Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,864
- 2,040
wow, the lamestream abc media has pretty much become an enemy to Republicans. get your UNBIASED news and politics from other sources. LINKS in the article at the site
SNIP;
posted at 11:21 am on September 16, 2014 by Allahpundit
Just passing along a stat that blew the conservasphere’s collective mind when it started circulating last night on Twitter. Mmmmmm, that’s good bias.
The source of the numbers is this week-old post from Newsbusters, which I regret having missed on the day it came out. More from Rich Noyes:
Just last Thursday, for example, Gallup found Obama’s approval rating at a record low of 38 percent, yet none of the three broadcast networks bothered to mention this on their evening or morning newscasts.
Such coverage is in stunning contrast to how those same newscasts relentlessly emphasized polls showing bad news for George W. Bush during the same phase of his presidency.
In Bush’s case, the networks routinely highlighted his falling approval ratings to illustrate his political weakness, and regularly cited polling data showing public disapproval of policies such as the Iraq war. This year, even as President Obama has suffered his own political meltdown, the networks have spared him from such coverage.
Their refusal to mention O’s slide sometimes extends to their own polls, notes Noyes. Through the first eight months of the year, NBC conducted five national polls; “NBC Nightly News” allegedly failed to mention the data on Obama’s job approval all five times. Gadzooks.
Obvious question: Are there any explanations for the disparity besides simple ideological bias by left-learning news bureaus who don’t want to make the Democrats’ task in the midterms harder than it already is? I can think of two, one weak and one a bit more solid. The weak one is the fact that Dubya enjoyed stratospheric job approval shortly after 9/11, well beyond what even the popular Obama saw when he first took office.
There is, I guess, something extra newsy to the fact that Bush fell from a greater height. I’d be curious to know, though, how much of the coverage circa 2006 focused on that angle (my guess: near zero) versus how much took a straightforward “can you believe how much the public hates this guy?” approach (my guess: nearly all of it).
Bush’s sky-high job approval was long, long gone by the time 2006 began; he had dipped below 50 percent approval in the RCP average as early as February 2004 as Iraq fatigue started to set in, in fact. Why would network news still be marveling two years later how far he’d fallen? It was already a fact of life.
ALL of it here:
Study Nightly network news covered Bush 8217 s crumbling job approval 124 times to this point in year six 8212 versus nine times for Obama Hot Air
SNIP;
posted at 11:21 am on September 16, 2014 by Allahpundit
Just passing along a stat that blew the conservasphere’s collective mind when it started circulating last night on Twitter. Mmmmmm, that’s good bias.
The source of the numbers is this week-old post from Newsbusters, which I regret having missed on the day it came out. More from Rich Noyes:
Just last Thursday, for example, Gallup found Obama’s approval rating at a record low of 38 percent, yet none of the three broadcast networks bothered to mention this on their evening or morning newscasts.
Such coverage is in stunning contrast to how those same newscasts relentlessly emphasized polls showing bad news for George W. Bush during the same phase of his presidency.
In Bush’s case, the networks routinely highlighted his falling approval ratings to illustrate his political weakness, and regularly cited polling data showing public disapproval of policies such as the Iraq war. This year, even as President Obama has suffered his own political meltdown, the networks have spared him from such coverage.
Their refusal to mention O’s slide sometimes extends to their own polls, notes Noyes. Through the first eight months of the year, NBC conducted five national polls; “NBC Nightly News” allegedly failed to mention the data on Obama’s job approval all five times. Gadzooks.
Obvious question: Are there any explanations for the disparity besides simple ideological bias by left-learning news bureaus who don’t want to make the Democrats’ task in the midterms harder than it already is? I can think of two, one weak and one a bit more solid. The weak one is the fact that Dubya enjoyed stratospheric job approval shortly after 9/11, well beyond what even the popular Obama saw when he first took office.
There is, I guess, something extra newsy to the fact that Bush fell from a greater height. I’d be curious to know, though, how much of the coverage circa 2006 focused on that angle (my guess: near zero) versus how much took a straightforward “can you believe how much the public hates this guy?” approach (my guess: nearly all of it).
Bush’s sky-high job approval was long, long gone by the time 2006 began; he had dipped below 50 percent approval in the RCP average as early as February 2004 as Iraq fatigue started to set in, in fact. Why would network news still be marveling two years later how far he’d fallen? It was already a fact of life.
ALL of it here:
Study Nightly network news covered Bush 8217 s crumbling job approval 124 times to this point in year six 8212 versus nine times for Obama Hot Air
