5 Comments Add your own

• 1. Jon  |  October 31st, 2008 at 11:24 am

  I’m thinkin’ Fox News bashing a Republican is a sign of the apocalyspe.

• 2. snuss  |  October 31st, 2008 at 1:14 pm

  “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just a slogan.

  On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally). For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall). Yet even here, his negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost 2 to 1.
  Source: http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

• 3. Orlando Clay  |  October 31st, 2008 at 1:43 pm

  snuss wrote: ” ‘Fair and balanced’ isn’t just a slogan.”

  Yeah, right….and there really is a Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.

  Here’s a reality check for you right-wingnuts who want to believe in the Tooth Fairy and the supposed impartiality of Fox News: The reason the negative McCain story number for FNC is only at 40% is because the channel virtually IGNORES most of the negative stories about McCain.

• 4. echo4charlie  |  October 31st, 2008 at 2:05 pm

  I ask, how impartial is CNN? CNBC? CBS? NBC? ABC? Al Jazeera? Good Morning America? The View? The Today Show?

  Fox may lean moreso to the right than those listed, but they are far more balanced than, again, those listed. It isn’t all right-wing propaganda.

  I’ve been catching far more of FOX, as my wife seems to be watching it around the clock, only taking a break to watch Larry King, or E! News (which is as far-out as you can get….does that stuff qualify as news?).

  I have to admit, though….Bill O’Reilly’s “No Spin Zone” is nothing but spin.

  But it really does seem more balanced than the others (although FOX and Friends seems the bit of a right-side attack dog).

• 5. SNuss  |  October 31st, 2008 at 9:10 pm

  “Winning the Media Campaign: How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election.” That study found that in the media overall—a sample of 43 outlets studied in the six weeks following the conventions through the last debate—Barack Obama’s coverage was somewhat more positive than negative (36% vs. 29%), while John McCain’s, in contrast, was substantially negative (57% vs. 14% positive). The report concluded that this, in significant part, reflected and magnified the horse race and direction of the polls.
  Source: http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

  The Color of News-Newspapers
  October 29, 2008
  The front page coverage of the 13 newspapers studied here tended to portray a more extreme version of the overall press treatment of both McCain and Obama. Coverage was more critical of John McCain and more favorable toward Barack Obama than the media overall. When it came to Sarah Palin, it was somewhat more neutral, and less positive.

  Indeed, of all the media sectors studied, John McCain received the most negative coverage in print. In all, 69% of the newspaper stories studied about McCain were clearly negative, while only 6% were positive, a ratio of about 11-to-1. (The press overall was 57% to 14%, a ratio of closer to 4-to-1.) Only MSNBC offered more negative coverage of the Republican nominee.

  Newspaper front page coverage was also the place where we found the most positive coverage for Obama of any sector studied, though the level of negative coverage was fairly typical. Almost half (45%) of the newspapers stories about Obama were positive, compared with 36% in the media generally. Most of that difference came from fewer neutral stories—just 27% versus 35% in the media overall. Negative coverage was more similar, 27% versus 29% overall.
  Source: http://www.journalism.org/node/13439

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed