New York Times Wonders: Have We Perhaps Been A Tad Too Biased In Our Obama Coverage?
Awww! They’re so cute when they start showing signs of self-awareness:
Many critics view The Times as constitutionally unable to address the election in an unbiased fashion. Like a lot of America, it basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama’s election in 2008. The company published a book about the country’s first African-American president, “Obama: The Historic Journey.” The Times also published a lengthy portrait of him in its Times Topics section on NYTimes.com, yet there’s nothing of the kind about George W. Bush or his father.
According to a study by the media scholars Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, The Times’s coverage of the president’s first year in office was significantly more favorable than its first-year coverage of three predecessors who also brought a new party to power in the White House: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.
Writing for the periodical Politics & Policy, the authors were so struck by the findings that they wondered, “Did The Times, perhaps in response to the aggressive efforts by Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal to seize market share, decide to tilt more to the left than it had in the past?”
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- Christianity in Public Debate? 2 - vox populi, vox Dei?
- Christianity in Public Debate? 1 - the rejection of democracy
- So NOW Putin keeps his shirt on?
- War weary US House passes Resolution that’s sketchy on how to stop genocidal ISIS
- Elie Wiesel ad compares Hamas use of human shields to Moloch worship
- We have the right to offend one another, so deal
- Your tax dollars AND church offerings at work in TEC
Are you reading this?
Advertising on Stand Firm works!
Click here for details.