"If it hurts the narrative of the Obama administration, it's just not covered."
That's how MRC president Brent Bozell this afternoon summed up for Fox Business Network's Stuart Varney the stunning findings of the latest Media Research Center study, which shows a tremendous disparity in how the liberal broadcast networks covered the 2006 midterms as opposed to this years. Both years saw unpopular presidents dragging down their congressional allies, but in 2006, the media virtually cheerleaded Democrats to taking back Congress, whereas in 2014, the media have largely ignored what appears to be a Republican wave election come next Tuesday.
"This is not a case where the media is saying, 'Republicans are bad, Democrats good.' It's not stark like that," Varney observed, noting the bias-by-story selection entailed. "It's choosing what you cover and how you cover it to include your bias within that coverage. That's what's going on here."
Bozell agreed:
It's the same thing as Benghazi. The same thing as the IRS. The same thing as the VA scandal. Where coverage just evaporates on these things. It vaporizes. This is not happenstance. This is deliberate. They're not going to report what hurts. They don't like what's happening, what's unfolding before they're eyes.
They were excited in 2006. All the stories... remember this story, how many stories did you see on a regular basis on how unpopular George W. Bush. You tell me the last time you saw a story about the unpopularity of Barack Obama, and yet he's more unpopular than George Bush was.
