Dueling bitterness on cable news
A Pew Research Center study found that of Fox News stories about Mr. Obama from the end of August through the end of October, just 6 percent were positive and 46 percent were negative.
Pew also found that Mr. Obama was covered far more than Mr. Romney. The president was a significant figure in 74 percent of Fox’s campaign stories, compared with 49 percent for Romney. In 2008, Pew found that the channel reported on Mr. Obama and John McCain in roughly equal amounts.
The greater disparity was on MSNBC, which gave Mr. Romney positive coverage just 3 percent of the time, Pew found. It examined 259 segments about Mr. Romney and found that 71 percent were negative. …
Such stridency has put NBC News journalists who cover Republicans in awkward and compromised positions, several people who work for the network said. To distance themselves from their sister channel, they have started taking steps to reassure Republican sources, like pointing out that they are reporting for NBC programs like “Today” and “Nightly News” — not for MSNBC.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
bis…hop!
corujodp on November 6, 2012 at 9:42 AM
As if there is a difference, since they all appear on each others’ shows.
TC@LeatherPenguin on November 6, 2012 at 9:44 AM
2008 we had no incumbent running. That a sitting President gets more coverage than a mere candidate should be obvious or am I missing something?
Valkyriepundit on November 6, 2012 at 9:46 AM
Speaking of media bias – malpractice – am I the only in the country who noticed Obama’s murmuring “right” at a significant spot early-on in the infamous CBS interview excerpt just released?
Listen for yourself and tell me if I’m imagining that murmur.
Drained Brain on November 6, 2012 at 9:47 AM
I wonder when the NYT will get around to a little introspection themselves regarding promoting bitterness versus the news.
Oh yeah, who am I kidding!
HumpBot Salvation on November 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM
NYT trying to distance itself from it’s MSDNC affiliate, aka, the Carny station.
antipc on November 6, 2012 at 9:50 AM
Apparently they aren’t aware of the controversies that only fox has bothered to cover.
KMC1 on November 6, 2012 at 9:54 AM
Because the media thinks they control who and what we think about…
albill on November 6, 2012 at 9:56 AM
No, you hit the nail on the head – I was about to make that same point. This is merely the Grey Lady trying to fill up column space while they await their boy’s eventual demise.
pain train on November 6, 2012 at 9:56 AM
If this is bias, it’s pro-Obama bias. If anything, much more than 46% of what Obama did was negative, and near 0% was positive.
The Rogue Tomato on November 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM
What about CNN? They’re better than MSNBC but certainly aren’t bias-free.
AlexB on November 6, 2012 at 10:01 AM
6 percent is too high. Fox needs to step up its game.
mudskipper on November 6, 2012 at 10:01 AM
The Times doesn’t mind that MSNBC is biased towards Obama, but even they are embarassed by the tone and lack of subtlety they think they have in their own slanted coverage (though obviously, they haven’t look at a Paul Krugman column lately).
The Times considers itself like an accomplished sniper in going after the right, even when they aren’t, because they’re enamored with their own cleverness. In contrast, they see MSNBC as the drunken bar loudmouth who — even if he’s rooting for the same team as they are — is so aggressively obnoxious he’s going to make non-partisan people root for the other guys just to teach the jerk a lesson. They don’t disagree with Chris, Ed, Al or Crazy Larry; they just wish they’d all act more like Rachel, who maintains her calm even as she slants and botches the facts.
jon1979 on November 6, 2012 at 10:02 AM
True. If the news covers a mass murderer and the news about that mass murderer is 100% negative, is that considered biased reporting?
Having said that, what GOOD has Obama done in the past few months that deserve positive reporting?
The Rogue Tomato on November 6, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Just the act of telling the truth about Obama is inherently negative, whereas telling the truth about Romney is positive.
esnap on November 6, 2012 at 10:06 AM
It was not a murmur, he said it quite clearly.
bayview on November 6, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Yet I haven’t seen any mention of that. If that isn’t the most obvious contradiction of what he claimed in the debate, nothing is.
Maybe I’ve missed the comments on it.
Drained Brain on November 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM
….love the blue on blue but I have to say the irony of a paper that presents Paul Krugman as a credible economic mind and whose editorial page reads like a Move On .org ad is in no position to be talking about “credibility” in journalism.
Baxter Greene on November 6, 2012 at 10:28 AM
I’d like to see the breakdown for Fox before and after 9/11/12.
Dusty on November 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM
I’m not using the linky, what does Pew say about ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN?
Dusty on November 6, 2012 at 10:40 AM
Excellent post. I think you describe the New York Times elitist mindset very well.
Dextrous on November 6, 2012 at 10:45 AM
The only difference between MSNBC and NBC is the hosts – the former tend to be raving lunatics (See Mr. Ed, Chrissy, and the late lamented Olby) and the latter are pompous azzhats (Brian Williams, David Gregory).
CorporatePiggy on November 6, 2012 at 11:13 AM
The agenda however, is exactly the same.
CorporatePiggy on November 6, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Be fair now, it was Andrea Mitchell and NBC that doctored Romney’s WaWa’s comment. I don’t think MSNBC has stooped as low.
Flange on November 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Pravda on the Hudson hand wringing about unbalanced news coverage in other media outlets — LOL.
farsighted on November 6, 2012 at 12:28 PM