Published on November 5, 2004 By drmiler In Politics
As Americans we need to send a strong message to the main stream media.


Friday, Nov. 5, 2004 12:44 a.m. EST
Bush's Coverage Twice as Negative as Kerry's

President Bush received twice as much negative press coverage as John Kerry did during the height of the presidential campaign, according to a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs.


Between Labor Day and Election Day, Bush's coverage was 64 percent negative, with only 36 percent of news stories painting him in a positive light. Kerry, on the other hand, garnered 58 percent positive coverage during the same period.


In October, as Bush's polls began to improve, the press coverage became even more hostile. In the closing four weeks of the campaign, media reports on Bush were 77 percent negative.
Overall, Kerry received the most favorable news coverage of any presidential candidate in the last 25 years, the CMPA found.

Bush's bad press, however, wasn't a record breaker. That distinction goes to President Reagan, who, when he ran for re-election in 1984, garnered 91 percent negative press coverage - just before he won a record-breaking 49-state landslide.

Joseph Taranto contributed to this report.

Comments
on Nov 05, 2004
The difference between Reagan and Bush is that Reagan was a good president who didn't deserve negative coverage while Bush deserves as much negative coverage as possible.
on Nov 05, 2004
Reply #1 By: DPS - 11/5/2004 4:54:22 PM
The difference between Reagan and Bush is that Reagan was a good president who didn't deserve negative coverage while Bush deserves as much negative coverage as possible.


And that is *YOUR* personal opinion! NOT everyone elses!
on Nov 05, 2004
He is spending millions in dollars supporting a war he is constantly botching up. I thought everyone would agree on that.
on Nov 05, 2004

Reply #3 By: DPS - 11/5/2004 5:10:13 PM
He is spending millions in dollars supporting a war he is constantly botching up. I thought everyone would agree on that.


Nope! If they did Bush might NOT have gotten re-elected.
on Nov 05, 2004
Your right. Bush might not have gotten re-elected because Americans thought he was doing a bad job. Unfortunately the worth of the endaevor in the majority of American's minds makes up for the mistaks.

A majority of Americans felt Bush was doing sub-par on his wars.

Then there is the question of wether Iraq was justified.

A minority of Americans feel Iraq was not justified.

according to the exit polls.

I was merely stating that like the general American Public Bush needs to step up the game plan in Iraq. Not wether or not it's justifed because then I wouldn't be speaking for the majority of America would I.
on Nov 05, 2004

Reply #5 By: DPS - 11/5/2004 10:15:22 PM
Your right. Bush might not have gotten re-elected because Americans thought he was doing a bad job. Unfortunately the worth of the endaevor in the majority of American's minds makes up for the mistaks.

A majority of Americans felt Bush was doing sub-par on his wars.

Then there is the question of wether Iraq was justified.

A minority of Americans feel Iraq was not justified.

according to the exit polls.


If you think about it, the exit polls where shown to be quite possibly wrong! After all they said Kerry would win. Remember?
on Nov 05, 2004
as ive been told: u dont know if theyre telling the truth, they could just be lying, only u know who u voted for, and i think it should stay that way. more suspense!
on Nov 05, 2004
I was just using Draignol's insight:

"And to fairly definitively answer this question, 52% of Americans support going into Iraq compared to only 46% who disapprove of going into Iraq. That's well outside the margin of error (in an exit poll that was already tilted a bit incorrectly in Kerry's favor based on the actual results). So yes, most Americans are glad we went into Iraq even though most people think things are going poorly."-- Draignol 2004 Presidential Exit Poll Posted: Wednesday, November 03, 2004

But you might be right. Maybe the exit polls were completely inaccurate.
on Nov 05, 2004
The difference between Reagan and Bush is that Reagan was a good president who didn't deserve negative coverage while Bush deserves as much negative coverage as possible.


aaaaaagh where did all you crazy liberals come from?? seriously i think three of you just crawled out of a rock.
on Nov 05, 2004
Liberal. You must be joking. Anti-Bush maybe but definetly not a gun stealing, reverse racist, socialist, flip-flopping liberal. Heck I don't even hate Bush for the same reasons Mike Moore does.

I think anyone who spends many dollars of taxpayer's money and citizens on what Americans define as a poorly going war or operation should have that negative coverage and more for not being a good strategist.
on Nov 05, 2004
on what Americans define as a poorly going war or operation


i dont define it as that, and neither does the military that is actually there. You are sitting here at home listening to the news, but they are there living it, so when it comes to how the war is doing i would listen to them
on Nov 05, 2004
You must be joking.


what are you then?
on Nov 05, 2004
this is no news, the media has been liberal for a long time, im not denying it. but u conservatives always have Fox news to fall back on for ur spin:D
on Nov 05, 2004
Reply #13 By: NJforever - 11/5/2004 11:28:55 PM
this is no news, the media has been liberal for a long time, im not denying it. but u conservatives always have Fox news to fall back on for ur spin:D


Now I know that your joking! Fox is about the only one that puts no spin on anything.