I'm talking about what is referred to as the "Mainstream" media. You cannot seriously be saying that the TV networks and major metropolitan newspapers were not seriously biased in favor of Obama.
Ahh, yes . . . The Media Research Center. MRC is a perfect example of media bias! The site reports 100% on what it perceives as liberal bias and reports NOTHING on conservative bias.
But is the info accurate? Don't attack the site, attack the information. What about journalism.org that Dude linked.
FOX wasn't for damn sure. Neither was the Wall Street Journal or other conservative papers like the New York Post or the Washington Times. Certainly not the 650 radio stations carrying Limbaugh including the Armed Forces Network. Bias is in the eye of the beholder, mon ami.
A far better example. Pew Research is a highly credible source. This article focused on a straightforward comparison of two TV networks (FOX and MSNBC) over a limited time and objectively stated with as much evidence as possible. FOX was found to be more conservative than MSNBC. What a shock. To transpose this into a suggestion that ALL MEDIA is liberally biased is not valid. Let's list some of the conclusions the study reached in it's assesment of 2,400 stories from 48 media outlets. All in all . . . a mixed bag.
Source credibility is everything in research. How can you assess MRC's conclusions on "media" bias if MRC only reports on "liberal" bias? See above. Better source. Cites bias on both sides of the aisle.
Red has illustrated perfectly why I haven't bothered to go on a cut & paste mission and posted links to all of the studies PROVING a leftward bias. Red won't admit the obvious even when proven otherwise and even when the issue is something so blatantly obvious as liberal bias. Anyone who is GENUINELY in learning about the FACTS, can find all the studies they want by using Google.
It was not merely a comparison of Fox and MSNBC, it covered print media, and talk radio as well. And FOX was not found to be more conservative than MSNBC. It was found to have treated the candidates equally, unlike MSNBC. Equality means unbiased, pure and simple. FOX NEWS, Washington Journal, and the New York Post are outnumbered on a huge basis and that is not in dispute. The conclusion is misleading at best in the way it is written. However, the numbers do not lie. FOX looked to be more negative vs Obama because most everyone else was in the tank for him. They also appeared to be more positive for McCain than other media outlets because of the same reason. However the coverage of Obama and McCain on FOX in comparison to each other was virtually identical, with Obama actually receiving more positive stories than McCain. Something no other news agency can claim. In no way did they prop up McCain, but overwhelmingly most of the media did so for Obama, and the culprits are listed in the methodology at the end of the article. Newspaper negative coverage: Obama - 27% Biden - 25% Palin - 41% McCain - 69% CNN negative coverage: Obama - 39% McCain - 61% Media negatives overall excluding FOX: Obama - 29% McCain - 57% Good Lord, even SNL made fun of the free ride Obama got vs Hillary by the media, did so on several occasions, and it was not an exaggeration. It just got worse once he ran vs McCain.
