...busting up my brains for the words

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Anti-Bush bias in the MSM

Here's a reprint of a post I have just put up in BowieNet's subscription only bulletin board. I reproduce it for your pleasure.

Okay, we all know that W and Cheney won the election last November by a significant margin. But it might have been an even greater margin if our newspapers and television news reporting had been fair and balanced (like say, FOX is).

According to the results of a recent study of the media coverage of the presidential election;

"...36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry...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".

Assuming that some segment of the electorate is and was dependent upon the overall picture provided by these media, John Kerry may have received more votes than he would have under circumstances of media fairness.

In other words, if the American people had been more accurately informed, W may have won a landslide victory.
Dan Rather and CBS News and the other alphabet networks did their best to upset W's reelection, but it wasn't enough.


  • At 11:37 PM, Blogger R-Five said…

    I wouldn't characterize last fall's election coverage as "anti-Bush" beyond "blockbuster" books that fizzled under cross-examination. Rathergate wound up helping Bush IMO. No, the bias was all on Kerry's side.

    It still amazes me that a total fraud like John Kerry got such a total pass by the MSM. And Kerry clearly has a thin skin, the kind that journalistics normally like to provoke, only they didn't. Swift Vets? No reaction, other than to say they were discredited without so much as a footnote.

    They moved heaven and earth trying to find Bush's TANG records. But Kerry's Navy records that he said he released (not!) drew no interest.


Post a Comment

<< Home