Cornbread Maxwell wrote:Jetlag - Using specifically presidential endorsements is an interesting way to create a survey since historically newspapers and netwoks will endorse the incumbant president. There are also many other ways to show bias - in one direction or the other - simply by manipulating either the question or the indicator. If you would like me to give you links to Accuracy In Media, Mediawatch, The Center for Media and Public Affairs, or many other media watchdog groups Id be happy to. Most of them have studies "proving" a Liberal bias in mainstream media - just like FAIR likes to publish their studies "proving" the opposite.
Sorry to butt in, but the study you're talking about was done by Editor and Publisher. Not FAIR.
And during that time, the democrat has been the incumbant in 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1964, 1980, and 1996. That's six. The republicans have been the incumbant in 1956, 1972, 1976 (kinda), 1984, and 1992. That's five, if you count Gerald Ford, which I don't think we should because he was so clearly getting kicked out of office.
Now, you claim that historically the media will endorse the incumbant. But, even though the Dems were the incumbants at a greater rate, the republicans were endorsed every race sans two (I'll assume the Ford one here, but I don't know what the other is). Again, this from a magazine not geared towards politics but geared towards watching trends in the media.
To me, that gives lie to any conservative claims about "liberal bias." I'll close with one of my favorite quotes, this one from Bill Kristol, editor of the National Standard: "I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
Oh, and thanks Trans. Well said.