new study proves it

Liberal Media Predictably In Tank for Liberal Candidate Mitt Romney

There is Wolf Blitzer hard at work right now.

Ha ha, the Pew Research Center apparently paid researchers actual money to produce a study of election coverage bias when they could have just sent someone wandering down to the Kmart parking lot to ask the first person lumped atop a Hoveround with a “Sarah Palin 2016″ bumper sticker duct-taped to the back of it and gotten the same answer for free: the coven of liberal elites in the lamestream media are lately skewing positive in coverage of their beloved liberal elitist Harvard sap, Mitt Romney. In contrast, the media has taken a net overall crap on the campaign of constitutional rights-murdering Reaganite warlord Barack Obama since the start of the year. What gives?

Mitt Romney’s positive coverage outweighed the negative 47 percent to 25 percent during the most recent period from February 26-April 15, while the report notes that “[o]f all the presidential candidates studied in this report, only one figure did not have a single week in 2012 when positive coverage exceeded negative coverage—the incumbent, Democrat Barack Obama.”

We will blame Mitt Romney’s net positive coverage during this time on the increasingly reactive panic caused by the collective national nightmare of a Rick Santorum GOP nomination, because that is the dumbest explanation and therefore probably the most likely one. Barack Obama got consistently negative coverage because he has already used up all of his positive media coverage for one lifetime. That is the calculus.

But what about what “some” call “the issues,” the substantive policy positio–ZZZZZ. See if you can read this section of the report with your eyes closed, now:

What about what some call “the issues,” the policy positions offered by the candidates as a way to project who they are and why voters should support them? Over the last five and a half months, the candidates’ policy proposals and stands on the issues accounted for 11% of the campaign coverage. The vast majority of these focused on domestic issues, in particular health care, unemployment and the overall economy. These domestic subjects accounted for 9% of the coverage from November through March, and coverage remained relatively steady. That number rose some, to 12%, in February and March—with some of that coverage attributable to a growing discussion of rising gas prices and the health care debate.

There you have it. The media does not really have a bias against any political party; it just has a bias against “issues.” [Pew Research Center]

What Others Are Reading

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

91 comments

    1. Baconzgood

      The shit writes unicorns flying over rainbows itself (especially it the illegal mexican cleaning lady gets crushed by it).

  1. KennyFuckingPowers

    He knows how to run an elevator. Just stand there and say, "Going down! Going down!"
    What a fuckhead. I ain't never seen a Mormon in the shower. I think I seen a Greek though.

  2. ManchuCandidate

    The MSM lives for an electoral horserace. Thanks to the ineptitude of Rombot and his borderline R-word Campaign, the MSM feels he needs all he can against the Kenyan Usurper Communist Muslin Socialist Fascist.

    Much like Walnuts did.

    1. Wile E. Quixote

      Is it legal to hunt and kill members of the MSM? How about if I just gun a bunch of them down and say that I was "standing my ground" and had to defend myself against their inane bullshit. Would I walk free?

    2. Steverino247

      They're just pandering after their (rapidly expiring) audience. I don't read newspapers and I don't watch the news. While I do have a land line, I have caller ID and I don't answer robo-calls and pollsters. So, why should the MSM write anything I might want to see? I'm not looking. If the MSM told people the truth, they'd have angry old farts outside with torches and pitchforks. Rusty ones, sure, but the points would be sharp.

      1. LionHeartSoyDog

        "If the MSM told people the truth…" those angry old farts would still only be farting into their sofa cushions, and that is all.

  3. Baconzgood

    11% on policies! What the fuck was the media covering the other 94% of the time about the canidates?

  4. MissTaken

    Over the last five and a half months

    I made it to FIVE AND A HALF MONTHS before passing out from ennui. I win.

  5. actor212

    In fairness to the liberal media, Mitt secretly threatened to go all Bain Capital on their asses if they didn't write puff pieces.

  6. Callyson

    Six and a half more months?!?

    Time to invest in liquor and prescription drug companies…

  7. SayItWithWookies

    So not only does Mitt Romney own the media, he's good friends with the people who do.

  8. prommie

    Murdoch. Fairness doctrine killed by Reagan. Restrictions on media ownership killed by Gingrich after $4 million payment by Murdoch. Print media decline. Corporate strategy to buy media to control country. "Who do I have to fire to get this network to call the election for Bush?"

  9. MissTaken

    That damn liberal media pulling the long con by not being liberal at all. Tricky, very tricky!

    1. SorosBot

      But it doesn't matter; they could spend the next fifty years kissing the asses of every wingnut out there and they will still rant against the "liberal media", facts be damned.

    2. FakaktaSouth

      Like the socialist President stealthily doing nothing Socialist at all, and the gun nuts clutching their guns against absolutely NO change in gun policy – that's how you know it's happening, because nothing is happening.

        1. FakaktaSouth

          Oh hell, you're so right. absolutely NO POSITIVE change in gun CONTROL policy. Shoot em if you got em!

  10. Maman

    Hopefully Mitten's coverage is more favorable because he is still relatively new and shiny. On the other hand, eventually Mitt has to actually start giving interviews to someone other than FOX

  11. Schmannnity

    Wayne LaPierre will explain that MSM is just trying to hide its true intentions by positive Romney coverage.

  12. FakaktaSouth

    Look – the media is not here to report on policies, it is here to report on how the policies PLAY with people and it is not the media's fault if the public does not like how the media is telling them they feel about Pres O's policies. (but when you poll people the policies clear 60+% to the positive. But, numbers are hard and boring and PEOPLE FEEL LIKE BARACK OBAMA IS COMING FOR THEIR RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS AND MONEYS AND MOMS, but, we don't know WHY they feel that way…)

  13. pinkocommi

    "Over the last five and a half months, the candidates’ policy proposals and stands on the issues accounted for 11% of the campaign coverage."

    Meanwhile, we get 89% coverage of the matters people really care about like photos of Obama and R-money topless (swimsuit competition) and videos of them singing (talent competition). Because the presidential election is now officially a beauty pagaent.

  14. lefty74

    If you never ate a cat, you don't know nothing. If you never ate a dog you have never been to Mexico! I ate a cat.

    1. RedneckMuslin

      I don't remember eating a cat but I woke up this one time with a pussy hair in my mouth.

    2. JustPixelz

      I ate a cat.

      You're still allowed to say "pussy" on wonkette, though I prefer to use the clever(?) misdirection of "kitty".

    3. Steverino247

      I had some dog when I was in the Army in Korea. Can I at least be Secretary of the Army or Ambassador to Belgium or something?

  15. BarackMyWorld

    11% coverage of the issues? That explains why the country hasn't been lit on fire and burned to the ground yet.

  16. PuckStopsHere

    Fuck the issues. I take a dump down the neck of the issues after I have ripped the head off the issues. Tell me: how are FLOTUS and Ann of Romney getting on? That's what I and the 'Merkin people care about!

    1. Man0nTheStreet

      "how are FLOTUS and Ann of Romney getting on?"

      With Mormon "Blessing Oil" and cucumbers fresh from FLOTUS's garden…

  17. BaldarTFlagass

    “[o]f all the presidential candidates studied in this report, only one figure did not have a single week in 2012 when positive coverage exceeded negative coverage—the incumbent, Democrat Barack Obama.”

    "Hold it! Vote Romney, or the ni**er gets it!"

  18. JustPixelz

    Issues? Let's see if we can recall the issues from 2008. Socialism. Secret muslin. Kenya. Also, stock market went down 700 points one day and Russia invaded Georgia.

  19. HobbesEvilTwin

    Discussing gas prices : political discussion :: discussing the hair on my balls : ____

  20. SayItWithWookies

    Ron Paul enjoyed the most consistently positive portrayal of any candidate in the race. But that was offset by the fact that the media virtually ignored him.

    Oh, Ron Paul — even the Pew Research Center finds you a topic of levity. Please never stop running — not anyone had to ask, but don't stop anyway.

  21. BaldarTFlagass

    I think that the media are like the sports announcers on TV when a game has gotten out of hand. They try to talk up the losing team like there is some remote chance that they are going to overcome a 42-7 halftime deficit, so you'll keep watching. Like that ever works.

  22. SmutBoffin

    …because that is the dumbest explanation and therefore probably the most likely one.

    Ah. "Dubya's Razor" to the rescue!

  23. Man0nTheStreet

    Lie-brul Pinko Romney needs to hide his Lie-brul-isms so he should choose as VP a Real American Patriotic Conservative with high name-recognition who appeals to the Over-50 white guys that still vote GOP – Joe the GOP Plumber!

  24. actor212

    So lemme sum this up in this way: President Obama leads the nation and as such has to make proposals and comments each and every day that reflect not only his administration's policy, but the continuing foreign and domestic policies of a government struggling with a weak economy and overextended military.

    Mitt, on the other hand, gets to pick and choose from a menu of options what he wants to talk about AND what position he wants to take that day.

    So you tell me: who's pretty much positioning themselves for the most adulatory media coverage possible, and who is DOING HIS GODDAMN JOB?

  25. Chichikovovich

    That number rose some, to 12%, in February and March—with some of that coverage attributable to a growing discussion of rising gas prices

    Jesus Murphy, is there any Republican framing that the MSM won't adopt unquestioningly?

    Listen, media people: Go back and listen to Fox News when gas prices were this high during the Bush administration, to hear them repeating over and over and over and over and over again that there is nothing a President can do to have more than a marginal effect on gas prices. Then listen to exactly the same people going on 24/7 about how horrible Obama is for not getting gas prices down. Doesn't that give you a clue? Don't you feel ashamed for being played so easily and uncomplainingly?

    Why did the Republican candidates, Republican spokespeople and Republican propaganda arms (Fox news, Washington Times, WSJ editorial page…) start harping on this all of a sudden? Because the economy suddenly looked like it was going to get a lot better. And why was that? Because they knew that gas prices are sensitive to demand, and demand surges as the economy improves. So they were hedging their bets: if the economy doesn't improve as it looked a couple of months ago that it would, they will hammer the economy. If it does improve, they will distract everyone by howling about gas prices.

    Really, media people: don't you have any self-respect at all?

    1. Jus_Wonderin

      Oh, this is a win. I wish the media had a memory (and recorded evidence of these issues). Oh, wait, they fucking do have the evidence. Fuck them.

      1. FakaktaSouth

        Listen, you know I'm on your side on ALL of this, but I set Fox news aside (because anyone that watches that stuff at ANY time is either honestly not smart or willfully suspending belief. There is no hope for them, they WANT this. We will always have ankle biters. Perhaps my surroundings have required that I became able to dismiss such people or die inside). BUT, here's my problem – (deep breath)

        Let's just take death panels as a collective example for just about every single solitary subject the Republican party takes up. The concept of death panels as an actual debate is so ridiculous on it's face as to be criminal. The first time the idea was merely floated it should have been summarily dismissed as a fiction, a ploy, a distraction, and the spreaders of such nonsensical bullshit should have been laughed at and denounced as the lying liars they were – and in my opinion cast out to the ranks of hopelessly worthless and never heard from again. Instead that propaganda was allowed to be discussed as a legitimate issue by our msm and that is a FARCE. And they do it again and again because so much of the Rs platform is such tabloidian fodder, such jerry springer trash, such "if it bleeds it leads" abortorrific garbage, that it gets people to tune in and the assholes can't help themselves. They should ALL be ashamed. Period.

        Oops this was supposed to be under Chich's post. Sorry, I SUCK at posting on my phone.

  26. Generation[redacted]

    This was all orchestrated behind the scenes by Michelle Obama, but it seems to have backfired.

  27. Man0nTheStreet

    Q:

    "Doesn't that give you a clue?
    Don't you feel ashamed for being played so easily and uncomplainingly?
    Really, media people: don't you have any self-respect at all?"

    A:

    No
    No
    "What's that?"

  28. anniegetyerfun

    Well, to be fair, Mittens doesn't have a job, and therefore can only suck at being a person. Obummer, on the other hand, has a fairly important job, and he's just happily signing law after law that will allow the government to spy on US citizens using drones. So, he kind of sucks, but only because of the fact that he's employed and always trying to make the war machine happy.

  29. ttommyunger

    Remember, any time anybody quotes a poll, they are talking about little old ladies with a cat in their lap. No one else has the time or the inclination to talk to these fuckwads.

Comments are closed.