Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Study: Some Networks Tougher on One Candidate than the Other


Keith Olbermann of MSNBC poses at the Ronald Reagan Library on May 3, 2007 in Simi Valley, Calif. (Mark J. Terrill/Associated Press)

By Howard Kurtz
Researchers have now confirmed what press critics have been saying all along, that Fox News is much harder on Barack Obama and MSNBC much tougher on John McCain than the media in general.

The tone of CNN's coverage is somewhere in the middle, but more negative overall than the rest of the mainstream media.

Those are among the findings of a Project for Excellence in Journalism report, out today, which also concluded that the network evening newscasts tend to be more neutral -- and less negative -- toward the presidential candidates. The pro-Democratic tilt at MSNBC is not reflected on NBC News programs, the group says.

The numbers, as measured from Sept. 8 through Oct. 16:

Nearly three-quarters -- 73 percent -- of MSNBC's reports on McCain were deemed negative, compared to 57 percent in the media overall. Just 14 percent of the channel's Obama stories were negative, compared to 29 percent in the rest of the media. In the week of Sept. 8, when McCain was enjoying a post-convention bounce, MSNBC's negative stories on the Republican nominee outweighed positive stories by more than 7 to 1.

At Fox, 40 percent of the coverage of Obama was negative, while 40 percent of the McCain coverage was negative. That amounted to rough parity within the Fox universe, but the network was significantly harder on Obama and easier on McCain than others in the media world. Fox was also more favorably disposed toward Sarah Palin, with 37 percent of its stories positive, compared to 28 percent in the media generally.

CNN was the only one of the cable news networks at which all four candidates generated more negative than positive coverage. Thirty-nine percent of Obama stories on the network were negative, compared to 29 percent in the media overall. Sixty-one percent of its stories on McCain were negative, four percentage points higher than the media average.

The sheer volume of cable news devoted to the 2008 campaign -- 60 percent of its airtime -- was striking, compared to the average of 38 percent in the media generally, the report says.

The contrast between NBC (on "Nightly News" and "Today") and its cable sibling should reassure those who worry the broadcast network is heading left. On Palin, for instance, 42 percent of NBC's stories were positive -- twice as many as MSNBC's, and more favorable than Fox as well.

But there was a split between morning and evening coverage on the broadcast networks, with the first half-hour of the morning shows almost one-third more negative in tone than the nightly newscasts. This was especially true for the Republican candidates. Sixty-three percent of the morning show stories on McCain were negative and 39 percent of the Palin coverage was negative. In both cases, they were more negative than on the same networks' evening news.

Where did Obama fare best? On the front pages of the newspapers studied. Almost half -- 45 percent -- of the pieces about the Democratic nominee were positive, compared with 36 percent for the media overall. There were also fewer neutral stories, while the negative Obama reports -- 27 percent -- were close to the media average.

Similarly, McCain's most negative treatment was in the newspapers. Sixty-nine percent of the McCain stories studied were negative, compared to just 6 percent that were positive, an 11-to-1 imbalance.

The project examined the New York Times every day and two of these four every day: The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. Four out of eight other papers, from the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune to the Manchester Union-Leader, were also examined every day.

Howard Kurtz hosts CNN's weekly media program.

By Web Politics Editor  |  October 29, 2008; 2:20 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , John McCain , Media Notes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Talks Socialism, Communism and PB&J
Next: Questions Raised About a Major McCain Donor

Comments

HONESTLY, it kinda creeps me out that Barack Obama bought all that TV time on all those networks last night - too much like a Big Brother thing, in the controlling Orwellian sense.

I agree with John Baer at the Philadelphia Inquirer. Obama is showing his true self just in time for the voting to begin. If ALL the other RED FLAGS did not ding in, this one and the fact that he is outsourcing his campaign work in Palestine and in other foreign countries surely will.

Obama goes against the very fabric of everything that American was founded upon and everything America stands for.

Obama just lost the few Jewish votes he had since he is involving Palestine and other Arab Nations in trying to "BUY" this election. Obama is outsourcing his campaign to foreign nationals, and ones who are anti-American.

People have forgotten the Third Movement. The US Military vote. No one has asked my opinion in a poll because they don't even know where I am stationed overseas!

Posted by: sonnychiba72 | October 30, 2008 5:39 AM | Report abuse

McCain is in more trouble than he knows.
Huckabee Hearts Obama?? Watch Video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YADwYU-phpI

See the Sarah Palin Look Alike Contest and Vote on the Winner. http://www.veeppeek.com

Posted by: pastor123 | October 30, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

McCain is in more trouble than he knows.
Huckabee Hearts Obama?? Watch Video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YADwYU-phpI

See the Sarah Palin Look Alike Contest and Vote on the Winner. http://www.veeppeek.com

Posted by: pastor123 | October 30, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

McCain is in more trouble than he knows.
Huckabee Hearts Obama?? Watch Video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YADwYU-phpI

See the Sarah Palin Look Alike Contest and Vote on the Winner. http://www.veeppeek.com

Posted by: pastor123 | October 30, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Hi to JHPBRITON at 8:14 PM 10/29.
I knew about the Goebbels comment but just didn't want to "go there" in the post. But the sentiment expressed by W does seem to echo it.

Posted by: peck3 | October 29, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

I chat to people who watch nothing but Fox News. They really can't handle me when I challenge their cognitions. I have developed an "attitude" with them limiting my answer to short mumbling statements like "sure", "right" and "you betcha".

Lately I have been hitting them with that "God thing", that if they are true Christians then they have nothing to fear but God him or herself.

In reality, during the day, I check at least five national sources of news and at least one foreign news source. Bias is what you make it for yourself.

Phillies Win !!!

Posted by: truthhurts | October 29, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Clarification of FOX SPEWS numbers:

40% negative reports McCain - mostly hand slaps
40% negative reports Obama - mostly "simulated torture" (remember that term)

Posted by: thenotoriousflavio | October 29, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

FOX will hire Rush Limberg next. And he will fit right in. Maybe not actually fit in, unless they have an awfully large chair. He is a little left of their usual views but with some training he might just fit in.

Posted by: jgh2 | October 29, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Ohhhh LOL! :-D

C'mon WaPo!

As if you did not know the collection of Little Keithie Drolberman, Eugene, Dana, and probably Mike Rogers all "Gush" for O'Bomba-Nation when dreaming!

LOL! What a collection of O'Bombasamabot Cheerleaders! ;~)

Posted by: SAINT---The | October 29, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

I am disgusted by mainstream media's bias against Senator McCain and Governor Palin.

What happens to coverage regarding Obama's involvement in voter registration fraud? fundraising fraud? character fraud?

I am a democrat and can no longer identify with Obama. I had always voted democrat. Not this time.
McCain/Palin '08!!

Posted by: lynnL123 | October 29, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Fox is dismal and may as well retitile themselves, "the GOP propaganda network". I have to say McCain has generally been given the benefit of the doubt and he has been protected by his status as a surviving VietNam POW. No one wants to be scene as beating up a POW - and lets face it - there is no argument about it.

Obama has thus far only attacked McCain's proposals and plans. He's shown McCain the respect that McCain has not shown Obama. It is my hope that McCain does not destroy his reputation and career as he loses the election.

I also agree with the other poster who longs for news from a real journalist...Murrow, or even Cronkite. What we are fed on TV now is crap!

Posted by: free-donny | October 29, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe it. I'm sure the headline today about Obama's campaign accepting questionable money is not counted as a negative for Obama but it was. Even the Post has more negative headlines but the stories may not be. Also, headlines that are questionable like the Post one about the so-called tape is negative but they are not counted.

Howie I love how your so-called information. I will only believe this when I know which stories were counted.

Posted by: rlj1 | October 29, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

I am tired of the negative coverage. Especally the back and forth on channels like CNN, -- its absurd. Also Fox, I would never watch because its not informative. They just want to generat controversy or favor conventional wisdom over change. Less media would be more

Posted by: paulnolan97 | October 29, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

OMG Did you see Chris Matthews on MSNBC? The Obamathon just ended and he can't move his leg!!!!

Posted by: jhpbriton | October 29, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, but just because stories are not complimentary does NOT mean bias. McCain has run a dismal campaign. His running mate is an ethically-challenged hate-monger.

I think instead the press is lazy. If someone screams it loud enough, they decide it's a story, and the only actual digging they do is to get some tepid statement from the "other side."

One example: I think the press and other media should be covering a LOT MORE of Mrs. Palin's ethical indiscretions, and connect the dots: charging the state a travel allowance for staying in her own home; charging the state travel expenses for her children (and then doctoring the paper trail to claim that a 7-year-old is on state business!), being found guilty of abusing her position to bully a state employee (by a commission made up of 8 Rs and 4Ds!), and accepting clothes but using the Ted Stevens defense -- no, no, I don't OWN them, I just, er, wear them . . .

This is a person who is systematically corrupt. She uses her position, and access to government funds, to pursue her own benefit -- not just once, but over and over again. She would be very recognisable in any banana republic in the world.

Now, THAT is a story that should be told. Instead, what do we get? Her denial, just flat denial -- no, I wasn't found to be unethical. That is a bald-faced lie, but it is reported as "her side." And now I read that, well, the commission came close to finding her wrong, but didn't. Since when, amigo? The commission found that, while she as gov had a right to fire anyone, she did in fact ABUSE HER POSITION by bullying and attempting to intimidate him into acting the way she wanted, to settle a family score. That is just plain fact. No "two sides" about it.

And instead, what are we obsessing about now? A reformed 60s radical with whom a candidate served on a committee. Why? Because the self-same ethically challenged person -- who is clearly corrupt in her own right -- keeps bringing it up. No other reason. And endless photos of her, first in designer duds and now in jeans, as she claims the Ted Stevens defense -- these? These aren't MINE, I just, er, keep them in my closet . . .

Where is Ed Murrow when we need him?

Posted by: llombardi1 | October 29, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

.


.


If there was a white Presidential candidate who was found to be a member of a racist church, same as the Rev. Wright's church except substitute "white values" for "black values" and visa vera, THE MEDIA WOULD BE IN TOTAL ATTACK MODE AGAINST THAT WHITE CANDIDATE.


OBAMA IS A RACIST - OBAMA HAS GIVE $20,000.00 TO A RACIST CHURCH IN ONE YEAR.


Washington Post - there are a lot of Churches in Chicago which are black and which are not racist - Obama did not have to give $20,000.00 to this one Church - STOP GIVING OBAMA A PASS ON HIS RACISM AGAINST WHITES.


WAKE UP WASHINGTON POST WAKE UP MEDIA.


WAKE UP AMERICA.


.


.


Exactly right he's racist. Just listen to Irreverend Wrong, his pastor for many, many years.


Exactly right he's socialist. Just listen to him admit it to Joe the Plumber, or his interviews in the past.


Exactly right he's a rotten human being. Just look at his abortion voting record.


Exactly right he has questionable judgment. Just look at his associations with people in his past.


Exactly right he's corrupt. Just look at the Rezko land deal.


Exactly right he's a liar. Just look at what he says about taxes vs. how he's actually voted.


Exactly right he has no executive experience. Just look at his resume -- or lack thereof.


Exactly right he's secretive. Just look at his lack of birth certificate, SAT scores, grades, etc. etc., etc.


Exactly right he'll be challenged in his first 6 months of office if elected. Just look at what he says about meeting unconditionally with world leaders.


We cannot be SERIOUS about electing this guy!! Obama in charge of nukes?! What. The.


Sorry George Washington, we messed everything up.


We stopped demanding the best people in the White House.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Living in Mexico with SKY TV, sometimes Fox is the only US news on so I watch it more than I would living somewhere else (such as NEVER). I'm surprised the study found Fox only negative on Obama 40% of the time.

Maybe they didn't include the hateful daily attacks and smears from the Irish Catholic bigots O'Reilly and Hannity or the constant neocon pontifications from Karl Rove, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gringrinch.

Posted by: coloradodog | October 29, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

This study proves:

1. That Fox is neutral. 40% negative stories about Obama and 40% negative stories about McCain.

2. That the rest of the networks are biased in favor of Obama. Surprise!

3. That the author of this article is biased in favor of Obama. The premise of the article is that (a) Fox is biased (which is false when examining the statistics quoted in the article; and (b) the mainstream media is neutral, since it falls somewhere between Fox on the right and MSNBC on the left. Again, this is a false premise, in light of (1) and (2) above.

Posted by: Bill1230 | October 29, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Peck3 It actually was Joseph Goebbels who practiced the most virulent form of communication strategy not "W".

Posted by: jhpbriton | October 29, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey, works for me. It is not all that great that MSNBC has its bias and Fox its bias. But Fox has been doing this from Day 1.

The study did not look at talk radio, and there is its limitation. Talk radio has been hard right wing since its most notorious practitioner (El Rushbo) started making big bucks for stations in the early 90s. Hard right wing talk radio makes money because it has a fear factor. It makes money because it appeals to the fear of "the other", and the lowest instincts of its listeners. Hard right talk radio was probably a significant factor in Bush's "election" and re-election.

I care less about television network bias than I do about the endless stream of stuff from Rush and his imitators, all for free if you have a radio. As good ol' W said, you just need to "catapult the propaganda" long enough and people will believe anything, including lies and half-truths.

Posted by: peck3 | October 29, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Hey, works for me. It is not all that great that MSNBC has its bias and Fox its bias. But Fox has been doing this from Day 1.

The study did not look at talk radio, and there is its limitation. Talk radio has been hard right wing since its most notorious practitioner (El Rushbo) started making big bucks for stations in the early 90s. Hard right wing talk radio makes money because it has a fear factor. It makes money because it appeals to the fear of "the other", and the lowest instincts of its listeners. Hard right talk radio was probably a significant factor in Bush's "election" and re-election.

I care less about television network bias than I do about the endless stream of stuff from Rush and his imitators, all for free if you have a radio. As good ol' W said, you just need to "catapult the propaganda" long enough and people will believe anything, including lies and half-truths.

Posted by: peck3 | October 29, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Of these biased MSM drones, many will fortunately be laid off after Nov. 4, and good riddance.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 29, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

37th and O street, get a grip. Besides, no one is listening to you.

Posted by: jimcummings | October 29, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

What a fascinating metric: Fox is biased toward McCain and against Obama because the rest of the media is overwhelming more favorable to Obama and more hostile to McCain.

What if a reporter from Mars looked at this story and saw that on the whole Fox had equal balance in its reporting toward both candidates while the rest of the media was significantly more hostile to one and more favorable to another. I would assume it would say that Fox sets the bar for fairness.

But the American media is from Venus. There we look at the median and if you vary from the median you are not an independent voice: you are a biased entity.

What BS!

I guess this blogger and every other reporter and editor at the Washington is in the tank for Obama and will defend the media bias as far and as long as it can.

Posted by: krushX | October 29, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Reporting negatives about mckane is natural, most of his campaign is based on outright lies. How does one propose to cover that in a positive way? mckane would make nixon blush crimson. Why do you think so many mckane supporters are supporting him based on things that are outright demonstrably false? (Obama is a muslim, Obama is a terrorist, Obama is a communist, Obama is going to take away your guns, Obama is a baby killer - a really odd claim in support of someone who dropped bombs on men, women, and children)

And palin? how in God's name do you do a positive piece on her unless it is about how nice her shoes look? The positives end there. She has little education , less than two years experience in government, and in those two years has spawned now THREE ethics investigations.

Posted by: John1263 | October 29, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

.


.


If there was a white Presidential candidate who was found to be a member of a racist church, same as the Rev. Wright's church except substitute "white values" for "black values" and visa vera, THE MEDIA WOULD BE IN TOTAL ATTACK MODE AGAINST THAT WHITE CANDIDATE.


OBAMA IS A RACIST - OBAMA HAS GIVE $20,000.00 TO A RACIST CHURCH IN ONE YEAR.


Washington Post - there are a lot of Churches in Chicago which are black and which are not racist - Obama did not have to give $20,000.00 to this one Church - STOP GIVING OBAMA A PASS ON HIS RACISM AGAINST WHITES.


WAKE UP WASHINGTON POST WAKE UP MEDIA.


WAKE UP AMERICA.


.


.


Exactly right he's racist. Just listen to Irreverend Wrong, his pastor for many, many years.


Exactly right he's socialist. Just listen to him admit it to Joe the Plumber, or his interviews in the past.


Exactly right he's a rotten human being. Just look at his abortion voting record.


Exactly right he has questionable judgment. Just look at his associations with people in his past.


Exactly right he's corrupt. Just look at the Rezko land deal.


Exactly right he's a liar. Just look at what he says about taxes vs. how he's actually voted.


Exactly right he has no executive experience. Just look at his resume -- or lack thereof.


Exactly right he's secretive. Just look at his lack of birth certificate, SAT scores, grades, etc. etc., etc.


Exactly right he'll be challenged in his first 6 months of office if elected. Just look at what he says about meeting unconditionally with world leaders.


We cannot be SERIOUS about electing this guy!! Obama in charge of nukes?! What. The.


Sorry George Washington, we messed everything up.


We stopped demanding the best people in the White House.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Oh, yet another story-minimizing trick that the Washington Post plays with its stories it wants to register but not get wide readership of: it posts the story for only a short while and then unlinks it from the front web page. So a negative Obama story stays up only a few hours. Whereas negative McCain stories, especially if they are on an active story line covered by other media outlets, stay up for up to two days at a time.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 29, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Reporting negatives about mckane is natural, most of his campaign is based on outright lies. How does one propose to cover that in a positive way? mckane would make nixon blush crimson. Why do you think so many mckane supporters are supporting him based on things that are outright demonstrably false? (Obama is a muslim, Obama is a terrorist, Obama is a communist, Obama is going to take away your guns, Obama is a baby killer - a really odd claim in support of someone who dropped bombs on men, women, and children)

And palin? how in God's name do you do a positive piece on her unless it is about how nice her shoes look? The positives end there. She has little education , less than two years experience in government, and in those two years has spawned now THREE ethics investigations.

Posted by: John1263 | October 29, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

The use of gross statistics also conceals a favorite trick of the Washington Post: when it does publish an ad "critical" of Obama, it does some trivial piece that is out of context and not relevant to the dialog of the campaign at the time. And it never covers the big story lines damaging to Obama that might hurt Obama at the time (i.e. it puts out maybe tangential follow up pieces after the story line broke elsewhere and couldn't be ignored any longer).

So when the Post does publish a negative Obama piece, it's meaningless or has no context that might make it relevant.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 29, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

.


.


If there was a white Presidential candidate who was found to be a member of a racist church, same as the Rev. Wright's church except substitute "white values" for "black values" and visa vera, THE MEDIA WOULD BE IN TOTAL ATTACK MODE AGAINST THAT WHITE CANDIDATE.


OBAMA IS A RACIST - OBAMA HAS GIVE $20,000.00 TO A RACIST CHURCH IN ONE YEAR.


Washington Post - there are a lot of Churches in Chicago which are black and which are not racist - Obama did not have to give $20,000.00 to this one Church - STOP GIVING OBAMA A PASS ON HIS RACISM AGAINST WHITES.


WAKE UP WASHINGTON POST WAKE UP MEDIA.


WAKE UP AMERICA.


.


.


Exactly right he's racist. Just listen to Irreverend Wrong, his pastor for many, many years.


Exactly right he's socialist. Just listen to him admit it to Joe the Plumber, or his interviews in the past.


Exactly right he's a rotten human being. Just look at his abortion voting record.


Exactly right he has questionable judgment. Just look at his associations with people in his past.


Exactly right he's corrupt. Just look at the Rezko land deal.


Exactly right he's a liar. Just look at what he says about taxes vs. how he's actually voted.


Exactly right he has no executive experience. Just look at his resume -- or lack thereof.


Exactly right he's secretive. Just look at his lack of birth certificate, SAT scores, grades, etc. etc., etc.


Exactly right he'll be challenged in his first 6 months of office if elected. Just look at what he says about meeting unconditionally with world leaders.


We cannot be SERIOUS about electing this guy!! Obama in charge of nukes?! What. The.


Sorry George Washington, we messed everything up.


We stopped demanding the best people in the White House.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

The "Watching Obama Post" is trying to pack a few not-so-Obama-talking-points stories in this last week of election coverage, to up its statistics just before the end.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 29, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Oh, this is so wild and genuine of you, to cover the network news bias in this, the last week of the election year.

How daring, leading edge and revelatory your journalism is.

And not a moment too late to make a really big difference!

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 29, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

As Stephen Colbert says, it's well known that facts have a liberal bias.

Posted by: RollaMO | October 29, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Clarification of FOX SPEWS numbers

40% negative reports McCain - mostly hand slaps
40% negative reports Obama - mostly "simulated torture" (remember that BUSH term)

Posted by: thenotoriousflavio | October 29, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Normally I watch CNN as it is the least strident of the cable networks but tonight I shall watch MSNBC.

I am interested to see if they even mention the Khalidi story.

I find it shameful that in the last few years William Ayers has stated that he did not feel it was wrong for police officers to be killed in incidents involving the Weathermen years, previously.
I also find it disgusting that Khalidi sees nothing wrong with Palestinians killing Israeli police officers and soldiers.
These are beliefs that were mentioned since 2001 and then Barack Obama attends a banquet for Khalidi with Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn and praises him.

This is wrong.

I cannot see why the LA Times is refusing to share the tape of this event with the world.

Why?

Posted by: mwhoke | October 29, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I normally try to watch CNN as they usually are the least strident but tonight I intend on watching MSNBC.

Why?

Because I would like to see if they even report on the Khalidi story.

In the 21st century we have William Ayers stating in an interview that he does not feel it is wrong that police officers died during incidents that the Weatherman initiated. We have Khalidi stating that he believes that Palestinians can kill Israeli police officers and soldiers.

Then we have Barack Obama attending events with both individuals and praising them!

It appears that the LA Times believes these statements are not newsworthy and they are failing to investigate Obama's relationships!

Why?

Posted by: mwhoke | October 29, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

FOX is not a "News" channel by any objective definition. It was founded by GOP political operatives (e.g., Roger Ailes, soulmate of Charlie Black, Lee Atwater & Roger Stone, 3 of the biggest sleaze bags in history) specifically to serve as an outlet to promote the conservative, Republican agenda. They are more correctly referred to an "Opinion" network; the best word to describe their work is PROPAGANDA.
It certainly has been challenging to find positive things to say about the campaign of smears run by McCain & Failin'. I mean, what can you say that's positive about a barrage of distortions, innuendo, & outright lies which are consciously designed to frighten people & obscure the real issues in this campaign?

Posted by: DoctorB | October 29, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

In defense of MSNBC, what are you supposed to say positive about McCain?

Gosh, why, he's a POW!

Or. . . doggone it that Sarah Palin sure is purdy!


When a campaign has wallowed in the sleaze as much as McCain's has, they deserve the same ill treatment they dish out.


What, Republicans can dish it out but not take it?

Posted by: Christian_in_NYC | October 29, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

We are not an unbiased magazine - we are right up front - we like Obama - But we did like hearing Sarah Palin sing I'm So Pretty.". ..............

http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/10/12/sarah-palin-im-so-pretty/

Posted by: glclark4750 | October 29, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

See the Sarah Palin Impersonator's then vote for your favorite at http://www.VeepPeek.com

Posted by: pastor123 | October 29, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

If I were Sarah Palin, I would stop using the word socialism since she is quite a big socialist...Google "Palin" and "collectivist" and the 4th article down from redidit.com will have a link to an article that contains this wonderful paragraph....

For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist. ♦

Posted by: Fuzzy21 | October 29, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

LOL, this study fails to consider the fact that the McCain/Palin ticket has no 'positives' to report. They also fail to consider that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow for example, give far more FACTS about McCain/Palin's negative campaigning. So, obviously when there's nothing good to say about McCain/Palin, it's going to look like they don't cover anything positive about them. Get it, Statistitions? How can you make positive remarks when there are so many negatives to have to clear up?

I love MSNBC, and utterly despise Fox and CNN, But to each his or her own...

All I know is that I get 'verifiable facts' that I can check out myself for its veracity. I challenge this same group who did this study to do one that shows what network consistently tells the truth--good or bad--and which ones just repeat talking points and lies. I guarantee Keith and Rachel will come out as the most honest of the bunch. But if you listen to Fox, their stories are full of lies, innuendo and race-baiting. That's the study I want to see..

Once again, though, watch what you want and make up your own minds--I have and no silly study that only looks at the surface is going to sway me.

Posted by: Tess4850 | October 29, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

From my view the McCain campaign has created more negative situations, gaffes, personal attacks, strategies which backfired, hostile rally supporter comments, associations with corrupted individuals, internal strife and other low road newsworthy actions reported by the media. Unfortunately, the survey was superficial and not consider the content of the story to determine which did/did not warrant a "negative" rating based on merit.

Posted by: louismraskin | October 29, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Hey Howie... you work for CNN right? No bias no bull? My A$$!

Posted by: AB68 | October 29, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Hey Howie... you work for CNN right? No bias no bull? My A$$!

Posted by: AB68 | October 29, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I fail to understand the purpose of this navelgazing. What does "negative" or "positive" mean without the context of the news story. This analysis does not measure fairness -for example - a report on inciting a crowd is negative - but it doesn't detract from it's truth. Splitting coverage based on arbitrary fairness is frankly stupid. I could argue that going over Mr. Kurtz's past several columns on fairness - that they are biased one way or the other. I doubt he would want to agree with that statement.

Posted by: Gopher1 | October 29, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I fail to understand the purpose of this navelgazing. What does "negative" or "positive" mean without the context of the news story. This analysis does not measure fairness -for example - a report on inciting a crowd is negative - but it doesn't detract from it's truth. Splitting coverage based on arbitrary fairness is frankly stupid. I could argue that going over Mr. Kurtz's past several columns on fairness - that they are biased one way or the other. I doubt he would want to agree with that statement.

Posted by: Gopher1 | October 29, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Howie just loves him some good and bad article counting studies. As utterly meaningless as they are, he just can't help himself.

Posted by: zukermand | October 29, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

See the Sarah Palin Impersonator's then vote for your favorite at http://www.VeepPeek.com

Posted by: pastor123 | October 29, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company