From the Project for Excellence in Journalism comes this tidbit about our “unbiased reporters of fact”:
Newspapers—More Enterprise and Emphasis on Governance
On the front pages of newspapers, Democrats tended to get more coverage than in other media, somewhat more positive coverage than elsewhere, and more stories tended to contain information that explained how they would be affected if that candidate were elected than was true in the press coverage overall. In addition, many more of the stories were initiated by journalists than elsewhere in the press, a fact that signals a special role for print as a source of enterprise in news.
Another distinguishing characteristic of the print stories studied was tone. Democrats got much more positive coverage in the daily papers examined than they did elsewhere. Fully 59% of all stories about Democrats had a clear, positive message vs. 11% that carried a negative tone.
For the top tier Democrats, the positive tilt was even more the case than for Democrats in general. Obama’s front page coverage in the sample was 70% positive and 9% negative and Clinton’s was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative.
Republican candidates, in contrast, were more likely to receive clearly negative stories in print than elsewhere: 40% negative vs. 26% positive and 34% neutral.
Translation - create the news… then slant it to fit your agenda. Welcome to the unbiased media.
And network television?
The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates—by a margin of three-to-one.
The programming studied on Fox News offered a somewhat more positive picture of Republicans and more negative one of Democrats compared with other media outlets. Fox News stories about a Republican candidate were most likely to be neutral (47%), with the remainder more positive than negative (32% vs. 21% negative).
When it came to Democratic candidates, the picture was more negative. Again, neutral stories had a slight edge (39%), followed by 37% negative and 24% positive.
But any sense here that the news channel was uniformly positive about Republicans or negative about Democrats is not manifest in the data.
MSNBC had more positive coverage of both parties, but still covered Republicans negatively over 63% more often.
And then there’s the taxpayer-funded network that doesn’t even bother itself with providing any positive coverage towards Republicans at all.
And in talk radio, which doesn’t try to hide its bias, look what the research reveals:
Conservatives will talk positively and negatively about both sides. But liberals refuse to say anything positive about Republicans and, with the exception of Hillary refuse to say anything negative about Democrats.
And as sure as there’s a liberal bias in the media, liberals will continue to deny it exists. Denial of reality and suppression of facts seems to be their only means of existence.1f8e