Howard Kurtz Wash Post: The networks have given President Obama more coverage than George W. Bush and Bill Clinton combined in their first months -- and more positive assessments to boot. In a study to be released today, the Center for Media and Public Affairs and Chapman University found the nightly newscasts devoting nearly 28 hours to Obama's presidency in the first 50 days. (Bush, by contrast, got nearly eight hours.) Fifty-eight percent of the Obama evaluations were positive on the ABC, CBS and NBC broadcasts, compared with 33 percent positive in the comparable period of Bush's tenure and 44 percent positive for Clinton. (Evaluations by officials from the administration or political parties were not counted.) On Fox News, by contrast, only 13 percent of the assessments of Obama were positive on the first half of Bret Baier's "Special Report," which most resembles a newscast. The president got far better treatment in the New York Times, where 73 percent of the assessments in front-page pieces were positive. A striking contrast: Obama's personal qualities drew more favorable coverage than his policies, with 32 percent of the sound bites positive on CBS, 31 percent positive on NBC and 8 percent positive on Fox.Howard, your bias is showing. Which prime-time show on MSNBC most resembles a newscast?
kurtz lips is as kool aid stained as the obama tank dwellers he "reports" on. color him,, douchebag.
ReplyDeleteAnything on MSNBC that even remotely resembles fairness or accurate is purely accidental...
ReplyDeleteAll these percentages are meaningless. Indeed, they "suggest" the New York Times gave more coverage to Obama than Bush but, folks, Obama is the new guy, the first black, he's taking over at a horrible moment in our history so--of course--a lot of eyes and attention are on what he says and does.
ReplyDeleteToo much thought is going into this but not enough thinking.
"too much thought is going into this but not enough thinking" alot like the election
ReplyDeleteActually it would take a proctologist to find the press who are covering Obama. They are so far up and in they can't even see the daylight any longer.
ReplyDeleteCNN is still carrying Obama's water. The question is do they - the faces on the channel Blitzer,Toobin,Kurtz ect....get a choice or is it a directive? Like the directive CNBC folks got to layoff Obama? I mean if you want to keep your job at CNN, you might have to tote the corporate line -time warner? And that line appears to be firmly attached to All Obama All Propaganda All Day Everyday...just saying if they are not fools what is the explanation? If I was them I wouldn't want to be unemployed during a recession.
ReplyDeleteOnly Half It seems like a lot more...
ReplyDeletehttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/04/27/network-news-programs-devote-half-broadcast-hours-obama
Quote: In closing, Imus told his guest to get the hell off CNN, but Toobin insisted—like someone suffering from Stockholm syndrome would—that he was perfectly happy.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.imus.com/article/jeffrey_toobin_april_27__2009.guest.html
I think Imus might be on to something....
Why doesn't someone just have the balls to change their name to the Obama News Network. Keith Olberman can be the lead anchor, Chris Mathews can be the sports guy, and Rachel can be the weather eye candy person. You all can name the rest of the team.
ReplyDeleteONN. Isn't that Oprah's thing?
ReplyDelete