Pew Poll: Bush Not Treated Fairly by Press

[Calabrio]

Thursday, Nov. 10, 2005 11:31 a.m. EST
Pew Poll: Bush Not Treated Fairly by Press

Nearly 50 percent of Americans believe the press is unfair to the Bush administration, according to a new Pew Research Center. Similarly, an increasing number of Americans say the press is too critical of the administration.

"Republican perceptions of press coverage of Bush have changed dramatically,” noted the survey.

More than 60 percent of self-identified Republicans believe the press is unfair and too critical of Bush. Just 16 percent of self-identified Democrats believe the press is unfair, and 45 percent say the press has not been critical enough of the president.

Republican perceptions are bolstered by a report released in July by the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs. In "No Second Term Media Honeymoon for Bush,” the Center found network coverage of President Bush was twice as negative – two times as many negative-leaning stories as positive-leaning stories - in the first 100 days of the president’s second term.

ABC News was the worst offender, according to the survey, with 78 percent of comments aired on "World News Tonight” deemed critical of the president.

A new study would likely reveal increasing negativity after July – spurred by Hurricane Katrina and the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter” Libby.

 

[mespock]

I knew it! they were just picking on the poor guy..

He hasn't done anything since he's taken office... They are all lying...

I can sleep better tonight!

 

[raVeneyes]

Maybe he should take his ball and go home then.

If the media is being tough on a presidency, what harm can it do? None, it only serves to help that administration act in a contentious manner.

 

[Calabrio]

Take it for what it's worth.

The media has a huge credibility problem in this country now, and it's not misplaced. The coverage of this administration has been skewed since the start, as the Center for Media and Public Affairs clearly demonstrated.

Is this in dispute?

 

[raVeneyes]

Not particularly...I think over all the media is being harsh, but that *is* their job. The media was tough on Clinton, Bush the first, and Carter...the only person the media has taken it easy on historically is Reagan.

The media have always in the entirety of it's history since the invention of the printing press been anti-whatever. The media speaks for the underdog or against anything at all times...it's what the media is there for.

 

[Calabrio]

I think a critical media is crucial in any kind of representative form of government.

But the manner in which the press has dealt with Clinton compared to Bush is dramatically different.

The major networks and the NY Times gave Clinton a pass. The only exception came about during the Lewinsky scandal, but even that needs to be discussed. The coverage of the Lewinsky scandal was first suppressed by the media, Newsweek sat on the story, and it might not ever come out had Drudge discovered the story.

But the nature of the coverage was tabloid. It wasn't critical of Clinton, it was voyeuristic at best.

The rest of the 8 years was a love affair. I distinctly remember reading articles praising the White House at their skill in spinning and dodging questions. Clinton's ability to manipulate the lapdog media was considered a positive at the time.

In contrast, you have a media now that doesn't report positive news, and misrepesents the negatives. Just one example, quarter after quarter, this country has been posting really positive economic figures, yet barely a word is said of this in the news. The same thing applies to Iraq.

Do I need to even mention the Dan Rather story right before the election?

While newspapers are certainly losing circulation due to new medias like 24 hour news networks, talk radio, and the internet, it's also do to the fact that so many people are starting to recognize the bias.

It might be impossible to relate the news without any kind of personal bias. That's fine, so long as those providing the news make their position known. I don't get offended when I hear the news being distorted by a liberal. What offends me is when a liberal provides the news under the guise that they are unbiased. And that's what the mainstream media has consisted of for the past 50 years.

The media isn't supposed to speak for the underdog, it's supposed to relate the truth. The news media isn't supposed to be an advocate, it's not supposed to have an agenda. It is to provide the public with the information necessary to make an informed decision.

Editorials and propogandists are supposed to do that.