posted October 27, 2004 10:43 AM            

Wednesday, Oct. 27, 2004 8:30 a.m. EDT
Study: Media Reports Favor Kerry By Almost 2 to 1

A study of the major media by the Project for Excellence in Journalism finds that news stories are favoring John Kerry by a ratio of almost 2 to 1.

As the president campaign has turned to the final stretch, news reports have become increasingly biased.

The Boston Globe reported Wednesday that the Journalism "survey released yesterday . . . found that 59 percent of the stories that were primarily about Bush from Oct. 1-14 were negative in tone, compared to only 25 percent of the stories about Kerry. And while 34 percent of the Kerry coverage was favorable, a mere 14 percent of the president's coverage put him in a positive light. The survey examined 817 stories from The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Columbus Dispatch, and The Miami Herald; the evening and morning news programs on ABC, CBS, and NBC; PBS's nightly newscast, CNN's NewsNight With Aaron Brown; and the Fox News Channel's Special Report With Brit Hume."

One can only imagine how much more that coverage would favor Kerry had Fox, which offers more balanced coverage, not been included in the study.

''I have no doubt that people who perceive the press as liberal are going to see evidence of this in those numbers," Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, told the Globe. ''My own view is that the inside-baseball, drama-critic mentality is at play here, and it's the same mentality that helped Bush four years ago."

posted October 27, 2004 11:21 AM            

Let's see, the left is in control of virtually all the broadcast networks and local TV stations...except Sinclair and Fox.

The left is in control of virtually all newspapers in America. Reporters vote more than 80% dimocrat.

Wow, now that's balanced news...only if you're a radical leftist.

Besides, it isn't unfair to broadcast the truth as Sinclair did. John Kerry is the only one who fears the truth.

posted October 27, 2004 06:46 PM              

quote:

---

Yeah, that's the kind of balance only a radical leftist could appreciate Mirandee

---

No, I don't appreciate it at all, jwhop. I was just reminding you that you and the other Bush supporters at this site sure seemed to appreciate it when Sinclair Broadcasting was doing it. Also reminding you that if not for Reagan and Bush vetoing the Fairness Doctrine neither party would be having these problems. There would be a law that ALL media had to abide by and it would serve both the American public and democracy better, especially in an election year.

I pointed out to you that those stats you provide regarding the political affiliation of "liberal media" came from a conservative right Republican site. So it doesn't wash unless you are going to try and tell me the man who runs that site is non-biased. I read some of the things on his site and I can tell you he is definitely biased.

You see, this is it with you, jwhop, you seem to think that whatever the Republicans do is perfectly fine and okay and just dandy. You cheer them on. But you don't think it is okay for the other side to do the same thing. Or even if you imagine they are doing the same thing which is the case 9 out of 10 times.

Now what do you think of this? Do you think that this is fair and non-partisan? Do you think it okay or not okay? I received it in my email today. Do you think that I should sign a petiton and send it to the FCC or not?

If Sinclair Broadcasting didn't provide enough evidence of big media's political duplicity, this week please take note of Pappas Telecasting.

The California-based media company, which bills itself as the nation's largest privately owned broadcaster, announced on Monday that it is giving selected county party committees $450,000 worth of air time to run partisan ads over several of its California TV and radio stations. The bulk of this money, $325,000 is going to support GOP candidates. When asked to provide other candidates on the ballot with equal time, Pappas spokesman Mike Angelos scoffed, saying they would have to foot their own bill.

Like Sinclair, Pappas has placed its own agenda before its duty to serve the public. In doing so, Pappas not only flouts their federal obligation to serve the public "interest, convenience and necessity", but also fails in its own mission to act as public trustee, as stated on the Pappas website:

"A true broadcaster has to perform two roles comfortably: one, that of public trustee, and the second, that of responsible businessperson. Our business interests cannot supersede or contravene our duty as public trustee."

It's time Pappas felt less "comfortably" about its heavy-handed tactics to influence election outcomes. I encourage you to take direct action against Pappas by visiting the alert page of our affiliate at Free Press.

Contact Chairman Powell

The problem of big media politicking goes beyond a handful of bad actors in an election year. Over the last twenty years, government policies have encouraged media concentration and empowered media conglomerates -- like Sinclair, Pappas and others -- which return the favor by trying to sway public opinion towards politicians that are more amenable to their political and business agenda. This is not about Democrats or Republicans. It's about Big Media abusing the public trust to preserve their hold on power.

On Friday, thousands of you responded to our request to urge FCC Chairman Michael Powell to take a stronger stance against such abuses. So many Americans downloaded our web ad "The Big Giveaway" that the server crashed by the end of the day Friday. Your phone calls to Chairman Powell slowed his FCC switchboard to a crawl and your emails were held in limbo before they could clear the lines.

PS - I signed the petition and I am trying to work with Common Cause and Free Media to bring about stricter rules in news broadcasting which makes it fair for both Republicans and Democrats. But more important, makes it more fair to the American public and it would serve democracy in America a whole lot better as well.

PPS - I'm disappointed you called me a "radical leftist" - I liked anarchist much better.