Full Version: Media for Kerry?
QUOTE(Editor and Publisher @ October 26, 2004, E & P Staff)
A new study for the non-partisan Project for Excellence in Journalism suggests that in the first two weeks of October, during the period of the presidential debates, George W. Bush received much more unfavorable media coverage than Sen. John Kerry.
At the same time, Kerry was able to decrease the poll gap. With this information answer the following questions:
- Is a bias media a good representation of the facts?
- Did the media help Kerry during the debates and post debates?
- Was the media truly bias, or did Kerry's performance and Bush lack of performance during the debates warrant more favorable views of Kerry?
1. Is a bias media a good representation of the facts?
If one starts from the assumption that the media is “biased,” as this question indicates, then the answer is “no.” The article itself lists reasons other than bias that might have contributed to Kerry’s favorable press. Then there is the problem of defining bias. To be Clintonesque, it depends on what the meaning of bias is. LOL The article linked here suggests that the newspapers may not have been entirely representative.
2. Did the media help Kerry during the debates and post debates?
To help Kerry during the debates, the moderators would have had to ask questions favoring Kerry. I didn’t see any of this.
Coverage of the post debates is a separate question. The general consensus among the media was that Kerry won all three debates. Yet on MSNBC Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan were trying to spin the third debate in Bush’s favor. In addition Bush operatives, like Ralph Reed and Karen Hughes spun even the first debate in Bush’s favor before MSNBC’s cameras. Even after the third debate Bush surrogates like Gov. Marc Racicot told us Kerry won on style but Bush on substance.
It seems more than enough pro-Bush, post debate spin fouled the airways.
3. Was the media truly bias, or did Kerry's performance and Bush lack of performance during the debates warrant more favorable views of Kerry?
To put it bluntly, Bush stunk in all three debates, particularly the first. To have reported it any other way would itself have been biased.
If one starts from the assumption that the media is “biased,” as this question indicates, then the answer is “no.” The article itself lists reasons other than bias that might have contributed to Kerry’s favorable press. Then there is the problem of defining bias. To be Clintonesque, it depends on what the meaning of bias is. LOL The article linked here suggests that the newspapers may not have been entirely representative.
QUOTE
These judgments, however, are based on just four not very typical newspapers in a not very typical period of the presidential race.
2. Did the media help Kerry during the debates and post debates?
To help Kerry during the debates, the moderators would have had to ask questions favoring Kerry. I didn’t see any of this.
Coverage of the post debates is a separate question. The general consensus among the media was that Kerry won all three debates. Yet on MSNBC Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan were trying to spin the third debate in Bush’s favor. In addition Bush operatives, like Ralph Reed and Karen Hughes spun even the first debate in Bush’s favor before MSNBC’s cameras. Even after the third debate Bush surrogates like Gov. Marc Racicot told us Kerry won on style but Bush on substance.
It seems more than enough pro-Bush, post debate spin fouled the airways.
3. Was the media truly bias, or did Kerry's performance and Bush lack of performance during the debates warrant more favorable views of Kerry?
To put it bluntly, Bush stunk in all three debates, particularly the first. To have reported it any other way would itself have been biased.
For brevity sake let's just take a glance at CBS.
Use forged documents to support their anti-Bush charges. Forgeries that thet knew were fake and were advised not to rely on by the very 'experts examiners' they themselves hired.
Plan to spring an October surprise on 60 Minutes two days before the election. Accuse Bush of allowing 380 tons of explosives to go unprotected after the fall of Iraq. A charge that may be totally without merit, as reported by NBC News, which had reporters embedded with the first troops to arrive at the site. Those reporters say there was no cache of explosives when they arrived.
Shall I continue? Nah, just head to the Media Research Center, it's all there for you to see.
Use forged documents to support their anti-Bush charges. Forgeries that thet knew were fake and were advised not to rely on by the very 'experts examiners' they themselves hired.
Plan to spring an October surprise on 60 Minutes two days before the election. Accuse Bush of allowing 380 tons of explosives to go unprotected after the fall of Iraq. A charge that may be totally without merit, as reported by NBC News, which had reporters embedded with the first troops to arrive at the site. Those reporters say there was no cache of explosives when they arrived.
Shall I continue? Nah, just head to the Media Research Center, it's all there for you to see.
The fact that Sinclair broadcasting, who didn't want Ted Koppel reading the names of the dead soldiers because of "political controversy"- was willing to air a hatchet job on Kerry on a system that covers 25% of America- for free, right before the election, while unwilling to give equal time to F 9/11- to me, this closes the case- the media is overwhelmingly conservative biased.
I think Kerry was generally held in higher regard by the media based on the simple reality that he was percieved as winning the 3 debates...nothing more. I do not think the media made a conscience effort to bring Kerry back in the polls...Kerry performed better in the debates and obviously the person who perfoms better will have more positive comments from political commentators.
In fact if the media would have spent as much time praising Bush as they did Kerry then they WOULD have been guilty of media bias because that is not the perception of the debates.
As for CBS? Footage taken at that site after the invasion proove that explosives were there. A journalist said that the recurity was laxed. Prime Minister Allawi has stated that security forces were inadequate recently which is what is causing death. We have visual and audio footage of Al Quaqaa having weopens and being unsecure after the invasion. The CIA has touted out people who have added nothing to contradict that. It is the FBI who has to disprove the evidence.
In fact if the media would have spent as much time praising Bush as they did Kerry then they WOULD have been guilty of media bias because that is not the perception of the debates.
As for CBS? Footage taken at that site after the invasion proove that explosives were there. A journalist said that the recurity was laxed. Prime Minister Allawi has stated that security forces were inadequate recently which is what is causing death. We have visual and audio footage of Al Quaqaa having weopens and being unsecure after the invasion. The CIA has touted out people who have added nothing to contradict that. It is the FBI who has to disprove the evidence.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.