INDCJournal: Lipstick on a Pig

« Comment Registration | Main | INDC Election Projection »

November 01, 2004

Lipstick on a Pig

Posted by Bill

A non-partisan "research and educational organization" at George Mason University has just completed a study (pdf document) of network media bias during Presidential campaigns, and ...

Study: Kerry Gets Best Press Ever
WASHINGTON, DC - John Kerry is getting the most favorable network news coverage of any presidential candidate in the past quarter century, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University, in a study of television news since 1980. CMPA also reports that George Bush's coverage is highly negative this year, but doesn't approach the record for bad press held by Ronald Reagan.

MAJOR FINDINGS:

Crazy For Kerry: John Kerry's total of 58 percent positive evaluations (and 42% negative) since Labor Day is the best press any general election candidate has received since 1980. George W. Bush has had only 36% positive evaluations (and 64% negative) in the same period. In the 2000 general election evaluations of both Bush and Gore were about 2 to 1 negative.
...
Dems Get the Breaks: In the past seven elections since 1980, the Democratic candidate has gotten significantly better press in four - Kerry, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Mondale in 1984; the Republican has fared better in one - George H.W. Bush over Dukakis in 1988; and two have been about even -- Bush vs. Gore in 2000 and Carter vs. Reagan in 1980.

Shocking. Somewhere at this very moment, an underoo-clad Eric Alterman sticks his fingers in his ears, jumps face first onto his bed and shouts "Nonononononononononononononononononono," while kicking spastic swipes at the empty air.

In retrospect, I suppose that there were signs ...

7/13/04

Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek:

�There�s one other base here: the media. Let�s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they�re going to portray Kerry and Edwards -- I�m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but -- they�re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there�s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that�s going to be worth maybe 15 points.�

10/8/04

ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin:

An internal memo written by ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff: During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable." ... "This is now John Kerry's contest to lose."

I also seem to recall something about trying to pass off forged documents in a National Guard story, a misleading scare piece about a draft and a contextually bogus explosives story planned for the eve of the election - all from CBS.

Vote.

UPDATE: More from Protein Wisdom and Ace, who links the Washington Times' analysis of the study.

UPDATE: More from the Key Monk.

UPDATE: Toss this on the pyre:

Brokaw interview edited to cover up Kerry's records slip!

Posted by Bill at November 1, 2004 10:28 AM | TrackBack (13)

Comments

I didn't need a study to tell me this one.

That the press wants Kerry to win is a no brainer.

Posted by: Just Me at November 1, 2004 04:18 PM

Where'd you find the picture of Tuh-RAY-zuh?

Posted by: Ralph Gizzip at November 1, 2004 08:28 PM

Let me get this straight. You quote the Mark Halperin memo out of context. You want to pretend the fact that CBS were idiots means that all questions about George W. Bush's National Guard service have been answered. You mis-characterize the likelyhood of a draft And you dismiss the explosives story.

And a biased *media* is the problem?

I'm going to try to ask this as objectively as I can, but given that tomorrow's election day I may have plumb run out of objectivity.

Is it not at all possible that George Bush's "bad" press is not because of a pro-Kerry, anti-Bush bias but because actually, finally, in the grand scheme of things he just wasn't very good at his job?

Seriously, is that not at all a real possibility? I'm just checking. I also want to know whether your definition of "negative coverage" stretches to included the minor matter of whether a story is accurate or not. Like, for example, if a story suggests that things in Iraq may not be going all that swimmingly for the forseeable future, would that be a "Bush-negative" story?

Posted by: Ben Varkentine at November 1, 2004 09:45 PM

Ben -

What are you talking about? There are links that elucidate in great detail everything that you mention. The fact that you are too lazy to read them does not give you the right to accuse me of distortion.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at November 1, 2004 10:35 PM

Bill--

I thought I was pretty clear. Hardly any of the links (which I did read most of--some of them don't work, BTW) "elucidate in great detail" everything (or anything) I mentioned.

When they do address themselves to the subjects they distort them, from my POV. Your own entries on the Halperin memo are a good example--I think you made assumptions and leapt to unsupported conclusions.

Posted by: Ben from The Sound of the Crowd at November 2, 2004 03:35 PM