So much for "liberal" media bias!

[taichiliberal]

Media Favored Romney Over Obama - Yahoo! News

Media Favored Romney Over Obama


During the bruising Republican primaries, there was one candidate whose coverage was more relentlessly negative than the rest. In fact, he did not enjoy a single week where positive treatment by the media outweighed the negative.

His name is Barack Obama.

That is among the findings of a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a Washington nonprofit that examined 52 key newspaper, television, radio, and Web outlets.

“Day in and day out, he was criticized by the entire Republican field on a variety of policies,” Mark Jurkowitz, the group’s associate director, says of Obama. “And he was inextricably linked to events that generated negative coverage”—including rising gas prices, the ailing economy, and the renewed debate over his health care law.

In short, while the president was being hammered on both fronts, his message was somewhat drowned out by the volume of news coverage surrounding the GOP candidates.


.... Overall, it was no contest. From Jan. 2 through April 15, Romney’s coverage was 39 percent positive, 32 percent negative, and 29 percent neutral, the researchers found. Obama’s coverage was 18 percent positive, 34 percent negative, and 34 percent neutral. That means Romney’s depiction by the media was more than twice as positive as the president’s. So much for liberal bias.

 

[Stephanie]

LOl, this has ALREADY been posted..

awww, poor thing...they ran a few negative things about Obama...

so that means to the op, there is no MEDIA BIAS...they just didn't want to continue to look like the kiss asses they had been for Obama before the Republican primaries..

 

[tinydancer]

LOl, this has ALREADY been posted..

awww, poor thing...they ran a few negative things about Obama...

so that means to the op, there is no MEDIA BIAS...they just didn't want to continue to look like the kiss asses they had been for Obama before the Republican primaries..

Someone skewered Pew's research and methodology on this. I'll dig it up and post it later.

Complete bullshit as per usual from PEW.

 

[alan1]

So much for "liberal" media bias!

Mr Romney is a liberal.
Next.

 

[Annie]

Media Favored Romney Over Obama - Yahoo! News

Media Favored Romney Over Obama


During the bruising Republican primaries, there was one candidate whose coverage was more relentlessly negative than the rest. In fact, he did not enjoy a single week where positive treatment by the media outweighed the negative.

His name is Barack Obama.

That is among the findings of a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a Washington nonprofit that examined 52 key newspaper, television, radio, and Web outlets.

“Day in and day out, he was criticized by the entire Republican field on a variety of policies,” Mark Jurkowitz, the group’s associate director, says of Obama. “And he was inextricably linked to events that generated negative coverage”—including rising gas prices, the ailing economy, and the renewed debate over his health care law.

In short, while the president was being hammered on both fronts, his message was somewhat drowned out by the volume of news coverage surrounding the GOP candidates.


.... Overall, it was no contest. From Jan. 2 through April 15, Romney’s coverage was 39 percent positive, 32 percent negative, and 29 percent neutral, the researchers found. Obama’s coverage was 18 percent positive, 34 percent negative, and 34 percent neutral. That means Romney’s depiction by the media was more than twice as positive as the president’s. So much for liberal bias.

Really? He was being criticized as a candidate or the President of the United States. Only a fool wouldn't recognize his role.

 

[tinydancer]

OK got it with a couple of links.

Here's a brief explanation. Links to follow quote:

But "the press" hasn't been tougher on Obama than the Republicans. PEJ's "good press/bad press" statistic mixes reports of the campaign horse race (who's ahead, who's behind) with judgmental coverage of a candidate's background, issue positions, etc.

And, according to PEJ's own statistics, the vast majority of the reports they examined (they peg it at 64%) are about campaign strategy.

What this all means is that the GOP candidates got better "good press" scores because they each won primaries this year.

This is obvious when you look at the report's explanation of how Romney, Santorum and Gingrich each fared with "the press" (I'm stripping out the statistics, because they are a meaningless distraction):

[Romney] enjoyed one week of clearly positive coverage... in the week following his solid, if widely expected win in New Hampshire on Jan. 10. But that media bounce was short lived. The week of his loss on Jan. 21 to Newt Gingrich in South Carolina, negative coverage of Romney... outstripped positive....

Santorum’s Iowa victory on Jan. 3 also produced a burst of positive coverage for him....But during the week of his third-place finish in South Carolina on Jan. 21, the tone of Santorum’s coverage dropped markedly....

Gingrich only enjoyed a single week in which positive coverage about him significantly outweighed negative, the week he won the South Carolina primary.

NOW HERE IS THE KEY...

In other words, PEJ is not actually tracking how the press -- journalists, reporters, commentators, etc. -- are evaluating, ranking, spinning, etc., the campaign.

Their sample is so heavy with redundant Web posting of the same horse race results that it completely masks the spin that journalists impart to the coverage.



'Data Doesn't Lie' Proclaims WashPost's Cillizza As He Peddles Faulty Study Saying Obama Getting Unfavorable Media Treatment | NewsBusters.org

And check out this link as well. This is for more flaws in PEJ's methodology. AKA skewering the results.

The Media vs. Obama: Birth of a New Campaign 2012 Fairy Tale? | NewsBusters.org

 

[taichiliberal]

LOl, this has ALREADY been posted..

awww, poor thing...they ran a few negative things about Obama...

so that means to the op, there is no MEDIA BIAS...they just didn't want to continue to look like the kiss asses they had been for Obama before the Republican primaries..

Let me dumb it down for you, Stephie: neocons and their teabagger cousins have been wailing for YEARS that there is a patented "liberal" bias in our main stream media. THEY MAINTAIN THIS TO THIS DAY.

IF that is indeed the case, then the FACTS related in the OP should not exist!

Yet they do.

so yes, there is a media bias...but it's AGAINST Obama.

Got it now, sweetpea? Or are you going to blow smoke and remain insipidly stubborn in your rhetoric?

 

[taichiliberal]

LOl, this has ALREADY been posted..

awww, poor thing...they ran a few negative things about Obama...

so that means to the op, there is no MEDIA BIAS...they just didn't want to continue to look like the kiss asses they had been for Obama before the Republican primaries..

Someone skewered Pew's research and methodology on this. I'll dig it up and post it later.

Complete bullshit as per usual from PEW.

The audience awaits your proof with baited breath.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Clearly there is a MSM bias toward the liberal/progressive agenda. Most journalists are of superior or very superior intelligence, why expect anything else?

 

[alan1]

Media Favored Romney Over Obama - Yahoo! News

Media Favored Romney Over Obama


During the bruising Republican primaries, there was one candidate whose coverage was more relentlessly negative than the rest. In fact, he did not enjoy a single week where positive treatment by the media outweighed the negative.

His name is Barack Obama.

That is among the findings of a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a Washington nonprofit that examined 52 key newspaper, television, radio, and Web outlets.

“Day in and day out, he was criticized by the entire Republican field on a variety of policies,” Mark Jurkowitz, the group’s associate director, says of Obama. “And he was inextricably linked to events that generated negative coverage”—including rising gas prices, the ailing economy, and the renewed debate over his health care law.

In short, while the president was being hammered on both fronts, his message was somewhat drowned out by the volume of news coverage surrounding the GOP candidates.


.... Overall, it was no contest. From Jan. 2 through April 15, Romney’s coverage was 39 percent positive, 32 percent negative, and 29 percent neutral, the researchers found. Obama’s coverage was 18 percent positive, 34 percent negative, and 34 percent neutral. That means Romney’s depiction by the media was more than twice as positive as the president’s. So much for liberal bias.

You know what is effing classic?
I clicked on the link and at the bottom of the yahoo news story are 4 pictures that are "related content". Every picture and associated story is a pos about Mr Obama.
Fool.

 

[taichiliberal]

So much for "liberal" media bias!

Mr Romney is a liberal.
Next.

Yet the neocon/teabagger driven GOP is putting him up as their presidential candidate.

Care to explain that, bunky? Or are you going to bluff and bluster?

 

[taichiliberal]

Media Favored Romney Over Obama - Yahoo! News

Media Favored Romney Over Obama


During the bruising Republican primaries, there was one candidate whose coverage was more relentlessly negative than the rest. In fact, he did not enjoy a single week where positive treatment by the media outweighed the negative.

His name is Barack Obama.

That is among the findings of a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a Washington nonprofit that examined 52 key newspaper, television, radio, and Web outlets.

“Day in and day out, he was criticized by the entire Republican field on a variety of policies,” Mark Jurkowitz, the group’s associate director, says of Obama. “And he was inextricably linked to events that generated negative coverage”—including rising gas prices, the ailing economy, and the renewed debate over his health care law.

In short, while the president was being hammered on both fronts, his message was somewhat drowned out by the volume of news coverage surrounding the GOP candidates.


.... Overall, it was no contest. From Jan. 2 through April 15, Romney’s coverage was 39 percent positive, 32 percent negative, and 29 percent neutral, the researchers found. Obama’s coverage was 18 percent positive, 34 percent negative, and 34 percent neutral. That means Romney’s depiction by the media was more than twice as positive as the president’s. So much for liberal bias.

Really? He was being criticized as a candidate or the President of the United States. Only a fool wouldn't recognize his role.

The criticism came from the OTHER GOP candidates, sweetpea. The media followed the catfight. But the Obama shots were duly noted and included.

You REALLY need to get your act together before your fingers hit the keys, Stephie.

 

[Stephanie]

Clearly there is a MSM bias toward the liberal/progressive agenda. Most journalists are of superior or very superior intelligence, why expect anything else?

Alrighty, even those on fox news..glad to hear you admit it

 

[alan1]

So much for "liberal" media bias!

Mr Romney is a liberal.
Next.

Yet the neocon/teabagger driven GOP is putting him up as their presidential candidate.

Care to explain that, bunky? Or are you going to bluff and bluster?

I guess you missed the part of your own OP about the media bias.
Try to pay attention to yourself.

 

[alan1]

taichiliberal is doing a good job.

 

[Stephanie]

Mr Romney is a liberal.
Next.

Yet the neocon/teabagger driven GOP is putting him up as their presidential candidate.

Care to explain that, bunky? Or are you going to bluff and bluster?

I guess you missed the part of your own OP about the media bias.
Try to pay attention to yourself.

that's asking a lot..

 

[Wry Catcher]

Clearly there is a MSM bias toward the liberal/progressive agenda. Most journalists are of superior or very superior intelligence, why expect anything else?

Alrighty, even those on fox news..glad to hear you admit it

I'm so sorry you don't get it. Journalists don't simply read what is put in front of them, journalists don't sit down with management and get the script of the day. Journalists are not parrots; Faux news employs parrots. Parrots who can read what is on their teleprompter but don't dare offer an opinion which conflicts with those fed them by the boss.

 

[taichiliberal]

OK got it with a couple of links.

Here's a brief explanation. Links to follow quote:

But "the press" hasn't been tougher on Obama than the Republicans. PEJ's "good press/bad press" statistic mixes reports of the campaign horse race (who's ahead, who's behind) with judgmental coverage of a candidate's background, issue positions, etc.

And, according to PEJ's own statistics, the vast majority of the reports they examined (they peg it at 64%) are about campaign strategy.

What this all means is that the GOP candidates got better "good press" scores because they each won primaries this year.

This is obvious when you look at the report's explanation of how Romney, Santorum and Gingrich each fared with "the press" (I'm stripping out the statistics, because they are a meaningless distraction):

[Romney] enjoyed one week of clearly positive coverage... in the week following his solid, if widely expected win in New Hampshire on Jan. 10. But that media bounce was short lived. The week of his loss on Jan. 21 to Newt Gingrich in South Carolina, negative coverage of Romney... outstripped positive....

Santorum’s Iowa victory on Jan. 3 also produced a burst of positive coverage for him....But during the week of his third-place finish in South Carolina on Jan. 21, the tone of Santorum’s coverage dropped markedly....

Gingrich only enjoyed a single week in which positive coverage about him significantly outweighed negative, the week he won the South Carolina primary.

NOW HERE IS THE KEY...

In other words, PEJ is not actually tracking how the press -- journalists, reporters, commentators, etc. -- are evaluating, ranking, spinning, etc., the campaign.

Their sample is so heavy with redundant Web posting of the same horse race results that it completely masks the spin that journalists impart to the coverage.



'Data Doesn't Lie' Proclaims WashPost's Cillizza As He Peddles Faulty Study Saying Obama Getting Unfavorable Media Treatment | NewsBusters.org

And check out this link as well. This is for more flaws in PEJ's methodology. AKA skewering the results.

The Media vs. Obama: Birth of a New Campaign 2012 Fairy Tale? | NewsBusters.org

I love the way Newsbusters does the usual neocon dance of placing supposition and conjecture with HALF the truth.


[COLOR="[U]Red"]Why was coverage of Obama so negative[/U]?
Republican contenders consistently leveled criticism against him at campaign stops and during debates, and that was often parroted by news outlets. Obama is also "inextricably linked," Kurtz notes, to unfavorable news coverage of the Supreme Court challenge to his health care legislation, rising gas prices, and the struggling economy.

How did coverage of Romney compare to his GOP rivals?Romney got a much easier ride, says Pew's Mark Jurkowitz. Rick Santorum "never enjoyed a sustained period of positive press," while Newt Gingrich enjoyed only one week of net positive coverage — the week that he won South Carolina. Ron Paul managed consistently positive coverage, but "this was offset by the fact that the media virtually ignored him," says Kurtz.


Does this disprove "liberal bias" in the media?Yes, says David Jackson at USA Today. It's time media-bashing conservatives started eating crow. Hold on, says Jonathan S. Tobin at Commentary. Many pundits are spinning this study as proof of "Obama-bashing" in the media, but they've got it wrong. Instead, Obama's "normally adoring press corps covered him more like a candidate than a commander-in-chief," transitioning from fawning over Obama as a historical barrier-buster to scrutinizing him. They were simply subjecting his "poor record" to routine examination. That's not bashing.
[/COLOR]


Let me dumb it down for ya, Tiny......the GOP got a carte blanche to bash Obama at every turn with every FAILED criticism used since the 2008 campaign, even when they were chewing each others legs. And like it or not, this IS an election year. No matter WHAT Obama said or did, you had Boehner and company accusing him of being "on campaign"....especially when he beats them at their own game.

So according to the GOP, Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. But their piss poor performance was and is their own worse enemy.

And PUH-LEEZE don't try to portray Newsbusters as an objective observer!

 

[Stephanie]

Clearly there is a MSM bias toward the liberal/progressive agenda. Most journalists are of superior or very superior intelligence, why expect anything else?

Alrighty, even those on fox news..glad to hear you admit it

I'm so sorry you don't get it. Journalists don't simply read what is put in front of them, journalists don't sit down with management and get the script of the day. Journalists are not parrots; Faux news employs parrots. Parrots who can read what is on their teleprompter but don't dare offer an opinion which conflicts with those fed them by the boss.

ah is that the difference..so PMSnbc is chock full of Journalist? cnnabcnbcnpr etc etc

please you can blow smoke up some peoples ass..

the only real Journalist is seems WITHOUT a liberal agenda is the LOCAL news stations..

 

[taichiliberal]

Media Favored Romney Over Obama - Yahoo! News

Media Favored Romney Over Obama


During the bruising Republican primaries, there was one candidate whose coverage was more relentlessly negative than the rest. In fact, he did not enjoy a single week where positive treatment by the media outweighed the negative.

His name is Barack Obama.

That is among the findings of a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a Washington nonprofit that examined 52 key newspaper, television, radio, and Web outlets.

“Day in and day out, he was criticized by the entire Republican field on a variety of policies,” Mark Jurkowitz, the group’s associate director, says of Obama. “And he was inextricably linked to events that generated negative coverage”—including rising gas prices, the ailing economy, and the renewed debate over his health care law.

In short, while the president was being hammered on both fronts, his message was somewhat drowned out by the volume of news coverage surrounding the GOP candidates.


.... Overall, it was no contest. From Jan. 2 through April 15, Romney’s coverage was 39 percent positive, 32 percent negative, and 29 percent neutral, the researchers found. Obama’s coverage was 18 percent positive, 34 percent negative, and 34 percent neutral. That means Romney’s depiction by the media was more than twice as positive as the president’s. So much for liberal bias.

You know what is effing classic?
I clicked on the link and at the bottom of the yahoo news story are 4 pictures that are "related content". Every picture and associated story is a pos about Mr Obama.
Fool.

You are a "Fool" if you think that you can IGNORE the facts by trying to dodge the key issue.

Laugh, clown, laugh.