Pew Study: Media less 'civil' to Republicans
- Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 11:09 AM CST
- Contributed by: filbert
- Views: 5,145
First, David Zurawick in the Baltimore Sun:
Next the Pew Research Center release:
In other words, the media attempted to cover itself from the charge of bias after the first debate which showed Obama to be completely unfit for the office, but returned to cheerleading for him after he performed adequately after the second debate--admitted to by Pew by the phrase "coverage returned to its more general lpattern, with an edge for Obama."
Now, I heartily dislike Hannity's program on Fox News, as being a bad combination of talking-points recitation and shouting matches. But MSNBC at almost any time of day or night is utterly unwatchable by anyone who actually seeks to fairly hear both sides of pretty much any issue. As Zurawick notes, MSNBC is not a news channel, it is a propaganda channel promoting the Democratic Party and socialist "progressive" causes.
And almost all professional journalists share that "progressive" worldview with the MSNBC Ministry of Misinformation, making it almost impossible to actually have a real and honest discussion of any issue of public interest. The professional media is all too often focused on belittling and shouting down any non-socialist, non-Keynesian viewpoint. That's not journalism. That's an ongoing, relentless apologia for the Left.
ON MSNBC, the ratio of negative to positive stories on GOP candidate Mitt Romney was 71 to 3.
That's not a news channel. That's a propaganda machine, and owner Comcast should probably change Phil Griffin's title from president to high minister of information, or something equally befitting the work of a party propaganist hack in a totalitarian regime. You wonder how mainstream news organizations allow their reporters and correspondents to appear in such a cauldron of bias.
I thought show host Sean Hannity of Fox News defined party propagandist. But while his channel was bad, it wasn't as bad-boy biased as MSNBC.
The ratio of negative to positive stories in Fox's coverage of President Obama was 46 to 6.
Next the Pew Research Center release:
From the conventions until the first debate, a period of improving polls for Obama, Romney suffered his period of the most negative coverage; just 4% of stories about him were positive while 52% were negative. Coverage of Obama during this period was fairly evenly split (20% positive vs. 24% negative). That narrative reversed sharply with the first debate. For the next two weeks, Romney saw the mixed treatment (23% positive vs. 23% negative) while Obama was caught in the critical loop, with 12% positive and 37% negative. After the second debate, coverage returned to its more general pattern, with an edge for Obama.
In other words, the media attempted to cover itself from the charge of bias after the first debate which showed Obama to be completely unfit for the office, but returned to cheerleading for him after he performed adequately after the second debate--admitted to by Pew by the phrase "coverage returned to its more general lpattern, with an edge for Obama."
Now, I heartily dislike Hannity's program on Fox News, as being a bad combination of talking-points recitation and shouting matches. But MSNBC at almost any time of day or night is utterly unwatchable by anyone who actually seeks to fairly hear both sides of pretty much any issue. As Zurawick notes, MSNBC is not a news channel, it is a propaganda channel promoting the Democratic Party and socialist "progressive" causes.
And almost all professional journalists share that "progressive" worldview with the MSNBC Ministry of Misinformation, making it almost impossible to actually have a real and honest discussion of any issue of public interest. The professional media is all too often focused on belittling and shouting down any non-socialist, non-Keynesian viewpoint. That's not journalism. That's an ongoing, relentless apologia for the Left.