True, Shinto. Especially on cable 24 hour "news" or talk radio. People often confuse news with political commentary that dominates these networks. When you introduce the profit motive into media, you get this. It's little different from any other product a supplier sells. They just don't do what doesn't make money. Given vast swaths of Americans are rightwing, rightwing sensationalism sells.

__________________

Unfortunately, while we might get some of the "who-what-when-where" from the media, it's almost always mixed in with "here's what we want you to think/feel about it;" reporters no longer give us "just the facts, ma'am" but try to editorialize - particularly on television.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

The right wing bias has been well documented but only by minor media outlets: When pundits describe the 2000 race, there's something they know to leave out

However, if you want something even more scientific, here you go.

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/ke...sdemocracy.pdf

The media rarely challenged Bush who seemed to have not only charmed large sectors of the American public but was effective in schmoozing the media. Another survey released of press coverage after the conventions showed a decisive partiality for Bush. The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) study of television election news coverage before, during, and after the conventions (released on August 14) concluded, “Network evening news coverage of the GOP convention was more favorable toward George W. Bush, while Al Gore received mostly unfavorable TV references, according to a new study released by the CMPA.” The study also found that “Bush has received more favorable coverage than Gore throughout the 2000 campaign, reversing a trend that favored Bill Clinton over his GOP opponents in 1992 and 1996.”53

Surprisingly perhaps, Bush fared as well with the print media and establishment press as with television. Supporting the studies of pro-Bush bias, Charlie Peters reported in the Washington Monthly that according to the PEJ studies, the New York Times front page “carried nine anti-Gore articles and six anti-Bush; 12 pro-Gore and 21 pro-Bush.”54 Howard Kurtz, media critic of the Washington Post, reported: “Those who believe the media were easier on Bush will find some support in a new Project for Excellence in Journalism study. Examining television, newspaper, and Internet coverage from the last week in September through the third week in October, the report says Bush got nearly twice as many stories as Gore.”55 Moreover, only one in ten of the pieces analyzed the candidates’ policy differences, with two-thirds focusing on the candidates' performance, strategy, or tactics. Twenty-four percent of the Bush stories were positive, compared to 13 percent for Gore, while the Bush stories focused more on issues than character or campaign strategy.

A German group, Media Tenor, also documented a persistent anti-Gore and pro-Bush bias in mainstream media presentation of the candidates.56 Thus three different research projects found strong media bias in the election coverage. To be sure, such “positive” and “negative” scoring of images and discourses is difficult, debatable, and not always completely accurate, but I would argue that even more significant than alleged bias in news stories in the mainstream media is the preponderance of conservative punditry and, even more significant, the exclusion of widespread media documentation and discussion of key aspects of George W. Bush’s life, record in business and government, and obvious lack of qualifications for the presidency.

You wanted studies, you got studies...

__________________
I'm Proud I never Voted For Bush!



PAT PAULSEN FOR PRESIDENT