The media is not biased

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 25, 2008, 4:04 pm

Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1
By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.

True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.

Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."

And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.

The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.

A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.

As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:

"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."

The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.

In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.

As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."

It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.

One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.

A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

Tate is a former journalist, now a novelist and the author of "A Time Like This: 2001-2008." This article first appeared on the American Thinker Web site.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 2713742569

miir · Post by **miir** » July 25, 2008, 4:07 pm

Do you ever think for yourself?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 25, 2008, 4:09 pm

miir wrote:Do you ever think for yourself?

Yep. People here though ask for proof of everything I say. So, here it is:) How about you, Miir. Do you think for yourself?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 25, 2008, 4:10 pm

No. He just looks at whatever you post and then posts the exact opposite.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 25, 2008, 4:10 pm

miir wrote:Do you ever think for yourself?

And by the the way...fuck you. You know every well I've been sayign this for fucking years. You antagonist cock sucker.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » July 25, 2008, 4:12 pm

Uh oh, Midnyte's getting upset.

He's going to turn into the Incredible Hulk.

Or is the Incredible Hulk a liberal?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 25, 2008, 4:13 pm

Spang wrote:Uh oh, Midnyte's getting upset.

He's going to turn into the Incredible Hulk.

Or is the Incredible Hulk a liberal?

Well, he is green, so he's prolly a faggotty environmentalist liberal. *nods*

miir · Post by **miir** » July 25, 2008, 4:13 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
miir wrote:Do you ever think for yourself?
Yep. People here though ask for proof of everything I say. So, here it is:) How about you, Miir. Do you think for yourself?

Well you're not even bothering to comment on the stupid shit you're posting.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » July 25, 2008, 4:30 pm

Midnyte,
I guess you've reversed your stance about name calling and labelling people.
Is that a flip flop? Or just a revision?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 25, 2008, 4:33 pm

miir wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
miir wrote:Do you ever think for yourself?
Yep. People here though ask for proof of everything I say. So, here it is:) How about you, Miir. Do you think for yourself?
Well you're not even bothering to comment on the stupid shit you're posting.

Do you really not know my stance on this particular issue?

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 25, 2008, 6:43 pm

Any McCain opponent will get more press, the dude is boring and painful to watch. I normally change the channel and read the transcript for his speeches. The speeches are decent but the delivery is terrible.

I did watch part of his speech today and he was doing a bit better, I assume he has been practicing. If he gets to the point where people want to watch him he will have a much better chance.

The campaign should be firing people for letting him go off on a surge rant infront of the cheese isle.

He also risks being pegged as the angry guy if he doesn't smarten up. Some of his attacks this week were over the top. Attacking Obama in the speech at the Cancer summit was a bit odd.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 25, 2008, 10:18 pm

I will agree with you Mid. There is a definite, undeniable bias for the left over the right in the media.

Of course, if you consider all the shit the media had to eat from the present right-wing administration, then I think you would be biased too.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 26, 2008, 2:09 am

Acies wrote:I will agree with you Mid. There is a definite, undeniable bias for the left over the right in the media.

Of course, if you consider all the shit the media had to eat from the present right-wing administration, then I think you would be biased too.

I get what you're saying. Thing is, they've been biased long before Bush.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 26, 2008, 3:34 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Acies wrote:I will agree with you Mid. There is a definite, undeniable bias for the left over the right in the media.

Of course, if you consider all the shit the media had to eat from the present right-wing administration, then I think you would be biased too.
I get what you're saying. Thing is, they've been biased long before Bush.

Thing is, the right don't come up with ideas like "freedom of the press" and "free speech", however, I have seen a lot of big names (like Rupert Murdoch) be heavily biased to the right because they were the party that would let him make the most money.

And really, the press are biased to themselves, which is a lot more understandable than middle class battlers that are biased towards the rich and big business.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » July 27, 2008, 2:24 am

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 2713742569

I just wish Mac was 10 years younger...You know It being as close as it is when Dems should be wiping Republicans this year(Dems=Stupid for not selecting Hillary). If Mac was 10 years younger it wouldn't even be a fight with this fake bastard with no experience that changes his mind on even core issues that got him were he is today vs Hillary. The guy talks like da da da dad ad ad da da hold a minute let me speak or think what I need to say to cover my fake lieing self....Hes like a Liberal Democrat Bush...unless you give him a speech...and coach his ass and send out a few rock stars in front of him to get the crowd there.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 27, 2008, 4:16 am

Hillary did what McCain is doing now. She sniped from the sidelines instead of making her own headlines. She was reactionary, flustered, and started making some very poor judgement calls in the process. When she started in with personal attacks and tried to misrepresent various things about Obama that she knew not to be true, she lost the elsection. Those are Republican tactics, and it was shameful to see her using them.

Hillary and McCain cannot believe they were and are currently being bested by Obama. It's noticably frustrating to them both based purely on their reactionary and poorly thought out attacks.

I believe Clinton would better serve this country by helping examine and reform health care. That has always been her baby, so let her have it and see what she can do. She is a tenacious politician, and I hope she supports Obama 100%. She could still be of great service to this country and make an even larger mark on history than she already has.

miir · Post by **miir** » July 27, 2008, 9:51 am

Sirton wrote:I just wish Mac was 10 years younger...You know It being as close as it is when Dems should be wiping Republicans this year(Dems=Stupid for not selecting Hillary). If Mac was 10 years younger it wouldn't even be a fight with this fake bastard with no experience that changes his mind on even core issues that got him were he is today vs Hillary. The guy talks like da da da dad ad ad da da hold a minute let me speak or think what I need to say to cover my fake lieing self....Hes like a Liberal Democrat Bush...unless you give him a speech...and coach his ass and send out a few rock stars in front of him to get the crowd there.

Who the hell is Mac?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 27, 2008, 10:01 am

miir wrote:
Sirton wrote:I just wish Mac was 10 years younger...You know It being as close as it is when Dems should be wiping Republicans this year(Dems=Stupid for not selecting Hillary). If Mac was 10 years younger it wouldn't even be a fight with this fake bastard with no experience that changes his mind on even core issues that got him were he is today vs Hillary. The guy talks like da da da dad ad ad da da hold a minute let me speak or think what I need to say to cover my fake lieing self....Hes like a Liberal Democrat Bush...unless you give him a speech...and coach his ass and send out a few rock stars in front of him to get the crowd there.
Who the hell is Mac?

...wake up and try again.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » July 27, 2008, 12:06 pm

miir wrote:Who the hell is Mac?

The guy that's not going to be president, and somehow the media will be responsible for that not happening according to Midnyte.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 27, 2008, 1:49 pm

Spang wrote:
miir wrote:Who the hell is Mac?
The guy that's not going to be president, and somehow the media will be responsible for that not happening according to Midnyte.

If he squeeks by a win in November, his marketing team (of which the major media are members) will be solely responsible. He will owe so many people so damned much if he wins. Many people have put a lot into this man. He is bought and paid for like no other politican ever. We knew going in Bush was big oil. Have you been told by your media who Obama owes? Be smart about it before you answer..."no one man! He's a man of the people, man!". Don't be a fool. Don't be so easily decieved.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 27, 2008, 2:10 pm

Due to his charisma and personality, the possibility exists that Obama is far more 'dangerous' than Bush.

Bush can chip away at your freedoms while you fight tooth and nail, demanding his head.

Obama can take them away, and you'll still be cheering.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 27, 2008, 2:35 pm

Fash wrote:
Obama can take them away, and you'll still be cheering.

And they will.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 27, 2008, 4:40 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:We knew going in Bush was big oil. Have you been told by your media who Obama owes? Be smart about it before you answer..."no one man! He's a man of the people, man!". Don't be a fool. Don't be so easily decieved.

Don't keep the country in suspense dude. Let us know who Obama is really working for and what his and his shadow puppet master's ultimate goal is.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 27, 2008, 4:46 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:We knew going in Bush was big oil. Have you been told by your media who Obama owes? Be smart about it before you answer..."no one man! He's a man of the people, man!". Don't be a fool. Don't be so easily decieved.
Don't keep the country in suspense dude. Let us know who Obama is really working for and what his and his shadow puppet master's ultimate goal is.

When your media stops sucking Obamas cock and gets back to reporting, maybe we'll find out.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 27, 2008, 5:55 pm

So that's just an empty jab at Obama? Ok. Check. Are you on McSame's campaign advisory board?

We're all cynical when it comes to politics, so I understand why some people would think he's too good to be true. I think he's just what this country needs. Perhaps my children won't grow up to be so mistrusting of politicians. I doubt it with me as a father, but ya never know. Maybe I'll lose some of my edge if we start electing people like Obama, and they follow through on their promises.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » July 27, 2008, 6:18 pm

The same media that paints an awful picture for Bush, is painting a similarly awful picture for Obama. The only difference is Bush's painting is based primarily on facts, while the majority of Obama's painting is based on a lot of speculations. Not all of Obama's press is good press, either. Occasionally he'll fumble a speech or say 'uh' when answering a question, and someone will report it. Hell, not even the greatest president that we've ever had was perfect. Even he, whoever that may be, made mistakes.

Bush is a bad president, according to some, and Obama might be a bad president, according to some. One is factually based, while the other is speculatively based.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » July 27, 2008, 7:01 pm

This article came out in today's Chicago Tribune. I don't know that it's really news worthy because everything that's stated in it can be concluded upon using a tiny bit of logic but it's a nice retort to people who are whining about journalists' preference towards Obama.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu ... 531.column

The basic gist of it is:

If there are some journalists who are taken with Obama, it's not surprising. One of the unfortunate things about the American press corps is that it is made up of people. Many people in other walks of life have been attracted to Obama, moved to vote for Obama, even enthralled by Obama. So you would expect some people wearing press badges to be susceptible to the same kind of reactions.

John McCain didn't always mind this tendency. In 2000, the crushes were all on him. Newsweek gushed about his courage, his candor, his "puckish charm" and his life story—a saga "so overpowering and, at times, excruciating, that it has needed a fresh kind of human interaction to show that the hero isn't made of marble."

U.S. News & World Report said he "seems too good to be true," "a man of consistency, character and a few rough edges in a world of contradiction, lies and conformity." Cue the Four Seasons!

So, yes, reporters and commentators can sometimes be taken with a presidential candidate. Politicians who make serious runs for president usually have more than the average quota of charm and magnetism. Journalists, like McCain, are not made of marble, so they are not immune to those qualities.

Post by **Sylvus** » July 28, 2008, 1:04 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Fash wrote:
Obama can take them away, and you'll still be cheering.
And they will.

Dude, you've been doing that with Bush for years. What's your normal line? Don't always focus on the negative, look at the Big Picture, etc?

Obama has a lot of support right now, yes. Bush also had a lot of support post-9/11. Thing is, he fucked up, and now most rational people hate him. If Obama ends up being a liar and failure on the scale of George Bush, everyone will hate him too.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 28, 2008, 1:45 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Fash wrote:
Obama can take them away, and you'll still be cheering.
And they will.
If Obama ends up being a liar and failure on the scale of George Bush, everyone will hate him too.

No, they won't, because it won't be sold that way by the major media. Excuses will be made for him. The blame will go to the minority republican congress stopping the good Obama could have done. The blame will deflected with professional precision.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 28, 2008, 2:01 pm

AHahahahahahaha. You're such a scared little man, shame you're afraid of the wrong people.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 28, 2008, 2:05 pm

If he wins:

The filibuster is coming, folks... It's coming. The 'nuclear option' of eliminating the filibuster, which republicans held over the democrats to elicit cooperation for the past few years, will be back but in different hands with different motives.

I've been an opponent of the filibuster, but I'm open to the possibility that it may be important in a one-sided house and senate.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 28, 2008, 2:33 pm

Zaelath wrote:AHahahahahahaha. You're such a scared little man, shame you're afraid of the wrong people.

Really? Is it the Republicans who tout how horrible this country is? Is it the Republicans who tell women, old people, blacks how bad they have it? Is it the Republicans who tell women, old people, blacks how they are victims? Is it the Republicans who tell women, old people, blacks how wronged they have been? Is it the Republicans who tell women, old people, blacks how the odds are stacked against them? Is it the Republicans who have been sucessful getting elected on the same promises every election campaign promising to fix the exact same problems they never have any intention on fixing?

Traz-KOE · Post by **Traz-KOE** » July 28, 2008, 3:19 pm

Electoral-Vote.com wrote:Republicans like to talk a lot about the "liberal media." Is it true? The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, which has been studying the media 20 years, has now released a study that shows 72% of the opinions expressed on CBS, NBC, and ABC about Obama were negative and 28% positive. For McCain the figures were 57% and 43%, respectively. The study, which covered the networks' nightly newscasts, began June 8, the day after Hillary Clinton conceded and the general election campaign began.

Link to LA Times article

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 28, 2008, 3:27 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Zaelath wrote:AHahahahahahaha. You're such a scared little man, shame you're afraid of the wrong people.
Really? Is it the Republicans who tout how horrible this country is? Is it the Republicans who tell women, old people, blacks how bad they have it? Is it the Republicans who tell women, old people, blacks how they are victims? Is it the Republicans who tell women, old people, blacks how wronged they have been? Is it the Republicans who tell women, old people, blacks how the odds are stacked against them? Is it the Republicans who have been sucessful getting elected on the same promises every election campaign promising to fix the exact same problems they never have any intention on fixing?

No, it is the Republicans that work to make this country horrible. It is the Republicans that discriminate against blacks and women. Finally, it is the Republicans that exacerbate existing issues within this country every time they are elected.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 28, 2008, 3:28 pm

Traz-KOE wrote:
Electoral-Vote.com wrote:Republicans like to talk a lot about the "liberal media." Is it true? The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, which has been studying the media 20 years, has now released a study that shows 72% of the opinions expressed on CBS, NBC, and ABC about Obama were negative and 28% positive. For McCain the figures were 57% and 43%, respectively. The study, which covered the networks' nightly newscasts, began June 8, the day after Hillary Clinton conceded and the general election campaign began.
Link to LA Times article

You're just listening to the media and thinking exactely what they want you to think

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 28, 2008, 3:31 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Traz-KOE wrote:
Electoral-Vote.com wrote:Republicans like to talk a lot about the "liberal media." Is it true? The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, which has been studying the media 20 years, has now released a study that shows 72% of the opinions expressed on CBS, NBC, and ABC about Obama were negative and 28% positive. For McCain the figures were 57% and 43%, respectively. The study, which covered the networks' nightly newscasts, began June 8, the day after Hillary Clinton conceded and the general election campaign began.
Link to LA Times article
You're just listening to the media and thinking exactely what they want you to think

Well, I do believe you have to consider the source. If Bush came out with an official statement saying it turns out he is not a liar, stupid or to blame for anything....would you believe it?

Post by **Sylvus** » July 28, 2008, 3:44 pm

George Mason University is not the Media.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 28, 2008, 3:46 pm

Sylvus wrote:George Mason University is not the Media.

Yes it is. I am truely sorry you can't see that, but perhaps you'll grow up one day and figure everything out like I have.

Was that a good enough impression?

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » July 28, 2008, 3:52 pm

Sylvus wrote:George Mason University is not the Media.

It's from Virginia, so even if George Mason University is not the Media, it is worthless.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 28, 2008, 4:05 pm

Sylvus wrote:George Mason University is not the Media.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

Are you at least curious how they came to determine such objective criteria?

miir · Post by **miir** » July 28, 2008, 4:09 pm

George Mason University is (according to their web page) "Minutes from Washington DC"

Does geographical location come with an inherant bias?

miir · Post by **miir** » July 28, 2008, 4:11 pm

OMG BIAS!!!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 28, 2008, 4:12 pm

miir wrote:George Mason University is (according to their web page) "Minutes from Washington DC"

Does geographical location come with an inherant bias?

No. The Teacher's Union is officially a part of the Democrat party. I'd also be interested in what percentage of the students, faculty are black.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 28, 2008, 4:13 pm

miir wrote:OMG BIAS!!!

I hate you. You have to know that every college has extra ciricular groups for everything.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 28, 2008, 4:18 pm

OMG, Bias!

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 28, 2008, 4:20 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Is midnyte posting from his cell?!?

Damn liberals!

Spang · Post by **Spang** » July 28, 2008, 4:29 pm

That happened really close to me.

Thank God I don't go to church.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 28, 2008, 4:53 pm

That piece of shit should already be dead. The cops should have shot him 50 times.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 28, 2008, 4:55 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:That piece of shit should already be dead. The cops should have shot him 50 times.

Why?

The only reason it appears bad is because the media portrayed it that way. If they had chosen a more positive light, we could see the situation for the way it truely is, and we would embrace this man.

Post by **Sylvus** » July 28, 2008, 4:59 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Sylvus wrote:George Mason University is not the Media.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.
Are you at least curious how they came to determine such objective criteria?

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization that has studied the media since its inception over 30 years ago. It's founder has been a Fox News contributor and much of its funding has come from conservative sources.

I'm not that curious as to how they determined their criteria; it's a pretty well-known media research center that I have heard of many times over the years and it's not that difficult to objectively judge pieces written by the media as positive or negative.

/edit: I heard an interesting number the other day. Some big polling organization ran a poll where they asked which candidate people had stronger feelings about - positive or negative. Something like 53% of the people who responded said Obama. McCain got like 25% (or somesuch). It wasn't "who do you like better", it was more of a who are you thinking about. I find it interesting, because even the people on this board who seem to be McCain supporters post more in the Obama threads, and are generally more passionate (albeit in a negative way) about Obama. People just don't seem to care about McCain.