“Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November,” Rasmussen Reports announced Thursday in posting survey results which determined “just five percent (5%) think reporters are trying to help her with their coverage, while 35 percent believe reporters are providing unbiased coverage.” In Thursday's “Grapevine” segment, FNC's Brit Hume highlighted the findings from the poll of 1,000 “likely voters.”
By wide margins, more Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters see the media as trying to hurt rather than trying to help Palin. For Republicans it's 80 to 6 percent, for Democrats 28 to 4 percent (with 57 percent believing reporting is unbiased) and for unaffiliated voters it's 49 to 5 percent.
The public also recognizes the media's pro-Obama tilt. In late July, as documented in a NewsBusters post, Rasmussen discovered:
More than three times as many Americans see a media tilt in favor of Democrat Barack Obama than toward Republican John McCain. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey released Monday [July 21], of 1,000 likely voters, "found that 49 percent of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44 percent a month ago," compared to a piddling 14 percent who "believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win" while "just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage."
An excerpt from the summary, for the new poll, posted on Thursday, September 4 on the Rasmussen Reports site:
In the new survey, although 85% say they are following news stories about Palin at least somewhat closely, just five percent (5%) think reporters are trying to help her with their coverage, while 35% believe reporters are providing unbiased coverage.Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans say reporters are trying to hurt the GOP vice presidential nominee, and 28% of Democrats agree. Only six percent (6%) of Republicans – and even fewer Democrats (4%)– think the reporting is intended to help her. Most Democrats (57%) think the reporters are being unbiased, but just nine percent (9%) of Republicans concur.
Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say reporters are trying to hurt Palin, while 32% say their coverage is unbiased. Only five percent (5%) say reporters are trying to help her.
Voters are more ambivalent about whether the media coverage of Palin and her family reflects a double standard that treats women worse than men. Forty-six percent (46%) say it does, but 35% disagree. Most Republicans and unaffiliated voters say the stories show the media’s double standard against women, but a majority of Democrats disagree.
The "How the Public Views the Media" section of the MRC's "Media Bias Basics" lists many more surveys of how the public perceive journalists and the news media.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
And the "backlash" begins!!!
September 4, 2008 - 18:27 ET by BEGRUNT"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
MSM Need To Be Hit With An Ugly Stick
September 4, 2008 - 18:32 ET by dboIf you were to take the results of this poll and print them out, then tape it to a lead pipe and start hitting members of the MSM senseless,then, just then, they might start "getting it".
I don't want them to "get
September 4, 2008 - 18:51 ET by Indiana JoeI don't want them to "get it." If they "get it," they'll just go back to being more subtle in their bias, they way they've been for years. We know this is nothing new, it's just "out of the closet."
Media: "We're here, we're clear, we're biased, get used to it!"
America: "No thanks!"
I want this to be such an implosion of credibility that it's taught in journalism schools the way the Great Depression is taught in economics; as a text-book example of how not to do it.
Hit With An Ugly Stick?
September 4, 2008 - 21:49 ET by NL207Hit With An Ugly Stick? They will be. I am convinced MSM ratings will continue to sink as common people turned off by the media Palin smear tune the MSM out.
News to Us
September 4, 2008 - 18:41 ET by acumenBrian Williams - "We would want to be judged on our work."
Update -- We just aren't interested in the judgement.
Or want to ignore the
September 4, 2008 - 20:36 ET by danboOr want to ignore the judgment. self deception is easier.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Wow, that's a shocker!
September 4, 2008 - 18:42 ET by motherbeltFile under "D" for DUH!!!
And there you have it
September 4, 2008 - 18:44 ET by Indiana Joe"Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say reporters are trying to hurt Palin, while 32% say their coverage is unbiased. Only five percent (5%) say reporters are trying to help her."
This is what's known as "the smoking gun."
Please change the headline
September 4, 2008 - 18:46 ET by bdshepherdI like the poll results, but don't inflate them to make it sound better - it hurts credibility. If 51% think the media is out to get her, 5% think the media is helping, and 35% think the media is unbiased, then it's 51% to 40% that think the media is out to get her. I'm not a math whiz, but that's not 10:1.
Leave the creative math to the MSM and loony left.
I thought that too, at first
September 4, 2008 - 18:55 ET by Indiana JoeBut, reading the article, 49% of unaffiliated voters see a negative bias, 5% see a positive bias.
By using the unaffiliated count, you eliminate the partisan skew, and get a truer "man on the street" perspective.
edit: (Although a "10-1 negative vs. positive" disclaimer would not be remiss here.)
Yeah, I'm not saying don't
September 4, 2008 - 19:07 ET by bdshepherdYeah, I'm not saying don't use the 10:1 ratio, just that the headline isn't true as written. To keep the same headline and make it true, the numbers would have to be: "Rasmussen: By 5-to-4 Public Says Reporters 'Trying to Hurt Palin'"
You could go with "Only 1/3 See Media Unbiased," or, like you suggested, "10-to-1 People See Coverage As Negative vs. Positive."
I'm a relative newcomer to the site, but I think it does great work. The problem is that if you start skewing things to make it sound better for "our side" then you're falling into the same bad habits as the MSM that are rightfully scorned here.
I agree 100%, bd. That
September 4, 2008 - 19:12 ET by Indiana JoeI agree 100%, bd. That headline gave me pause as well. While I understand where they got the ratio, it does seem a bit like "cherry-picking" the data.
Maybe the most salient fact is that less than half see the coverage as "unbiased." 150 Million Americans can't be wrong, LOL!
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
I looked at the "Daily
September 4, 2008 - 21:13 ET by danboI looked at the "Daily Presential Tracking Poll" (Rasmussen). Their wording is; "Last night’s polling shows that, by a ten-to-one margin, voters believe reporters are trying to hurt Palin’s campaign rather than help.".
He's apparently just using the wording there.
This gem is also there...
So in 5 days she's almost caught up with Hillary.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
That explains it. Would
September 4, 2008 - 21:29 ET by bdshepherdThat explains it.
Would have been better off just quoting though - the paraphrase twists the meaning a bit.
Now they're going after her college years
September 4, 2008 - 18:53 ET by Prester JohnVP hopeful Palin attended 5 colleges in 6 years
SPOKANE, Wash. — Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin attended five colleges in six years before graduating from the University of Idaho in 1987.
Federal privacy laws prohibit the schools from disclosing her grades, and none of the schools contacted by The Associated Press could say why she transferred. There was no indication any of them were contacted as part
of the background investigation of Palin by presidential candidate John McCain's campaign.
http://www.comcast.n...
Note the dig at the vetting process.
"Note the dig at the vetting process."
September 4, 2008 - 19:00 ET by Indiana JoeYeah, caught that, PJ.
Wonder if those "federal privacy laws" may keep schools from releasing that information, too? If so, not reporting it would be so...
...con-VEEEEN-ient.
Yawn
September 4, 2008 - 19:51 ET by stratmanMore inuendo than import.
Palin was a student for 9 semesters. She skipped one semester, Spring 1984, between her 1 year stint at a junior college and one year time at the University of Idaho.
If one were to go through undergraduate schooling without pause, it would take 8 semesters. So, Palin took one more semester. Big deal.
Also, the author of the article needs to hang out with 4 year olds and learn how to count to 5 correctly, since Palin was in school for 5 years and not six.
Biden has plagiarized numerous times during his career, including being busted in law school, which should have earned him an expulsion - D'ya think his family's wealth and power intervened to keep Slow-Joe in law school? - and those are just the times he's been caught.
Biden's veracity is geometrically more important than Palin's extra semester to complete college.
It is important what someone has done in the past because it shaped who they are today. But what a person is today is more important as it is a marker of how they have handled adversity in their lives and how they will handle adversity in the future.
Biden has continued to skate by with little true accomplishments in the political arena except getting re-elected.
Palin has proven her bonafides of shaking up corrupt politicians and putting constituents first. I have also yet to hear credible evidence of capricious employement behavior, lack of intelligence or ability to handle negative journalist/politician heat.
The only potential area of question is why five schools. I'll bet the answers are more mundane than the Dems and MSM wish.
RRAM Tough!
NOW is a used to be
September 4, 2008 - 19:31 ET by pocomocoAt a time when the women in the MSM should be celebrating the fact that a woman is about to break the political ‘glass ceiling’, and that the primary goal of the woman’s movement may finally be achieved, the women in the MSM have taken two steps back by denigrating what Palin is about to accomplish.
The women of the MSM have, in effect, flushed decades of NOW’s ‘woman’s movement’ down the toilet. You would have thought that the ‘icon’ of the women’s movement, Gloria Steinem, would be hopping mad but no as she, too, has joined the chorus against Palin - glaring evidence that the ‘liberal agenda’ supersedes reality.
NOW should now be considered defunct. It hasn’t a high-heel to stand on. NOW's championing of women has shown its falsity.
As I have heard many times
September 4, 2008 - 20:11 ET by SnappyAs I have heard many times today and agree 100% with, If Palin and McCain get the white house then we will hear the collective lefts feminists jaws hit the floor ... how DARE a still Married, god fearing, gun toting, anti abortion and good looking woman with 5 kids (one of which is a special needs child) get where they have not been able to!
If NOW ignores the
September 4, 2008 - 20:19 ET by Clear thinkerIf NOW ignores the accomplishments of Gov. Palin, and either they stay quiet or work hard against Gov. Palin, NOW will become an organization strictly for lesbians.
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goal
This link
September 4, 2008 - 21:08 ET by jgarciaThis link (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,1290251.story) sums up NOW's view on Palin. I read this piece and commented on it around 8 am eastern time... however, the comment section was completely remove by the time I sent the link to someone else! I am not sure what NOW stands for now! But it isn't for the American woman...... Just like the Democrat Party… special interest group hijack it!
Just read your link. WOW!
September 4, 2008 - 23:00 ET by needleJust read your link.
WOW! Sick high-test victimology. No Grace. No virtue. No hope. Just anger.
The comment section would sure be interesting. However, Gloria Steinem is so stark that anyone for whom there is any hope should be able to get it on their own, and realize what is good for them and what isn’t.
Happy Travels Gloria. Au revoir
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
35%
September 4, 2008 - 21:11 ET by mbuelHow much crossover in this 35% is there to the 25% who believe in the conspiracy behind 9/11?
Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.
MSM
September 5, 2008 - 09:10 ET by NorthCoasterHEHEHEHEH
The chickens are coming home to roost!
Republican Torture Pigs and Perverts
September 5, 2008 - 14:22 ET by Jacob FreezeWe beat the Nazis without torturing prisoners, but Bush/Cheney decided that a few raggedy Taliban in caves were more terrible than the enormous German Army and disgraced the United States with crimes against humanity that Eisenhower and Roosevelt and Patton and Abraham Lincoln and Washington and Grant and even William Tecumseh Sherman would have condemned as contemptible sub-human perversions.
Palin and McCain want to continue these perverted crimes against humanity.
Sarah Palin is just another Republican torture pig and pervert.
John McCain is just another Republican torture pig and pervert.
A vote for Palin/McCain is a vote to disgrace the United States and the all the generations of our brave soldiers who rejected torture as a perversion unworthy of even the lowest human garbage.
Hey Freeze
September 5, 2008 - 14:28 ET by Cool ArrowObviously you haven't been listening or reading.
McCain continues to disagree with the Bush administration even on waterboarding. You'll just have to get back with us on this, and while you're at it give us some proof to your claim Palin is involved in torture.
You've been a member here for 1 year and 1 day? Did you get banned for a year the first day you were approved?
Rocky & Bullwinkle '08
cool -->
September 5, 2008 - 14:34 ET by MrShyHaha, check it out....
Blog entry
Rasmussen: By 10-to-1 Public Says Reporters 'Trying to Hurt Palin'
Brent Baker
28
1 new
28 sec ago
Blog entry
'Today' Show Wonders Why McCain Speech Didn't Trash GOP new
Scott Whitlock
13
13 new
3 min 4 sec ago
Blog entry
NYT-MoveOn.org's 'Petraeus -- Betray Us' Ad Cited NYT's Own Reporting Wrongly
Clay Waters
7
51 weeks 18 hours ago
... that's the extent of his posting here on NB. Look at the 51 week gap. I think you nailed it! :p
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Trolls everywhere
September 5, 2008 - 14:47 ET by Cool ArrowFortunately we're just seeing those trolls that rise to the level of John Kerry, and John Conyers and John Edwards.
With all those Johns, you can bet Barney Frank is bringing up the rear.
Excuse me while I laugh myself sick with my own joke.
Rocky & Bullwinkle '08
um cool
September 5, 2008 - 14:40 ET by candanceI got ten bucks that says this is Pop's Plan B account.
sucker's bet candance
September 5, 2008 - 14:55 ET by Cool ArrowIf we get flooded with links we'll know.
He's good at collecting information. But intellectual tunnel vision and myopia are a bad combination if you're trying to explain a point
Rocky & Bullwinkle '08
can....bothersome trolls
September 5, 2008 - 15:07 ET by BlondeThis is from the "Official Moonbat Hunter"....and is pretty funny.
Mudkitty:
Left wing troll who stalks right wing websites endlessly, even when universally loathed, banned or otherwise told to go away.
"Dang girlfriend, I got me a mudkitty on my blog and dat bitch won't go away."
This name works only on Moonbat trolls who are severely mentally deranged, not just the annoying ones with reading comprehension problems.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Good one Blonde
September 5, 2008 - 15:18 ET by Cool ArrowI got me a mudkitty on my blog and dat bitch won't go away.
Even their pets are engaging in depraved acts.
Rocky & Bullwinkle '08
rofl blonde!
September 5, 2008 - 15:20 ET by candanceThanks for sharing!
Anyone care to rip this
September 5, 2008 - 14:28 ET by MrShyAnyone care to rip this bleeding-heart-for-terrorist-thugs idiot a new one?
I'm too lazy today. It' Friday. :p
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
MrShy, He dropped the same
September 5, 2008 - 14:31 ET by MassConservMrShy, He dropped the same steaming pile in another thread.
As I said over there, I think someone forgot to check the lock on the dayroom door.
Freeze, you said...
September 5, 2008 - 14:37 ET by bassndudeWe beat the Nazis without torturing prisoners... No we did not. We beat the fire out of them till we got the information we needed. Our soldiers, when faced with get information, or let your fellow soldiers die, behaved just like Jack Bauer, and got the job done.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
not even that bass
September 5, 2008 - 14:51 ET by candanceBut his post shows a real ignorance of American history. To suggest that waterboarding is worse than Sherman's march to Atlanta or Native American containment in the late 1800s - simply hilarious.
Either libs have no idea about history or their BDS causes them to exaggerate without pause.
I agree candance. Evidently
September 5, 2008 - 15:01 ET by bassndudeI agree candance. Evidently he has overlooked the "cash for scalps" policy aimed at the Apache indians...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
libs vs reality
September 5, 2008 - 23:01 ET by mbuelreality knocks them flat every time. I can't count how many times I've been in argument with a lib who misunderstands history and the battle of good vs evil.
But here's the wonderful thing about the truth. Truths are self evident. They are constant. They never change. The same marxist ideology that has been dressed up this year by a young black extremist, is the same ideology we defeated in the late 80's with the help of Reagan.
Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.
A vote for Obama is a vote
September 5, 2008 - 14:40 ET by bassndudeA vote for Obama is a vote for Bin laden. A terrorist torture pig. A vote for Obama is a vote for Putin, a war mongering KGB agent with designs on invasion of nations. A vote for Obama is a vote for higher energy prices, higher taxes, higher...oh well, you catch my drift.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
History not your strong
September 5, 2008 - 14:52 ET by Ruths husband BenHistory not your strong suit, eh? Or Googling either. Here you go Jacob. Funny, it's the same distinction today. Depends on what you call torture.
By the way, when you are out of the house, your dog waterboards your cat. Bad Fascist Dog! Bad Fascist Dog!
“it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” - Justice Antonin Scalia