Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush

[Nxt2Hvn]

Mar 14, 2005 — By Claudia Parsons

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday.

The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.

Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The study looked at 16 newspapers of varying size across the country, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable programs and nine Web sites through the course of 2004.

Examining the public perception that coverage of the war in Iraq was decidedly negative, it found evidence did not support that conclusion. The majority of stories had no decided tone, 25 percent were negative and 20 percent were positive, it said.

The three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative.

Looking at public perceptions of the media, the report showed that more people thought the media was unfair to both Kerry and Bush than to the candidates four years earlier, but fewer people thought news organizations had too much influence on the outcome of the election.

"It may be that the expectations of the press have sunk enough that they will not sink much further. People are not dismayed by disappointments in the press. They expect them," the authors of the report said.

The study noted a huge rise in audiences for Internet news, particularly for bloggers whose readers jumped by 58 percent in six months to 32 million people.

Despite the growing importance of the Web, the report said investment was not keeping pace and some 62 percent of Internet professionals reported cutbacks in the newsroom in the last three years, even more than the 37 percent of print, radio and TV journalists who cited cutbacks in their newsrooms.

But.... it Didn't matter!!! ...

SOURCE

Edited March 14, 2005 by Nxt2Hvn

[Talon]

And? Just showed they knew what they were taling about

[Scorpius]

President Bush had it coming, with the way he's been workin' and talkin'. I don't think anyone here is surprised. I know I'm not.

[Celumnaz]

The majority of stories had no decided tone

And that's what news should be.

25 percent were negative and 20 percent were positive, it said.

And that's where we need to fire "journalists" and hire "reporters".

I'm so sick of having opinions shoved down my throat as news. When asked why people want to become reporters they say "to make a difference" or "to change the world" and that's not what reporting is about, maybe manipulation but not reporting. Write a book, run for office, don't give me your take on things disguised as unbiased reporting... that's intellectual dishonesty and bamboozlement.

[Scorpius]

Celumnaz, you are right about that. Reporters should only report. Biased reports with their opinions only plays with peoples minds.

Let the readers decide for themselves. eh.

[I am me]

that is why i don't watch the news

all of it is like that. all media that is called news.

[Shanga]

Damn right--who the hel is still watching the news? It's like standing in the rain and have a nice smiling reporter telling you that the weather is fine and sunny. I say we should fire all the journalists and hier monkeys--at least monkeys won't lie as much--same ammount of crap being thrown around.

[warden]

Damn right--who the hel is still watching the news? It's like standing in the rain and have a nice smiling reporter telling you that the weather is fine and sunny. I say we should fire all the journalists and hier monkeys--at least monkeys won't lie as much--same ammount of crap being thrown around.

534085[/snapback]

shanga who needs the news when you have this site,beets the news any day

[twpdyp]

Maybe this is important maybe it is not but I was watching CNN about 2 weeks ago, I was gagging the whole time, the news anchors on CNN kept referring to President Bush as Mr. Bush. Now yes Mr Bush is correct but it is not very appropriate is it? To my mind this show of disrespect is completely and utterly unprofessional. I do remember the same news agency calling President Clinton by the correct title. Coincidence or another example of another news agency with an agenda beyond simply reporting on the days events, You decide!!!!!!