't the mention that Obama gets more air-time give credence to the arguement that the media is leaning to the left. Positive and negative statements aside, if Obama gets most of the air-time then its not really even.

Hardly.

Take into consideration the Obama coverage on Fox, which most certainly does not lean left. Fox gives much more airtime to negative coverage of the Obama campaign while (by comparison) virtually ignoring the McCain campaign. Fair & balanced?

Adipic:

Deeply held prejudices? Didn't I explain why I don't agree with the study. How can you compare very subjective statements, not classify most of them and publish results? Statistics can be made to say whatever you want when it comes to such subjective things.

I honestly can't stand either candidate... Obama's policies make me nervous, and McCain needs to take an Alzheimer's pill so he can remember what his policy is. Did the anchors not follow Obama to Europe? Am I mistaken? I take that as bias since they don't follow McCain around to town halls and such It's not balanced. There is a huge lean to discussing every point of Obama and discussing Mccain only when he messes up.

The media will never profess political bias but they don't have to. It can be seen in the stories they tell and what the continue to cover. Even if it is more negative, they talk about Obama non-stop. McCain gaffes are mentioned and occasionally when he makes a new ad, but the media has become a referendum on Obama not a comparison of the candidates.

As for Fox. It almost is balanced because they talk about Obama so much. Its a balance to the far right wing stuff they usually talk about. Talk radio is probably one of the only mediums where there isn't a left slant on issues.

Even take the candidates out of it (even though that is what the study was about). When the media does stories on the war, bush, etc... there are very liberal undertones to the discussions. Its not just a report on the story, there is a opinion stated there which represents a more liberal media.

Totally agree.

Won't smear McCain? Hm... I guess you don't remember THE KEATING FIVE. Smear isn't the right word... "skewer" is.

Obama gets more positive press than McCain and more negative press, for one simple reason... he gets more press. Yes the mainstream media except for Fox (i.e. ABC,NBC,CBS,MSNBC,New York Times, LA Times) DO have a pro-Obama bias. But I wonder why liberals can't just admit it? Heck, if they leaned conservative, I for one would brag about it. Please, be honest. Liberals like that the media leans left, but they're afraid to admit it as though that would somehow taint the whole "fairness" argument.

The press has always leaned left, ever since the country was founded. Why? Leaning left implies leaning away from government control. Freedom of the press. The first amendment set up the foundation for a left-leaning press. The universities fertilize that culture. The media is left-leaning not because of politics, but because of the social makeup of the people who are in the media. That's not a good thing or bad thing, but simply the way it is.

I speak as a professional journalist and media executive (i.e. a real reporter instead of a blogger).

The press wants to coronate Obama. Nothing more, nothing less. I wish liberals could just be honest and admit it and be proud of it. The smug and snyde remarks belay the truth... Behind all of the "methink though dost protest too much" and self-righteousness, all of you liberals who claim the press isn't biased to the left, in reality know full well it is and you love it. Love it, love it. The verbal smirks in your comments attest to that. At least be intellectually honest.

Obama gets more positive press than McCain and more negative press, for one simple reason... he gets more press.

Um, the study looked at the percentage of positive/negative, not the total amount and that is apples to apples, I'm afraid.

It may be apples to apples but it takes out a huge factor which is the amount of coverage. And that needs to be taken into consideration if you are going to talk about how the media of covering the candidates. Say in 1 day, McCain gets 4 hours, and Obama got 20 (extreme I know). That's not a bias? It's a very important factor. Even if the more coverage is negative, its still more coverage... any press is good press cause its gets the people talking about the guy...

any press is good press cause its gets the people talking about the guy... Tell that to John Edwards or Larry Craig.

The fact is that negative speculation passed off as fact is damaging, and the more it's repeated, the more damaging it is, because America's reflexively idiotic preference for Argumentum ad Populum is well known and much demonstrated. "Iraqis planned 9/11," anyone?

Nice try attempting to flip up and down, Profchaos, but you're going to have a hard sell if you expect to twist negative Obama coverage into a proof that the media loves Obama. I suggest a return to the drawing board.

It's ignorant to suggest that many Americans aren't gullible. If media truly loved Obama and was plastering mainly positive news stories about the man, why isn't he ahead by a landslide in the polls? Oh, right... Because most stories about Obama consist of
1. Americans don't know enough about Obama
and
2. Repeating misinformation in the form of a question in headlines, like "Is Obama a terrorist?", "Is Obama Muslim?"... My favorite being CNNs infamous "Where is Obama?" headline with a picture of Osama.

Wow... now the bush administation is responsible for the decline of journalism. Is there anything they can't destroy?

Journalism has been sliding for a very long time. I think its big push down the slide was the OJ and Clinton stories in the 90s. Its when journalism became much less interested in the news and more about injecting personal opinion. It's all talking heads now discussing points without actually just reporting the news. Soundbite after soundbite filling the airwaves with little substance left to discuss.

You can speak against the powers that be. People do it every day. Governements should be questioned often. If this were a dictatorship, you'd be dead now for speaking out. This is not Iraq under Saddam or China today. You have the freedom to say what you want. Maybe people call you anti-american and those would be idiots, they have no counter argurment so they resort to name calling. Keep questioning because that is the only way we will solve anything.

look,

somebody bothered to sit and try to apply some sort of objective standards to this and what came out was evidence that (shocker!) Sean Hannity might just be making up stuff about a "liberal media bias" because so long as such a thing exists, his show remains somehow precious to his listeners.

"liberal media bias" is a big part of the formula for right wing radio success.

Check out Andrew Tyndall's blog on this matter; he's a conservative favorite, who finds the same lack of liberal bias that this article is reporting.

There is a difference between a political bias when it comes to commentary and opinion which, by definition, is supposed to be biased and journalism/reporting which, by definition is supposed to be ojective and seek the truth. A lot of people bring up talk radio, Hannity or Glenn Beck's TV show as examples of how there isn't a bias to the left. The problem is, those shows are OPINION. They are designed to be biased. They are NOT news shows. They are entertainment programs. Hannity, Rush, Beck, etc. all make that point clear. They are not reporting the news. They are giving their opinions about the news. That is different than reporting it.

In the news REPORTING business, once you exclude left- and right-wing opinion television and radio and are left with just the news, the left bias is clear. It's only when someone lumps in opinion tv and radio and lies and calls them news programs that they are able to even begin to make a claim that the news media isn't biased to the left. But that's totally disingenuous.

once you exclude left- and right-wing opinion television and radio and are left with just the news, the left bias is clear.

If I'm not mistaken, Tyndall's research only involves news programs, not the likes of Hannity and Colmes, Hardball, Countdown, etc.

so the left bias, not so clear.

http://tyndallreport.com/comment/20/2966/"> link to Tyndall's blog

Doubtful that there ever was such an animal as 'objective journalism'. Looking back throughout history tends to prove me right...

Ever since Woodward and Bernstein popularized "investigative journalism" objective reporting has gone out the window. When you go to school to learn, you go to journalism school, not reporting school. And it's all about investigative journalism, getting the dirt, getting the scoop, and getting it first. Not necessarily getting it right, but getting it first and letting the editor publish the retraction in the next day's edition. Investigative journalism is not journalism and it sure as @#$ isn't reporting.

Ever since Woodward and Bernstein popularized "investigative journalism" objective reporting has gone out the window.

But I would consider the W & B Nixon reporting to be objective. Cheney would not.

Well, for the sake of clarity, what is your impression? I won't hold you to actually counting the seeds, much less determining if they are positive, negative or fair.

Because a sample of one tells us so much about the entirety of the media, statistically speaking.

Sheesh, no wonder the Chinese are kicking our asses. Our math and critical thinking skills absolutely suck.

Again, a sample from a single site. What would your statistics professor grade you if you tried to draw conclusions from a sample of one? I think you'd be repeating the class.

You are trying to put words in my mouth (keyboard). I pointed out a single example and you are trying to portray me as though I was claiming a single example is the same as an entire survey of a multitude of outlets. I was not and it is incorrect to suggest I was. What I was doing is exactly what I said: pointing out an example of a single media outlet as ONE EXAMPLE of what is typical elsewhere in the media. In that regard, I am correct. In your mischaracterization of my statements, you are not correct.

My example was merely representative of the larger sample universe of the entire media. Key word there: "representative". And it is. And no, I won't start listing bunches of headlines and statistical graphs comparing other outlets on here. You can find all that information elsewhere online. I suggest Pew Research. In short, your argument that Newsvine isn't typical of news-oriented media outlets comes across as a little bit disingenuous.

The media is biased to the left, simple as that. Deal with it. We conservatives have been for years.

That doesn't even make sense. News-vine is based on articles found by people for the most part outside of MSM. If you watch MSM its definitely bias against liberals. Didn't ever dawn on you the reason there is more negative information on McCain on the vine because well there is more negative information to be found.

Honestly its a matter of common sense. Issues against McCain are brushed off within a day but they sure are plentiful. Can you blame viners for informing each other of the pertinent information on this man.

If you look at Obama's flaws there are fewer (deal with it) If you look at McCain's flaws (there are MANY) and watch how something insignificant is blown out of proportion for Obama and something astronomical is overlooked for McCain.

If you were involved in the Media then you probably understand that sometime negative media is considered good. Which works in some cases but not Obama's he is the most scrutinized candidate to date. And because while even under all that scrutiny he comes out better than McCain dont call it bias admit to yourself he has the better background.

You are trying to put words in my mouth (keyboard). I pointed out a single example and you are trying to portray me as though I was claiming a single example is the same as an entire survey of a multitude of outlets.

My example was merely representative of the larger sample universe of the entire media.

What am I missing here?

A sample of one isn't representative of anything other than itself. You can claim it is representative of something larger but that doesn't make it so.

Precisely Kevin.

Why do you think that Journalists (other than yourself) are behind Obama? Are they also ill informed? Are they just more democratic egg heads?

I think there are just more liberals in the media, especially the news media. It's largely a factor of the type of people (interestes, world view, social beliefs) who are interested in entering the field. By it's nature, it attracts people who are more left-leaning. It's the same way as any industry. Every industry can be characterized by the kind of people it attracts, whether it's the medical industry, legal, pilots, pro sports, etc. Just like the military or NASCAR attracts people who are, for the most part, right-leaning, the news media attracts people who are on the left. It's neither bad nor good. I don't care if a reporter is a liberal or conservative, and as soon as I hear "fair" in news reporting I immediately know it's slanted. All I want is honest and reporting a whole story and not just the part that helps advance the reporter/editors own personal agendas.

If your theory that the type of people who are attracted to journalism as a profession is true, how did George W. Bush get elected twice? How could he survive any real scrutiny from a left leaning reporting corps? In the run up to the Iraq war things that were rather obvious to me seemed to get little playing time such as there was no proof of WMD's and oil was the reason we were invading them. During the early part of the war when there was still coverage it took months for the media begin to report the chaos that was going on over there. If there is a prevailing sympathy among reporters for the demonic left it is perhaps because they know how they failed in the coverage that led us into the mess that Bush visited upon us.

I respect Al Franken in one sense, even though we agree on probably little else other than the Sun rises in the East. BUT, he's genuine. He is a liberal and proud of it and says so. I'd never vote for him, but at least I wouldn't have to wonder where he stood on the issues.

Trugunny, you are so soaked in Kool-Aid you reek of it.

"I am a Conservative"

That's really all that needed to be said with the tone of your post.

there is no liberal slant to most MSM? pass the Kool-Aid

so in your world, kool aid = research?

check out Andrew Tyndall's work, he's a conservative and has researched this stuff (I think he did it in ocean berry splash flavor even!)

I linked to his blog above (#15.4)