Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The good news for John McCain? He's now receiving as much attention from the national media as his Democratic rival. The bad news? It’s overwhelmingly negative.
Just 14 percent of the stories about John McCain from the conventions through the final presidential debate were positive in tone, according to a study released today, while nearly 60 percent were negative—the least favorable coverage of any of the 4 candidates on the ticket.
The study, by The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, a non-partisan journalism watchdog organization, examined 2,412 stories from 43 newspapers and cable news shows in the six-week period beginning just after the conventions and ending with the final presidential debate.
The good news for John McCain? He's now receiving as much attention from the national media as his Democratic rival. The bad news? It’s overwhelmingly negative.
Just 14 percent of the stories about John McCain from the conventions through the final presidential debate were positive in tone, according to a study released today, while nearly 60 percent were negative—the least favorable coverage of any of the 4 candidates on the ticket.
The study, by The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, a non-partisan journalism watchdog organization, examined 2,412 stories from 43 newspapers and cable news shows in the six-week period beginning just after the conventions and ending with the final presidential debate.
Why would the media cover a lousy campaign in a positive tone?
I think people have missed the point. It is more so that the media is in bed with their candidate. Maybe not mutually, but they slant to their side and it has been something that has been pointed out for quite a while. Not surprised the bobble heads would come in and defend it to the last breath. That's why they call them "sheep".
The good news for John McCain? He's now receiving as much attention from the national media as his Democratic rival. The bad news? It’s overwhelmingly negative.
Just 14 percent of the stories about John McCain from the conventions through the final presidential debate were positive in tone, according to a study released today, while nearly 60 percent were negative—the least favorable coverage of any of the 4 candidates on the ticket.
The study, by The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, a non-partisan journalism watchdog organization, examined 2,412 stories from 43 newspapers and cable news shows in the six-week period beginning just after the conventions and ending with the final presidential debate.
Now, there's a study with some teeth in it!
Candidate's campaign goes exclusively negative, bashing the opponent with discredited claims and innuendo, while offering nothing in the way of vision or a central message of its own, and then acts shocked, SHOCKED that its press coverage tends to be <guess what?> negative!
I think people have missed the point. It is more so that the media is in bed with their candidate. Maybe not mutually, but they slant to their side and it has been something that has been pointed out for quite a while. Not surprised the bobble heads would come in and defend it to the last breath. That's why they call them "sheep".
It's to be expected. In 2004 the coverage of Kerry became negative as he fell behind in the polls. He was criticized for every bad turn in his campaign. When a campaign is managed as badly as McCain's has been, there's just not a lot of positive things to say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.