Monday, March 14, 2005

Media Coverage of '04 Election Was Biased?

Here's another one from the obvious file.

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.

Well Duh! How much bias do we the public have to endure before the main stream media (MSM) get a clue?

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.

Yeah, we knew that. You still can't turn on the evening news and find a positive story about President Bush. Even when the MSM has something good to report, they have to look for the negative aspect and focus on that. Take the report that fewer soldiers and marines were dying in combat than in previous engagements. Rather than hail our advancements in medical technology, the MSM focused on the horrible state these poor individuals who survived combat were in.

And here is the saddest statement of all.

"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.
In other words, we are so used to the MSM bias we now expect them to report crap. Sad.