Local TV News Media

threeonefour · PostAug 24, 2007#262007-08-24T17:19+00:00

Xing wrote:Are you talking about the cheesy 3D graphics, and sound FX?

Yes. Add to that the "myfox" websites, which are the same from city to city and aren't that useful compared to their rivals.

innov8ion wrote:Yes, as opposed to the obvious liberal political bias from almost all major television networks to include CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC. Media bias is real.

Maybe if the major networks were liberally biased as some like to believe, and if it actually had an effect on the hearts and minds of the American electorate, we wouldn't be in the midst of a foreign policy disaster that makes the Vietnam War look like a swell idea. Bush and Company have received so many free passes from the media it's sickening. BTW, I might vote Republican more often if the party hadn't been hijacked by warmongers and religious zealots years ago, and the Democrats aren't doing it for me either, so I hardly qualify as a liberal.

My favorite example of Fox's "fair and balanced" news coverage was an evening I spent watching Neil Cavuto's show. I can't even remember the issue being discussed, but his two panelists were Ann Coulter and Tom Delay. Yep, the Antichrist herself, and Jesusland's favorite sinner. Of course, this passes for "fair and balanced" just like milquetoast Alan Colmes passes as an acceptable counterpoint to a pit bull like Sean Hannity.

Anyway, back to all things local, I think KMOV does a much better job than its competitors. With a couple of exceptions, the anchors and reporters are much more professional than their counterparts at KTVI, KSDK, and that other station. Larry Connors has carried on Julius Hunter's tradition of "detached amusement" as Steve correctly put it earlier, because I'm sure he likes reading about Lindsay Lohan's latest car accident as much as I enjoy hearing about it. Production is KMOV is also far better, an area where KTVI really seems to suffer lately. Some of their locally produced programming is embarrassing (Harrah's Lucky Break and St. Louis Country come to mind) but I guess once in a while they have to try to extend a welcome to the troglodytes that watch KSDK regularly.

innov8ion · PostAug 24, 2007#272007-08-24T17:51+00:00

ThreeOneFour wrote:
innov8ion wrote:Yes, as opposed to the obvious liberal political bias from almost all major television networks to include CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC. Media bias is real.
Maybe if the major networks were liberally biased as some like to believe, and if it actually had an effect on the hearts and minds of the American electorate, we wouldn't be in the midst of a foreign policy disaster that makes the Vietnam War look like a swell idea. Bush and Company have received so many free passes from the media it's sickening. BTW, I'd probably vote Republican more often if the party hadn't been hijacked by warmongers and religious zealots years ago, and the Democrats aren't doing it for me either, so I hardly qualify as a liberal.

My favorite example of Fox's "fair and balanced" news coverage was an evening I spent watching Neil Cavuto's show. I can't even remember the issue being discussed, but his two panelists were Ann Coulter and Tom Delay. Yep, the Antichrist herself, and Jesusland's favorite sinner. Of course, this passes for "fair and balanced" just like milquetoast Alan Colmes passes as an acceptable counterpoint to a pit bull like Sean Hannity.

Either you're not watching American news or you've got blinders on. Then again, you do come off left of center with your name-calling of conservatives, so one can't say your views are exactly objective. Especially since you've provided no supporting data. In fact, I have provided legitimate studies to show the media is biased and left-leaning. BTW, liberals never say they are liberal; they are "in the middle." Ummm, yeah.

Free passes my arse. It's not only the liberal media that is anti-Bush. The conservative media is not overly happy with him either -- especially regarding immigration.

Don't forget about the disgraced CBS news along with Dan Rather who conveniently lost track of journalism ethics and attempted to manipulate the last election with lies. I suppose you have no problem with that, right?

You may not like Alan Colmes, but you seem to miss the simple fact that the other stations do not provide a counterpoint -- There is only the liberal side that they pass off as "mainstream." Sure, Fox may have a conservative bias. What's your point? Diversity of thought is a critical part of any system, particularly when the preponderance of media is liberal. Newspapers are primarily quite liberal, the other networks are liberal. Talk radio tends to be more conservative. Bottom line is that the media exists within the framework of a free market. If you don't like it, create your own.

Trust in our media must be near or at an all-time low. That's why the importance of the internet and a democratized media have shot up. You see, people are paying less and less attention to the networks because they have lost credibility with the public. Ref: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

It's all about chaos theory. The system will correct itself, and it has via democratized media.

jeff707 · PostAug 24, 2007#282007-08-24T18:22+00:00

NPR easily provides the most balanced slew of guests on its shows, yet conservatives love to point to NPR as point exemplar of the Liberal Media.

debaliviere · PostAug 24, 2007#292007-08-24T18:25+00:00

dina wrote:Talk about amateurs... KSDK in the mornings with Art Holiday & Jennifer Blome. Very unprofessional with her annoying giggle constantly. I can't stand that in the mornings. Please...spare us!

I actually like Art Holiday. He's probably the only person on KSDK I like. Otherwise I share everyone else's sentiment that it caters to St. Charles soccer moms.

I've watched KMOV for years now after growing up watching KSDK. I like Vickie Newton, Russell Kinsaul, etc. And of course there's occasional forum contributor Steve Chamraz. Doug Vaughn is a pro. There just seems to be more of an underlying commitment to quality there.

And above all, KMOV provided us with what may be the single greatest moment in St. Louis television history: the tasering of Larry Connors.

tge-atw · PostAug 24, 2007#302007-08-24T18:39+00:00

I think one of the greatest moments (at least for shock value) in St. Louis TV news history has to be when Steve and DC exposed Bob Richards as a stalker, and then Richards committed suicide by taking a nose dive in his private plane. Initially, KSDK reported that "somebody" had crashed a plane, and then they came back and reported that it was their own weatherman. Super weird.

avantstl · PostAug 24, 2007#312007-08-24T18:49+00:00

innov8ion wrote: ...liberals never say they are liberal; they are "in the middle."

I'm liberal...

jeff · PostAug 24, 2007#322007-08-24T18:52+00:00

On local news:

I've seen "Show Me St. Louis" spotlight city and noncity things to do. Actually, the programming is pretty well divided among where St. Louisans live, and since most live in suburbs...That said, I do wish they'd focus more on the region's core.

Channel 5 local news: pretty bad.

Fox 2 local news: about as good as one could expect.

On Bias in Media:

As a self-described moderate, I see it as all over the board.

ABC/CBS: I don't know because I don't watch it.

NBC: Usually in the center. I've seen some stories on the left, some on the right.

CNN: No strong bias that I've ever noticed.

Fox: Basically, a right wing editorial station.

NPR: Very good news coverage, but occasionally leans left.

Newsweek mag: basically a left wing editorial.

Post Dispatch: tries to be liberal, but just sucks.

Chicago Tribune: slightly right of center; best big city newspaper IMHO

New York Times: obviously to the left

Wall Street journal: Conservative leaning, but a fantastic paper

Probably best to view a variety of sources. Mine are: CNN (web), NPR, Chicago Tribune, occasional WSJ articles.

threeonefour · PostAug 24, 2007#332007-08-24T19:02+00:00

innov8ion wrote:Either you're not watching American news or you've got blinders on.

Your first guess was correct. I rarely watch. When I do watch, it's NBC, and it seems to be less biased than ABC and CBS (and yes, I agree with you about Dan Rather). If you want to show me specific examples of bias, I'm willing to listen. But frankly, I find network news irrelevant, as do most Americans. I'm reminded of the question about a tree falling in the forest, so I wonder, does a liberal bias matter if a majority of people tune it out anyway?

Then again, you do come off left of center with your name-calling of conservatives, so one can't say your views are exactly objective.

The aforementioned water carriers are an insult to true conservatism, so I find it difficult to be objective when I mention their names.

BTW, liberals never say they are liberal; they are "in the middle." Ummm, yeah.

Well, if Bill O'Reilly is "in the middle" as he purports himself to be, then I suppose I am liberal after all. Touche.

Sure, Fox may have a conservative bias. What's your point?

Fair and balanced. That's my point. I rarely watch network news, but I don't hear them crowing about how fair and balanced they are either when I watch their other programming. You can't watch Fox News Channel for 20 minutes without hearing their trademarked slogan.

Trust in our media must be near or at an all-time low. That's why the importance of the internet and a democratized media have shot up. You see, people are paying less and less attention to the networks because they have lost credibility with the public.

It's all about chaos theory. The system will correct itself, and it has via democratized media.

On that we can agree. I also believe the system will correct itself...I just think it hasn't happened yet.

stlmike · PostAug 24, 2007#342007-08-24T19:10+00:00

I don't think that the political bias in most mainstream media is as strong or as calculated as it is at FOX News. Remember, all of the networks are owned by their corporate sponsers and cannot really rock the boat to far to the left.

More imporatantly, and much worse, is the bias in all modern media toward sensationalism, easy stories, soft journalism, and poor presented, low-depth analysis.

innov8ion · PostAug 24, 2007#352007-08-24T19:44+00:00

stlmike wrote:I don't think that the political bias in most mainstream media is as strong or as calculated as it is at FOX News. Remember, all of the networks are owned by their corporate sponsers and cannot really rock the boat to far to the left.

More imporatantly, and much worse, is the bias in all modern media toward sensationalism, easy stories, soft journalism, and poor presented, low-depth analysis.

Again, you and the assertions of others are based merely on subjectivity. You may have your opinion, however it's not scientific and therefore not worth much. Here is the analysis from the quoted UCLA study on bias in the media: http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation. Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government?funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.

."

---

By the way, NPR is a publically funded station and should be centrist with a score of 50. However, it earned a liberal score of 61.

stlmike · PostAug 24, 2007#362007-08-24T19:52+00:00

Again, you and the assertions of others are based merely on subjectivity. You may have your opinion, however it's not scientific and not worth much.

I have read many different analysists on the subject in books and journals, of varying conclusions. I'm frankly not that interested in finding everything simply to convince a few people to side with the conclusions I have drawn on an internet board. I was just giving my two cents.

watcher · PostAug 24, 2007#372007-08-24T20:07+00:00

When I used to live in SE Michigan, I used to watch the Canadian Broadcasting Company News. Very fact based reporting. As it should be.

These media folks need to realize news and entertainment are different. It is disgusting that they present themselves as a news program. Liberal and conservative.

Expat · PostAug 24, 2007#382007-08-24T20:19+00:00

stlmike wrote:
Again, you and the assertions of others are based merely on subjectivity. You may have your opinion, however it's not scientific and not worth much.

I have read many different analysists on the subject in books and journals, of varying conclusions. I'm frankly not that interested in finding everything simply to convince a few people to side with the conclusions I have drawn on an internet board. I was just giving my two cents.

Thanks STLMike for giving your two cents. I wish everyone would just give their opinion rather than trying to educate us. And as far as I am concerned, everyone's opinion has value.

xing · PostAug 24, 2007#392007-08-24T20:22+00:00

innov8ion wrote:
stlmike wrote:I don't think that the political bias in most mainstream media is as strong or as calculated as it is at FOX News. Remember, all of the networks are owned by their corporate sponsers and cannot really rock the boat to far to the left.

More imporatantly, and much worse, is the bias in all modern media toward sensationalism, easy stories, soft journalism, and poor presented, low-depth analysis.
Again, you and the assertions of others are based merely on subjectivity. You may have your opinion, however it's not scientific and therefore not worth much. Here is the analysis from the quoted UCLA study on bias in the media: http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation. Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government?funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.."

---

By the way, NPR is a publically funded station and should be centrist with a score of 50. However, it earned a liberal score of 61.

How can you measure that? Isn't the center, "the status-quo?" Isn't the status quo always changing?

Not too long ago, the status quo was supporting the war. Now, it’s opposing it.

the central scrutinizer · PostAug 24, 2007#402007-08-24T20:51+00:00

innov8ion wrote:
stlmike wrote:I don't think that the political bias in most mainstream media is as strong or as calculated as it is at FOX News. Remember, all of the networks are owned by their corporate sponsers and cannot really rock the boat to far to the left.

More imporatantly, and much worse, is the bias in all modern media toward sensationalism, easy stories, soft journalism, and poor presented, low-depth analysis.
Again, you and the assertions of others are based merely on subjectivity. You may have your opinion, however it's not scientific and therefore not worth much. Here is the analysis from the quoted UCLA study on bias in the media: http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation. Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government?funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.."

---

By the way, NPR is a publically funded station and should be centrist with a score of 50. However, it earned a liberal score of 61.

I would take this with a grain of salt. First you would have to define which positions are conservative and which are liberal. So far, no one has done that.

innov8ion · PostAug 24, 2007#412007-08-24T21:07+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:I would take this with a grain of salt. First you would have to define which positions are conservative and which are liberal. So far, no one has done that.

Sure, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Regarding your argument... Really? Here are a few issues with positions on either side.

Pro-Abortion = Liberal

Anti-Abortion = Conservative

Big Government = Liberal

Small Government = Conservative

Pro-Euthanasia = Liberal

Anti-Euthanasia = Conservative

And more: http://www.politics1.com/issues.htm

bonwich · PostAug 24, 2007#422007-08-24T21:15+00:00

Life sure is easy when everything can be cast in pure black or pure white. (Oops, wait, hold that thought...are pure black or pure white equal to either liberal or conservative?)

tge-atw · PostAug 24, 2007#432007-08-24T21:28+00:00

Conservatives like small governments? I guess George didn't get the memo.

xing · PostAug 24, 2007#442007-08-24T21:53+00:00

innov8ion wrote:

Pro-Abortion = Liberal

Anti-Abortion = Conservative

Big Government = Liberal

Small Government = Conservative

Pro-Euthanasia = Liberal

Anti-Euthanasia = Conservative

And more: http://www.politics1.com/issues.htm

Who says , "I'm pro-abortion?" Really. Come on now.

jeff · PostAug 24, 2007#452007-08-24T22:07+00:00

That "study" cited above has way too many flaws to even begin to dissect. It is certainly not an end-all be-all gauge of the media.

Every time I hear the tired arguments, it's the far right wing types yelling aobut how the media is so liberal, and the far left wing types yelling about how the media is so conservative.

So, to bring this back onto topic, I know the Post Dispatch has a left leaning slant. A lot of people on this board speak highly of the Belleville News Democrat. What are it's editorial leanings?

jlblues · PostAug 24, 2007#462007-08-24T22:11+00:00

Xing wrote:
innov8ion wrote:

Pro-Abortion = Liberal

Anti-Abortion = Conservative

Big Government = Liberal

Small Government = Conservative

Pro-Euthanasia = Liberal

Anti-Euthanasia = Conservative

And more: http://www.politics1.com/issues.htm

Who says , "I'm pro-abortion?" Really. Come on now.

Those that are not in denial as to what it is they are supporting.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

the central scrutinizer · PostAug 24, 2007#472007-08-24T22:37+00:00

innov8ion wrote:
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:I would take this with a grain of salt. First you would have to define which positions are conservative and which are liberal. So far, no one has done that.
Sure, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Regarding your argument... Really? Here are a few issues with positions on either side.

Pro-Abortion = Liberal

Anti-Abortion = Conservative

Big Government = Liberal

Small Government = Conservative

Pro-Euthanasia = Liberal

Anti-Euthanasia = Conservative

And more: http://www.politics1.com/issues.htm

Just choosing one:

Pro-Abortion = Liberal

Anti-Abortion = Conservative

Why?

(Not to mention that I have never heard of anyone who is "pro-abortion", just like I have never heard of anyone who is "pro-heart surgery", but I suppose it is possible)

migueltejada · PostAug 24, 2007#482007-08-24T23:15+00:00

TGE-ATW wrote:Conservatives like small governments? I guess George didn't get the memo.

That's the difference between republicans and conservatives. Republicans are no longer true conservatives, just like democrats aren't true liberals anymore. People mistake bible thumping or tree-hugging (I actually prefer the term "sod humping") for political position. These two parties are so close together now you can't tell them apart aside for a god bless or a jesus says every so often. That's why I vote for third party candidates (I can hear Kodos now - go ahead...throw your vote away...)

innov8ion · PostAug 24, 2007#492007-08-24T23:35+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:(Not to mention that I have never heard of anyone who is "pro-abortion", just like I have never heard of anyone who is "pro-heart surgery", but I suppose it is possible)

If heart surgery were a controversial practice and you supported it, you would be considered pro-heart surgery.

Also, I suppose many like to frame it as pro-choice instead of pro-abortion. It's cleaner that way. See, the crux of the issue isn't a choice; it's an act. Abortion or lack thereof. If you support abortion, you're pro-abortion. If you're against abortion, you're anti-abortion. Simple as that.

bonwich wrote:Life sure is easy when everything can be cast in pure black or pure white. (Oops, wait, hold that thought...are pure black or pure white equal to either liberal or conservative?)

Decisions are discrete while the environment may be grey. For example, being pro-choice or anti-abortion are not grey areas. You could also choose to decompose those issues and differentiate the minutiae, but that would be discrete as well.

Also, the parties have these things called platforms where they formulate approaches to a variety of issues. This determines whether a particular stance is liberal, conservative or moderate (if shared by both parties.)

TGE-ATW wrote:Conservatives like small governments? I guess George didn't get the memo.

Conservatives believe in self-reliance and thus a generally smaller government. Democrats believe that government must take a more active role in the lives of its citizens and therefore promote a larger government. Power may swing from time to time, but never that far from the middle. Therefore government here will be big either way, but not as bloated as in socialist Europe.

stlmike · PostAug 25, 2007#502007-08-25T01:00+00:00

The Pew Charitable Trusts' Project for Excellence in Journalism (www.journalism.org) comes from the top-rated Columbia School of Journalism. Here is their analysis of the 2000 Election. Early in the article you can plainly see their study for tone of coverage of Gore vs. Bush.

http://www.journalism.org/files/lastlap.pdf

I think that the coverage on a major presidential election is a good basis for judgement in political bias. In the 2000 election at least, the coverage did not seem to be pro-Democrat and anti-Republican. Obviously, I don't think this would look the same if you look at coverage of the 2008 campaign. The coverage is plainly pro-democrat for the current election in the mainstream, which is attributable the unpopularity of the Bush presidency right now. I do not think the mainstream media has a conservative bias or a liberal bias, really. I think that while it leans one way or the other here and there it is generally interested in being fair when it is appropriate and editorializing when it is appropriate. I think it takes a fairly mainstream route and has a bias toward poor analysis and schoolyard slogans. In 2004, it was the flip-flopper vs. draft dodging trust-funder. And that was the extent to what most people thought about their candidates.

Local TV News Media

Choose Display Mode