See the attached: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...company-all-discussions-of-media-bias/257961/
"Positive" coverage and "negative" coverage is subjective, which makes your article inherently biased.
Watch "Media Malpractice" and let us know how many people thought Palin said "I can see Russia from my house" vs who knew that Obama won his first seat in Illinois senate by having the other 3 candidates removed from the ballot.
The subject is inherently subjective. What you're saying is that there is no way to measure media bias. Which makes right-wing claims of media bias meaningless.
Let's see. What do people know more about: a well-known public figure lampooned by a well-known comedy show, or an obscure detail of a presidential candidate's history? Hmmm. Apples and oranges, anyone?
No, there is a way. It is called how many people get facts wrong about the person opposite those the media is being biased for. Or how little people know about the candidate they want to vote for. Those negative stories in the news today need to be there cause he is actually in a prominante place in politics and can't be over looked. You see the stories that are coming out about Romney and what happened 50+ years ago while ignoring what Obama did right before he became POTUS.
How is it apples and oranges? Those people actually thought Palin said those things. How is the underhanded way of winning a state senate seat "obscure"? You pretty much proved my point, Obama's election for state senate wouldn't have been obscure if he was a GOP candidate.
No, you're deciding what stories are negative and which aren't. That's subjective. Further, studies have shown repeatedly that partisans tend to perceive stories about their candidate as being more negative than they are, and stories about the other guy being more positive than they are. So partisans are the *least* capable of judging whether coverage is slanted or not. The media *did* cover Obama's history in 2008. I remember the stories about his first election(s). To find out whether there are coverage differences between Obama in 2008 and Romney now, you'd have to try to measure several things (amount, placement, tone and timing of coverage) while controlling for other factors (the world and journalism has changed in the last 4 years; in 2008 there was no incumbent running, so there were two separate primary races to cover; etc.) For instance, I'd point out that a lot of the stuff coming out about Romney this time around wasn't reported in 2008. Was that pro-Romney bias back then? Or simply that this time around Romney is a frontrunner, and with Obama a known quantity running as an incumbent, the media is free to focus most of its efforts on the challenger?
Not because of the media. The media did not attribute Tina Fey's words to Palin. People made that erroneous connection themselves. "Underhanded" being a matter of opinion. It was "obscure" because it was a *state senate seat*, and it happened years previously when no one knew who Obama was. LOL! You just proved *my* point. You have no evidence to support that claim. It is no surprise that people were more aware of something that involved a current, well-known politician and a current, well-known TV show. Calling this evidence of bias is, indeed, comparing apples to oranges. For instance, I'm sure more people know who the winner on American Idol is than know about Romney giving his dog a ride on the roof his car. Bias!
Oh yeah...this James Fallows was carter's Chief Speechwriter...and we're supposed to believe a bunch of dots and lines. Yep...there it is...of course with nothing to back his claiim...just dots and lines.
There is no media bias, and even if there was, Republicans certainly have enough cash on hand to buy their own biased coverage.
There's plenty of media bias, but it's not really liberal or conservative overall -- it's corporate. ABC doesn't care if you're conservative or liberal. They just want your attention for ad revenue and also want to make sure that you don't know any dirt about their sponsors. But as long as we fight about the minor differences between two parties that serve the same masters, the media is happy to have your attention.
I can't believe the stuff said on fox news, it's incredibly biased to support right wing attitudes. There is such a thing called objective reporting, fox just doesn't practice it. The sad thing is lots of you guys are so single minded and insular that you can't see what is going on. I firmly believe that reporters should give us the facts and pass little (if any) judgement. Of corse every news broadcaster has times of being biased, but compare fox to pretty much any major broadcasters from another developed country and you'll see what I mean.
