This may come as a shock but ... there might be some liberal bias in the media!
According to this Reuters story, press coverage of the election was three times more likely to be negative toward Bush than Kerry.
I’m shocked. Appalled even. Except I’m not shocked.
“The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator,” the story said.
Here’s another shocker.
The three nightly newscasts and PBS were all more likely to be negative than positive, and Fox was twice as likely to be positive than negative.
Well, this proves it. Fox is a partisan arm of the Republican National Committee.
But you know, what if they are? Somebody should be. According to their own research, 85 percent of journalists are liberal. So what if somebody decides to even the playing field a little? I’m all for unbiased media, but you know what? It ain’t gonna happen.
Ever.
So at the very least we ought to have someone on both sides.
As Ann Coulter once said, Fox should admit to being a conservative news station – just as soon as the rest of the news stations admit to being liberal.
posted by Kate Robinson @ 9:35 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I wrote up a response to each one of his points, but then instead of posting it I just sighed and thought, "why bother?" So i didn't. The fact that he comes back to my blog is interesting. I wonder if he thinks he's really "reaching" me.
RE:rkid1
In case your reading comprehension skills aren't up to par, or in case you skimmed through one of my posts out of context, I thought you should know that I wasn't equating going to church with having an abortion. I was talking about the right to go to church or the right to not have to live under the churches rules, i.e. criminalizing a woman’s right to choose.
The discussion was about tolerance, Dean calling republicans or conservatives intolerant, and then you saying he’s intolerant for saying you're intolerant.
Now listen carefully, why do Christians and church goers stand in the way, and protest people going to planned parenthood but no one stands in the way of them going to church? Both are legal and always will be. Ever hear the phrase "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."? Or how about "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."?
Now which one sounds more tolerant, letting someone go to church, or preventing someone from going to Planned Parenthood?
You can call me intolerant when I stand outside your church protesting your legal right to go to church whilst spitting on you and calling you names, and posting your address on the internet.
I don’t see the bad logic in that.
RE:Kate
No, I am not necessarily trying to reach anyone in particular. However it seems like there are a lot of impressionable kids that read your blog, and they should be exposed to opposing view points from time to time. How else can one learn to think.
What is interesting is that I am the only one who is not related to you that goes to your site, and no I don't read everything you post.
Now, to respond to your actual post.
Ever think about the possibility, that maybe Bush just has more dirt on him and has more skeletons in the closet than Kerry does?
This is an extreme example but if Mother Theresa was running against Madonna in an election, what percentage of negative press would be about Madonna, and what percentage would be about Mother Theresa?
Maybe if the Republicans could find someone who hadn't done cocaine, gotten a DUI, had a drunk daughter, dodged the draft, bankrupted a couple of companies and could think of one philosophers name other than Jesus, there wouldn't be all this "bias" in election coverage?
Ask those same people who got the majority of negative coverage in the Clinton / Dole election.
Post a Comment
<< Home