Harvard: Positive Newspaper Stories on Dems- 58.8%, Positive for Repubs- 26.4%
If even Harvard University says that the Media overwhelmingly favors Democrats in their coverage, you've got to finally accept that it is true. The MSM loves Democrats and hates Republicans. It's just that simple. Investor's Business Daily gives us the low down on the gushingly positive coverage that the MSM bestows upon their favored political party by reporting the results of the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy from Harvard ("hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy" as IBD quips). The survey found that the "media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans."
Here on Newsbusters we say, "DUH!"
Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."
The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.
It's always nice to get one of your main premises proven correct and this survey does just that. Here is how the stats broke down:
Newspapers
Democrats -- 58.8% Positive, 30% Neutral, 11.3% Negative
Republicans -- 26.4% Positive, 34% Neutral, 39.6% Negative
Network Evening News
Democrats -- 39.5% Positive, 43.4% Neutral, 17.1% Negative
Republicans -- 18.6% Positive, 44.2% Neutral, 37.2% Negative
Cable News
Democrats -- 33.9% Positive, 40.6% Neutral, 25.5% Negative
Republicans -- 28.7% Positive, 40.9% Neutral, 30.4% Negative
NPR's "Morning Edition"s
Democrats -- 41.2% Positive, 52.9% Neutral, 5.9% Negative
Republicans -- 30% Positive, 50% Neutral, 20% Negative
PBS News
Democrats -- 8.3% Positive, 66.7% Neutral, 25% Negative
Republicans -- 0% Positive, 77.8% Neutral, 22.2% Negative
The newspapers stats very much confirm my own thoughts on that industry and TV is no surprise, either. But, I'd also like to point your attention to the PBS stats where you can see that the survey didn't find a single positive story about a Republican on PBS. Zero. Nada. The big goose egg.
Folks, this is our state sponsored broadcast agency paid for by YOUR taxes. Yet, they couldn't find one single Republican to do a positive story about? Half the electorate is not being represented by this agency that those voter's taxes pay for? Imagine that!
Just one more reason why we should instantly end their funding. Don't we live in a Representative Democracy? Shouldn't our taxes go to benefit us all equally? Well, PBS does not benefit half those who pay for it.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This will be one of those
November 2, 2007 - 05:27 ET by USA4freedomThis will be one of those jewels to be packed away to bring
out like a hammer when you have an argument with a leftist.
But its like you said.. Duh..
Now if only they would do the same with movies, TV shows
like CSI and the like, talk shows etc.
I love how the left wants the “fairness doctrine”
“Its just not fair.. that they don’t run every bit of info
that comes in!!!
More proof that their ideas don’t work, they have to control
the info to the public to pull off the big scam.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Yep
November 2, 2007 - 06:02 ET by celatorYes, it only took the geniuses at Harvard 40 years to figure out there was a left/socialist/America is awful bias.
This study was covered in
November 2, 2007 - 08:01 ET by Senior ChiefThis study was covered in last night's O'Reilly's program. But this is not news and it doesn't matter to the leftoids of America. It is their religion- leftist. They've been inculcated to this kind of mentality since kindergarten. Like religion, one don't "see" and "hear" the truth about Christianity, if one already decided what she/he wanted to hear and see about Christianity. Blind faith, eh. Well, the left has the same philosophy. They don't wan't to hear and see what's on the other side of the discussion, for they already decided what they wanted to hear and see...
To save America from the lefties: Cheney/Rice or Steele in '08. How about drafting Rush Limbaugh/Michael Savage ticket in '08.
I can't watch O'Reilly
November 2, 2007 - 08:38 ET by Warner Todd HustonI can't watch O'Reilly because I a at work during his program, so I didn't know he'd covered it.
This has
November 2, 2007 - 09:02 ET by cvgbuckeyeThis has become the frog in the gradually heating water pot.
Few people, including some who visit here, are really aware of the threat that a biased media, to this obscene degree, poses to a democracy. The dems, libs, lefties and the MSM are aware and they relish it. They wish to impose a socialistic, if not outright communistic form of government upon America with this continuous Pravda humdrum.
Example: People continuously refer to George Bush in the most diminutive terms. Yet stop them and ask, "Fair enough, now tell me the things that make him such a bogeyman". They can't tell you! They'll, of course site Iraq. Well, what if we had not been wrong and Iraq would have handed off WMD's to the terrorists?
Example: They will site gas prices. They honestly believe that the president sits behind his desk every day and sets the prices.
It goes on and on and on BUT do you know why? Pravda has done it's job.
When the MSM hands the White house to the dems, as they have the congress, they will finish the job by signing on The Fairness in Media Doctrine. At that point, the free press will have been discontinued, Conservatism and free speech criminalized and Democracy will have been crushed "without firing a shot".
If all of that takes place, and there is a good chance that it will, then I guess that all of us Old Marines will have to organize the next American Revolution. I will not stand back and allow it to endure and I know that others will not either.
"A coward, dies a thousand deaths but a man of charachter tastes of death but once";;;(or something like that).
Should that come to pass,
November 2, 2007 - 10:37 ET by Troika37Should that come to pass, let me know, I'm in. I've only been out of the saddle for a year or so - it won't be too hard to gear up and get back in it.
WTH,Jane Hall tried to
November 2, 2007 - 11:19 ET by Chris NormanWTH,
Jane Hall tried to spin the coverage as being skewed by positive coverage of Barak Obama (being new and fresh) and negative coverage of John McCain (imploding). O'Riley and Goldberg weren't buying any of that. As Goldberg observed, if Obama was a Republican, he wouldn't have received that glowing coverage.
You have
November 2, 2007 - 11:22 ET by cvgbuckeyeYou have all likely heard of "Dead Man Walking". This Hall woman is Blind Woman Talking. She would deny media bias regardless of how blatant. She typifies the problem that embraces, not only media bias but hypocricy and hyper-dishonesty as well.
I am being kind.
Like Alan Colmes, Jane Hall
November 2, 2007 - 11:51 ET by Chris NormanLike Alan Colmes, Jane Hall feels it's her job to argue against the conservative position, no matter what the facts are. Her argument was so weak and contrived that she looked ridiculous.
And this Jane Hall is
November 2, 2007 - 12:41 ET by Senior ChiefAnd this Jane Hall is supposedly a Journalism professor in one of the elite U out there. Of course, she's going to spin it according to her beliefs. Well, Goldberg countered that, the leftoid media "doesn't care".
I'm glad FOX is there, Rush, Savage and yeah Hannity...
So, it is a case of Young,
November 2, 2007 - 14:45 ET by BDSo, it is a case of Young, Fresh getting positive coverage?
Bull.....
When it is a young fresh conservative they get zippo coverage regardless. Can you say Shelby Steele?
This study ignores so much
November 2, 2007 - 09:45 ET by mattmThis study ignores so much of what goes into bias. Such as, which stories are covered, which are buried, which are ignored, how much attention is paid to certain aspects of a story...etc. It also leaves out entertainment media (but that's, perhaps, a different story if were talking strictly news outlets)
Statistically, then, based on the ommission of 2/3 of what makes up media bias in news, we should adjust all those numbers accordingly, resulting in approximately 85% Liberal bias.
Of course any bias is too much, so if a news outlet favors one viewpoint, without admitting its leanings, it's really 100% biased.
BTW- PBS being mainly neutral is Pure B... S...