Duh! Bush finds no friends at networks, and more....
As if we needed a study to find this out?!? and comments on some current news....
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
In the "Duh!" non-news news of the day, a study finds that Bush has no friends at the major networks. Most respectable JoeUsers, and even a few of the liberal ones (sorry for the dig libs!) could have told us that without wasting dime one in doing any studies.
Too bad the people that did this study were obviously Bush pom-pom wavers and couldn't possibly be bringing this news out because it deserves to be reported on.
Headline linked. (Note to libs, it's from the Washington Times, you know, the respectable paper around D.C. Rather than that the Rather lovin' rag Washington Post, who hasn't done good reporting since Watergate).
Bush finds no friends at networks
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 11, 2005
President Bush just can't win with the broadcast networks.
More than two-thirds of the news stories on ABC, NBC and CBS covering the first 100 days of Mr. Bush's second term were negative, according to an analysis released today by the District-based Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).
It's actually a slight improvement: During the first 100 days of his initial term in office, the coverage was 71 percent negative, according to a similar CMPA study conducted in 2001.
In comparison, President Clinton's first-term news coverage was 59 percent negative in 1993.
The three networks also seem to be boycotting Mr. Bush this time around. He rated 619 stories during the study period in 2001-- but just 250 stories this year, the study found.
"Presidents tend to get bad coverage during their second terms. The press is sick of them by then. The Iraq war and the weapons-of-mass-destruction question was a particular factor for Mr. Bush this time," said CMPA director Robert Lichter.
"Many journalists felt tricked by the White House, and consequently were not going to let the president get away with anything," Mr. Lichter said.
"But the public isn't going to let the news media get away with anything either," he added. "The public is more critical and ask more questions about news coverage these days -- and what offends them most is negativism."
The CMPA study analyzed stories that aired Jan. 20 to April 29.
ABC was the most critical -- 78 percent of the coverage of the president on "ABC World News Tonight" was negative. On CBS, the coverage was 71 percent negative. The study called NBC "more balanced" at 57 percent negative.
The analysis also flagged comments deemed judgmental or overtly negative.
"Without comment about how he felt taking the nation to war on such flawed assumptions, President Bush agreed it's time to go to work," said CBS correspondent John Roberts on March 31.
... more at linked article
Again, sorry for the "Duh!" news.
Most liberals will ignore this anyway, as they know the news can't be true, and most respectable people already know this information and have been slowly but surely tuning out the MSM anyway, in favor of other outets (such as FOX News, which continues to royally kick the butt of CNN and friends.... )
This article is almost as obvious as should be the "To Hell with ..." a certain Clueless Old Liberal who is apparently jumping for joy over Limbaugh and Rove -- though chances of Rove being found guilty of anything are about as good as chances that the same C.O.L. would find himself appointed Secretary of Defense by the current administration.
Limbaugh on the other hand may yet face the music for his drug addiction and efforts to collect more prescriptions than he should have been able to get. The weird thing is that Limbaugh and his lawyer(s) are pretty much right in their case that the D.A. shouldn't have gotten access to his medical records. Though the D.A. is trying to build the doctor shopping case, grabbing the records wasn't the proper way to go about it. He had the information from Limbaugh's turn-coat employee (note to self, never have a lowly paid employee do the work. Find a respectable bum and pay them for the job, or at least get someone that won't feel obligated to pull the Jackie Brown on you to rat you out at the first sign of trouble). He could have built the case that way, he could have obtained warrants and gone through the proper channels to get the evidence he needed for the case. Instead the D.A. has botched the case about as badly as could be botched, and yet.... Limbaugh will probably still wind up having to plea out to something. Why? Because it's not California, and Limbaugh isn't Black, isn't a TV star that worked with anyone that was Black named Huggie Bear, and because Limbaugh didn't give spiked drinks and candies to little boys all while taking them for a day or two of play at his own little playland ranch.
And please, don't call me racist over my comments above. I'm one of the few that is still trying to figure out just what the hell other evidence was needed to find Robert Blake guilty?!? I'm amazed that someone that went out practically pleeding with anyone and everyone he met to please kill his wife was able to get away with it without having to be declared insane (which I still think Blake is, given that he can't string together too many words at a time into any coherent statement).
OJ continues to be out on the golf courses looking for the real killer, though admittedly he now has to use public courses, since he lost in the CIVIL court case (it's amazing that we can actually have "civil" court in this country, given that most participants in court cases are anything but civil {you ever actually watch Judge Judy and count the number of times she has to tell the participants there to "shut it!" or the equivalent there of? It's amazing that the cases there don't wind up being episodes of Springer!}).
Sure, some California courts actually can seem to find the right decision, even on apparently flimsy evidence. Just ask Scott Peterson. But still, California continues to baffle me with it's decisions on anything that involves a major celeb. I still feel that the jurors in Cali are more interested in potential book/movie deals for themselves than in real justice. I guess that's just a by-product of having court cases in areas where many residents are wannabe actors/actresses, or former actors/actresses. It must be like trying to put together a court full of John Cusack's from "Runaway Jury" except the cause isn't one where there's an evil corporation to make pay, instead it's a poor "victim" of a defendant who left behind a pile of blood and DNA evidence yet still magically got away because the gloves didn't fit (after sitting around drying from being soaked in blood, shrinking because of that, and after having the defendant stop using anti-inflammatory meds on the advise of his fairly brilliant legal counsel).
Anyway, enough ranting for now. Again, happy to bring you the "Duh!" news item of the day.
Too bad the people that did this study were obviously Bush pom-pom wavers and couldn't possibly be bringing this news out because it deserves to be reported on.
Headline linked. (Note to libs, it's from the Washington Times, you know, the respectable paper around D.C. Rather than that the Rather lovin' rag Washington Post, who hasn't done good reporting since Watergate).
Bush finds no friends at networks
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 11, 2005
President Bush just can't win with the broadcast networks.
More than two-thirds of the news stories on ABC, NBC and CBS covering the first 100 days of Mr. Bush's second term were negative, according to an analysis released today by the District-based Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).
It's actually a slight improvement: During the first 100 days of his initial term in office, the coverage was 71 percent negative, according to a similar CMPA study conducted in 2001.
In comparison, President Clinton's first-term news coverage was 59 percent negative in 1993.
The three networks also seem to be boycotting Mr. Bush this time around. He rated 619 stories during the study period in 2001-- but just 250 stories this year, the study found.
"Presidents tend to get bad coverage during their second terms. The press is sick of them by then. The Iraq war and the weapons-of-mass-destruction question was a particular factor for Mr. Bush this time," said CMPA director Robert Lichter.
"Many journalists felt tricked by the White House, and consequently were not going to let the president get away with anything," Mr. Lichter said.
"But the public isn't going to let the news media get away with anything either," he added. "The public is more critical and ask more questions about news coverage these days -- and what offends them most is negativism."
The CMPA study analyzed stories that aired Jan. 20 to April 29.
ABC was the most critical -- 78 percent of the coverage of the president on "ABC World News Tonight" was negative. On CBS, the coverage was 71 percent negative. The study called NBC "more balanced" at 57 percent negative.
The analysis also flagged comments deemed judgmental or overtly negative.
"Without comment about how he felt taking the nation to war on such flawed assumptions, President Bush agreed it's time to go to work," said CBS correspondent John Roberts on March 31.
... more at linked article
Again, sorry for the "Duh!" news.
Most liberals will ignore this anyway, as they know the news can't be true, and most respectable people already know this information and have been slowly but surely tuning out the MSM anyway, in favor of other outets (such as FOX News, which continues to royally kick the butt of CNN and friends.... )
This article is almost as obvious as should be the "To Hell with ..." a certain Clueless Old Liberal who is apparently jumping for joy over Limbaugh and Rove -- though chances of Rove being found guilty of anything are about as good as chances that the same C.O.L. would find himself appointed Secretary of Defense by the current administration.
Limbaugh on the other hand may yet face the music for his drug addiction and efforts to collect more prescriptions than he should have been able to get. The weird thing is that Limbaugh and his lawyer(s) are pretty much right in their case that the D.A. shouldn't have gotten access to his medical records. Though the D.A. is trying to build the doctor shopping case, grabbing the records wasn't the proper way to go about it. He had the information from Limbaugh's turn-coat employee (note to self, never have a lowly paid employee do the work. Find a respectable bum and pay them for the job, or at least get someone that won't feel obligated to pull the Jackie Brown on you to rat you out at the first sign of trouble). He could have built the case that way, he could have obtained warrants and gone through the proper channels to get the evidence he needed for the case. Instead the D.A. has botched the case about as badly as could be botched, and yet.... Limbaugh will probably still wind up having to plea out to something. Why? Because it's not California, and Limbaugh isn't Black, isn't a TV star that worked with anyone that was Black named Huggie Bear, and because Limbaugh didn't give spiked drinks and candies to little boys all while taking them for a day or two of play at his own little playland ranch.
And please, don't call me racist over my comments above. I'm one of the few that is still trying to figure out just what the hell other evidence was needed to find Robert Blake guilty?!? I'm amazed that someone that went out practically pleeding with anyone and everyone he met to please kill his wife was able to get away with it without having to be declared insane (which I still think Blake is, given that he can't string together too many words at a time into any coherent statement).
OJ continues to be out on the golf courses looking for the real killer, though admittedly he now has to use public courses, since he lost in the CIVIL court case (it's amazing that we can actually have "civil" court in this country, given that most participants in court cases are anything but civil {you ever actually watch Judge Judy and count the number of times she has to tell the participants there to "shut it!" or the equivalent there of? It's amazing that the cases there don't wind up being episodes of Springer!}).
Sure, some California courts actually can seem to find the right decision, even on apparently flimsy evidence. Just ask Scott Peterson. But still, California continues to baffle me with it's decisions on anything that involves a major celeb. I still feel that the jurors in Cali are more interested in potential book/movie deals for themselves than in real justice. I guess that's just a by-product of having court cases in areas where many residents are wannabe actors/actresses, or former actors/actresses. It must be like trying to put together a court full of John Cusack's from "Runaway Jury" except the cause isn't one where there's an evil corporation to make pay, instead it's a poor "victim" of a defendant who left behind a pile of blood and DNA evidence yet still magically got away because the gloves didn't fit (after sitting around drying from being soaked in blood, shrinking because of that, and after having the defendant stop using anti-inflammatory meds on the advise of his fairly brilliant legal counsel).
Anyway, enough ranting for now. Again, happy to bring you the "Duh!" news item of the day.