ccbig

That is a amazing study.

The study, if accurate, seems to completely disprove any truth to the idea of a "liberal media bias".

__________________
If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.

~Paul Wellstone~

ArmyFan

The % negative stories about Obama is not evidence of media bias. It's evidence that there is a lot more negative "stuff" about Obama to report.

This story is extremely slanted.

For example, this statement is considered "negative" according to the authors of this report.

“Far more Americans say John McCain would be a good commander in chief than Obama” – Jake Tapper, ABC

That's a simple factual statement.

A statement such as "Far more Americans believe Obama is a better speaker than McCain" would be similar. Is that negative toward McCain? Sure. Is it evidence of media bias toward McCain. Absolutely not.

ArmyFan

Here's an example of media bias to me.

After both the Palin and McCain speeches, a member of the AP issued a "fact checker" article to dispute claims made by various speakers at the Republican convention. Yahoo placed the AP articles as lead articles on its homepage both mornings following the speeches. Did the AP issue any "fact checker" articles after the speeches at the Democratic convention? We're left to believe only the Republicans made questionable claims during their speeches.

ODH

It is possible that the number questionable claims the Democrats made were so small that it was not a good story...it is also possible that other news, such as Gustav, pushed any fact checker news for the Dems. off the front page. I don't know.

ODH

Highlighting negatives about Obama, whether they are factual or not, is evidence that the media does not have as much favoritism toward Obama as it commonly percieved.

If they had this fact and chose not broadcast it, that would definitely be media bias.

FloggingSully

If there was so much of the so called "liberal media bias" wouldn't they have pushed all of those negative stories about Obama under the rug?

Let's look at similar stories reguarding each side shall we?

Obama's pastor makes controversial statements, it's in the news for weeks. McCain's spiritual advisor makes controversial statements, in the news for maybe a day.

Obama's wife says she's proud of her country, media spends about a week questioning her patriotism. Palin's husband was a member of a seperatist group in Alaska for 12 years, I've yet to hear a mainstream, liberally-biased news outlet even mention it.

__________________
There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

ArmyFan

If there was so much of the so called "liberal media bias" wouldn't they have pushed all of those negative stories about Obama under the rug?

Let's look at similar stories reguarding each side shall we?

Well, I don't think these are similar but I'll address each one anyway.

Obama's pastor makes controversial statements, it's in the news for weeks. McCain's spiritual advisor makes controversial statements, in the news for maybe a day.

Obama's pastor says God Damn America, white people started AIDS virus to punish black people, American deserved 911, among other hateful remarks. I'm not even sure what McCain's spiritual advisor said, but I think it pales in comparison to Reverend Wright.

Obama's wife says she's proud of her country, media spends about a week questioning her patriotism. Palin's husband was a member of a seperatist group in Alaska for 12 years, I've yet to hear a mainstream, liberally-biased news outlet even mention it.

Obama's wife said it twice in two different interviews. (I guess she lied the second time, 'cause it couldn't be the first time twice, ). I don't think being a member of a separatist group is similar at all.

And to your point about them sweeping it under the rug, they tried. It takes an enormous ground swell (usually internet driven), often picked up by Fox first, before the mainstream media will report a negative story on a prominent liberal. How long did mainstream media sit on the John Edwards story? 9 months? How long did they sit on the Lewinsky scandal? Several weeks? How long did they sit on the GW Bush National Guard scandal? 48 hours? Then ran with the story without verifying even the smallest fact.

ArmyFan

Actually, it appears Obama stretched the truth in his speech several times. However, noone at the AP felt it necessary to check Obama's facts. Nor did Yahoo think it was necessary to put it on their homepage.

Here's a fact check of Obama's speech:

FactChecking Obama
August 29, 2008
He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them.
Summary
We checked the accuracy of Obama's speech accepting the Democratic nomination, and noted the following:

• Obama said he could “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cut proposals “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” That’s wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain’s, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.

• He twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, saying, “When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” Actually, McCain said in 2003 we “may” muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.
  
  
• He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

• Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."

• Obama noted that McCain’s health care plan would "tax people’s benefits" but didn’t say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.
  
  
• He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.
  
  
• Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.
  

Analysis

Taken from:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ing_obama.html

ODH

Is Yahoo part of the libral media as well?

Ground&Pound

You decide.




article: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/02...tisan-hit-job/

__________________