Quote: They found that Mr. Clinton received better headlines than the two Republican presidents. Even after adjusting the data to compensate for differences in economic performance under the three presidents, the Republicans received 20 to 30 percent fewer positive headlines, on average, for the same type of news, they concluded.(End Quote.)

Hrmmm... you don't suppose that could have been because the economy flourished during the Clinton years and we had a surplus instead of a deficit do you? Might that not account for better headlines? Naw, you're right. Must have been bias.

I realize it says they "compensated for differences in economic performance" but what does that even mean? How do you compensate for the economy doing worse and "adujst" a headline? I can believe that there's an element of media bias in many areas, and it certainly favors the liberals, but this report seems pretty vague.

I'd add that mainstream media sources are shamefully reluctant to mention "cowbell" during Republican administrations. But when a Democrat's in charge, it's like they come down with a fevah.

Hey Jazz, You are living proof that the bias is working because all of the fundamentals in the economy are BETTER today than they were under Clinton, and yet we still hear nothing but doom and gloom from our overwelmingly liberal press. Unemployment right now is LOWER than it was at this point in Clinton's first term. Can you guess what the headliines were back then? You got it: "Record Low Unemployment". There are 5 Million more Americans working today than when Bush took office, but somehow the MSM can only tout the one statistic, acknowleged by the CBO as being out of synch with reality, that shows more layoffs than new jobs. God forbid that the MSM should compare the ACTUAL NUMBERS to past points in history. They have to scramble to find bad news right now but somehow, sigh, they manage to pull it off.

"When you start talking about a liberal agenda and all the 'liberal bias' in the media, I quite frankly don't know what you're talking about." — News professional Dan Rather

Ace, I caught this one too. I offered up a tiny bit of roast for the 'expert' from Slate. It might add a bit to your report so feel free to cut and paste form my blog if you like.

Hey Jazz you should take a class in statistics. That's right, statistics. It provides not only a basis for knowing Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam, is losing badly but also offers ways to slice and dice data. Now, it's a practice rife with disingenuous practitioners but the science itself is solid if you're clear headed. That's also why the internals would matter in a study such as this one but the NYT doesn't provide a hyperlink so google the study and read the internals after you take the stats class. Sheesh.

I love it when people take a study that tries to apply hard math to completely subjective data and tell you to apply statistics to it. There are many things you can measure statistically. One example above is jobs. Dacotti is an excellent example of how the media may be biased in one direction, the if you repeat political spin from either direction long enough, people will start to believe it if you say what they want to hear.
Those number don't take into account the number of people who are unemployed so long they lose benefits and fall off the lists at the back end which we have a record surplus of. They also ignore the fact that household incomes are still *falling* before you even factor in inflation, often due to many PhD's taking those primo WallMart jobs when their benefits run out. Many other factors can be put in to the smoke and mirrors to make it look how you want.
Now, do I blame Bush for this? No. Putting sole blame on a president for a bad economy is as silly as trying to give Clinton full credit for the boom under his term. There are so many factors that affect the markets, and a sitting president can only affect a few of them, and slowly at that.
But these numbers being tossed around here are nuts. I read Thomas Sowell every week, and even HE doesn't try to say the economy is in better shape than eight years ago. And he's about the most die hard, conservative Bush defending economist you'll find. It's all spin, but the economy is in the crapper. Unfortunately, it will take American consumer confidence, business investment, and regular Americans to fix it. Bush can't and won't and neither will Kerry.

Ace-- I caught a doozie yesterday, with some AP snotnose trying to argue that Bush was a worse flipflopper than Kerry, and gee, why can't all those stupid voters see that?

Read more about it here:

http://garfieldridge.blogspot.com/2004/09/media-grasping-at-straws-watch.html

Cheers,
Dave

Ace, I can't believe you missed a chance for self-promotion, since this article basicaly echoes your previous posts that the media never runs montages of printing presses churning out money and cash registers opening during Republican administrations, but did all the time for Bill Clinton's bubble economy.
But don't worry, I gotcha covered and pointed to that post.

Jobs are up and bond prices fall? That's how they spin it? Jesus H. Christ. Everybody knows that above-trend employment data is perceived as potentially inflationary. OF COURSE frickin' bond prices fell. That's like spinning a bull market as 'Dow hits 11,000, bond yields drop'.

Can we please, as a personal favor, stop calling it Main Stream Media? Please?