A mainstream media outlet has written an entire story about how fair and impartial mainstream media outlets were during their election coverage. Did Barney attack a Reuters reporter for nothing? Reuters certainly thinks so.
McCain partisans were roused to anger by a perception that mainstream news organizations routinely gave Obama preferential treatment en route to his election as the first black U.S. president.
But media scholars, including a former top aide to McCain, disagree. They said campaign coverage often did lean in Obama’s favor, though not — as many conservatives have suggested — because of a hidden liberal agenda on the part of the media.
I agree 100%. There is no hidden liberal agenda in the MSM. That’s because it’s right out there in the open!
But how’s this for “proof” of the MSM’s unbiased coverage:
The Pew study, which examined over 2,400 campaign stories from 48 news outlets, found negative McCain stories outnumbered positive ones, 57 percent to 14 percent, in the six weeks from the end of the conventions to the last presidential debate on October 7. Press treatment of Obama was more positive than negative — 36 percent favorable to 29 percent unfavorable.
An entire 14 percent of stories on McCain were positive? Well, I stand corrected. I’d have guessed about 5 percent.
But this positive swing to Obama and negative swing concerning McCain had nothing to do with bias, you understand — it was all McCain’s fault. In other words, Reuters is pulling an Ike Turner and using the “bitch had it comin’!” defense. Clearly McCain burned the MSM’s dinner:
Pew researchers and others concluded Obama’s media advantage was amplified by the financial crisis that struck in mid-September.
The credit crunch, stock market plunge and worsening economic outlook transformed the race by providing a narrative that played to Obama’s message and helped deflect character attacks from McCain and his supporters, experts said.
It sounds to me like they’re saying, “McCain didn’t get more negative coverage from the mainstream media because of any liberal bias — McCain got more negative coverage because he was wrong.” And isn’t that in and of itself a glaring example of bias?
But suddenly, the explanation for Obama’s more positive coverage and McCain’s more negative coverage switches from issues to simply who’s leading the race. Here’s the kicker:
“Winning begets winning coverage,” said Mark Jurkowitz, an author of a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism that tracked campaign coverage.
Of course! I mean, just look at all the “winning coverage” George W. Bush got when he won. Oh, wait…
That’s quite possibly the funniest Reuters story I’ve read since… the last one I read.
Stuff like this is why courts don’t let the accused sit on their own jury.
(h/t Jeremie at CornBeltwayBoys)