Media Study: We're Too Damn Biased Against Obama

The "candidate" getting the most negative press? Obama, a study finds.

Overlooking the fact that Obama is not merely a candidate, but supposedly has a day job as President of the United States, and his performance in that job is of such a low level as to earn the nickname SCOAMFOTUS.

The media will now take this "study" as a pretext for being even easier on the Naked Emperor.

As a "corrective" to the anti-Obama bias they're demonstrating.

Despite these important caveats, media writers are already using Pew’s research to claim the media have an anti-Obama bias. “President Obama has received more negative press coverage in recent months than any of his prospective GOP challengers,” wrote the Boston Globe’s Donovan Slack.

CBSNews.com’s Brian Montopoli parroted: “President Obama ‘has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment’ of all presidential candidates over the past five months.” And Politico’s Hagey: “Obama has received the most unremittingly negative press of any of the presidential candidates by a wide margin, with negative assessments outweighing positive ones by four to one.”

Could that possibly be true? Well, here's what Pew did: They defined media to mean include blogs, and not only big blogs with some slight amount of influence, but apparently all of them:

[Pew also separately looked at “hundreds of thousands” of blogs, which again means that the few dozen top-ranked influential blogs are buried in a mass of data that includes vast numbers of low-trafficked and irrelevant sites.]

Ridiculous.

So all conservative blogs trash Obama. Fine. And then liberal blogs would like to trash Republican candidates, but there are 11 of them, so the bile gets spread thin around, between a near dozen contenders... and then Pew can write stupid things like "Obama's getting more negative coverage in 'the media' than any other candidate."

posted by Ace at 06:20 PM

| Access Comments