News Item: 3/14/05 NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush (news - web sites) than Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites), according to a study released Monday.
(Full article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/media_report_dc)
I suppose that's news, in a dog-bites-man kind of way. The article goes on to describe a 58% increase in blog readership (Yay!) as an alternative, citing that people "expect to be disappointed" with network news.
4 comments:
Well, isn't that the role of the press? To critique the actions of those holding power?
The report should have pointed out--and didn't--that the sheer number of references to Bush dwarfed the number of references to Kerry. Bush was on every single page of the paper, because he had the office and the incumbency. Kerry just had a campaign.
Don't criticize the press for doing its job. Hold your fire for the many times it doesn't.
The role of the press is to report the facts. It shouldn't matter who holds the power. Freedom of the press does not give press a free license to snipe at politicians.
The most important news about Kerry that didn't get reported by the major media was his senate voting record. It was hard to know what he stood for. So, more news about Kerry would have probably worked against him.
The facts we need are about those in power.
I agree that the facts about Kerry weren't reported. If they had been, he'd have had a greater margin of victory.
Oh, I've never had a problem with the facts. It's the fabrications and distortions that I take issue with (memogate being the representative case).
If Kerry's voting record were made known, he would have generated Dukakis/Mondale like numbers. That's why we never heard about it. He had the fourth worst voting record in the senate.
Post a Comment